HomeMy Public PortalAbout09.5) General Plan - Attachment B - Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2017 | Draft Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2016091047
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND
TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN
DRAFT EIR
for City of Temple City
Prepared for:
City of Temple City
Contact: Scott Reimers, Planning Manager
Community Development Department
9701 Las Tunas Drive
Temple City, California 91780
626.656.7316
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
Contact: Jorge Estrada, Senior Associate
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
info@placeworks.com
www.placeworks.com
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Table of Contents
Contents Page
June 2017 Page i
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES ......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2.1 EIR Format .......................................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.2.2 Type and Purpose of This DEIR ..................................................................................................... 1-3
1.3 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................................................................................... 1-4
1.3.1 Plan Area ............................................................................................................................................... 1-4
1.3.2 Specific Plan Area................................................................................................................................ 1-5
1.4 PROJECT SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 1-5
1.4.1 Mid-Century Plan ................................................................................................................................ 1-5
1.4.2 Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan ............................................................................................. 1-5
1.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................ 1-6
1.5.1 No-Project/Current General Plan Alternative (Alternative A) .................................................. 1-6
1.5.2 Mid-Century Plan Without Specific Plan Alternative (Alternative B) ....................................... 1-6
1.5.3 Modified Residential Alternative (Alternative C) ........................................................................... 1-7
1.5.4 Modified Mixed-Use and Residential Alternative (Alternative D) .............................................. 1-7
1.6 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED .......................................................................................................................... 1-8
1.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY ........................................................................................................................ 1-8
1.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS
OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION ............................................................................................ 1-9
2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ............................................................. 2-1
2.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY .......................................................................... 2-2
2.3 SCOPE OF THIS DEIR ................................................................................................................................... 2-5
2.3.1 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant .................................................................................... 2-6
2.3.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts .......................................................................................... 2-6
2.3.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................................... 2-7
2.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE ....................................................................................................... 2-7
2.5 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION ...................................................................................................................... 2-8
2.6 MITIGATION MONITORING ..................................................................................................................... 2-8
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Plan Area ............................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Specific Plan Area................................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................. 3-2
3.3 VISION, GUIDING PRINCIPLES, AND GOALS ................................................................................... 3-9
3.3.1 Temple City General Plan Update.................................................................................................... 3-9
3.3.2 Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan ............................................................................................. 3-9
3.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................................................. 3-12
3.4.1 Project Background .......................................................................................................................... 3-12
3.4.2 Description of the Project ............................................................................................................... 3-13
3.5 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR ............................................................................................................... 3-31
4. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .......................................................................................... 4-1
4.2.1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................................ 4-1
4.2.2 Regional Planning Considerations .................................................................................................... 4-2
4.3 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................................................... 4-5
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Table of Contents
Contents Page
Page ii PlaceWorks
4.3.1 Location and Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 4-5
4.3.2 Surrounding Land Uses ...................................................................................................................... 4-9
4.3.3 Existing Physical Conditions and Infrastructure ........................................................................... 4-9
4.3.4 General Plan and Zoning ................................................................................................................. 4-15
4.4 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................ 4-16
4.5 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 4-19
5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 AESTHETICS .................................................................................................................................................. 5.1-1
5.1.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................................... 5.1-1
5.1.2 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................................................. 5.1-7
5.1.3 Relevant General Plan Policies ....................................................................................................... 5.1-8
5.1.4 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................ 5.1-11
5.1.5 Existing Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 5.1-21
5.1.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................................................................... 5.1-22
5.1.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................................................... 5.1-22
5.1.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ...................................................................................... 5.1-22
5.1.9 References ....................................................................................................................................... 5.1-22
5.2 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................................. 5.2-1
5.2.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................................... 5.2-1
5.2.2 Thresholds of Significance .......................................................................................................... 5.2-17
5.2.3 Relevant General Plan Policies .................................................................................................... 5.2-20
5.2.4 Relevant Specific Plan Policies .................................................................................................... 5.2-27
5.2.5 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................ 5.2-27
5.2.6 Existing Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 5.2-45
5.2.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................................................................... 5.2-46
5.2.8 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................................................... 5.2-47
5.2.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ...................................................................................... 5.2-54
5.2.10 References ....................................................................................................................................... 5.2-57
5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................... 5.3-1
5.3.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................................... 5.3-1
5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................................................. 5.3-6
5.3.3 Relevant General Plan Policies ....................................................................................................... 5.3-8
5.3.4 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................... 5.3-9
5.3.5 Existing Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 5.3-14
5.3.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................................................................... 5.3-14
5.3.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................................................... 5.3-15
5.3.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ...................................................................................... 5.3-17
5.3.9 References ....................................................................................................................................... 5.3-18
5.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .............................................................................................................................. 5.4-1
5.4.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................................... 5.4-1
5.4.2 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................................................. 5.4-4
5.4.3 Relevant General Plan Policies ....................................................................................................... 5.4-4
5.4.4 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................... 5.4-5
5.4.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ........................................................................... 5.4-8
5.4.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ...................................................................................... 5.4-8
5.4.7 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................................... 5.4-8
5.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ......................................................................................... 5.4-9
5.4.9 References .......................................................................................................................................... 5.4-9
5.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ........................................................................................................... 5.5-1
5.5.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................................... 5.5-1
5.5.2 Thresholds of Significance .......................................................................................................... 5.5-20
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Table of Contents
Contents Page
June 2017 Page iii
5.5.3 Relevant General Plan Update Policies ..................................................................................... 5.5-24
5.5.4 Relevant Specific Plan Policies .................................................................................................... 5.5-32
5.5.5 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................ 5.5-32
5.5.6 Existing Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 5.5-51
5.5.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................................................................... 5.5-51
5.5.8 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................................................... 5.5-52
5.5.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ...................................................................................... 5.5-53
5.5.10 References ....................................................................................................................................... 5.5-54
5.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..................................................................................... 5.6-1
5.6.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................................... 5.6-1
5.6.2 Thresholds of Significance .......................................................................................................... 5.6-18
5.6.3 Relevant General Plan Policies .................................................................................................... 5.6-19
5.6.4 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................ 5.6-21
5.6.5 Existing Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 5.6-28
5.6.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................................................................... 5.6-28
5.6.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................................................... 5.6-29
5.6.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ...................................................................................... 5.6-30
5.6.9 References ....................................................................................................................................... 5.6-31
5.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................... 5.7-1
5.7.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................................... 5.7-1
5.7.2 Thresholds of Significance .......................................................................................................... 5.7-19
5.7.3 Relevant General Plan Policies .................................................................................................... 5.7-20
5.7.4 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................ 5.7-21
5.7.5 Existing Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 5.7-30
5.7.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................................................................... 5.7-31
5.7.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................................................... 5.7-31
5.7.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ...................................................................................... 5.7-31
5.7.9 References ....................................................................................................................................... 5.7-31
5.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING .................................................................................................................. 5.8-1
5.8.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................................... 5.8-1
5.8.2 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................................................. 5.8-4
5.8.3 Relevant General Plan Policies ....................................................................................................... 5.8-5
5.8.4 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................... 5.8-9
5.8.5 Existing Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 5.8-16
5.8.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................................................................... 5.8-16
5.8.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................................................... 5.8-16
5.8.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ...................................................................................... 5.8-16
5.8.9 References ....................................................................................................................................... 5.8-17
5.9 NOISE ................................................................................................................................................................ 5.9-1
5.9.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................................... 5.9-1
5.9.2 Thresholds of Significance .......................................................................................................... 5.9-23
5.9.3 Relevant General Plan Policies .................................................................................................... 5.9-24
5.9.4 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................ 5.9-26
5.9.5 Existing Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 5.9-43
5.9.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................................................................... 5.9-44
5.9.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................................................... 5.9-44
5.9.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ...................................................................................... 5.9-47
5.9.9 References ....................................................................................................................................... 5.9-48
5.10 POPULATION AND HOUSING ........................................................................................................... 5.10-1
5.10.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................. 5.10-1
5.10.2 Thresholds of Significance .......................................................................................................... 5.10-9
5.10.3 Relevant General Plan Policies .................................................................................................. 5.10-10
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Table of Contents
Contents Page
Page iv PlaceWorks
5.10.4 Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................................. 5.10-13
5.10.5 Existing Regulations ................................................................................................................... 5.10-19
5.10.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................................................................. 5.10-19
5.10.7 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................... 5.10-19
5.10.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation .................................................................................... 5.10-20
5.10.9 References ..................................................................................................................................... 5.10-20
5.11 PUBLIC SERVICES ..................................................................................................................................... 5.11-1
5.11.1 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services ................................................................... 5.11-1
5.11.2 Police Protection ........................................................................................................................... 5.11-9
5.11.3 School Services ............................................................................................................................ 5.11-15
5.11.4 Library Services ........................................................................................................................... 5.11-27
5.12 RECREATION ............................................................................................................................................. 5.12-1
5.12.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................. 5.12-1
5.12.2 Thresholds of Significance .......................................................................................................... 5.12-4
5.12.3 Relevant General Plan Policies .................................................................................................... 5.12-4
5.12.4 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................ 5.12-7
5.12.5 Existing Regulations ................................................................................................................... 5.12-13
5.12.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................................................................. 5.12-13
5.12.7 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................... 5.12-13
5.12.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation .................................................................................... 5.12-14
5.12.9 References ..................................................................................................................................... 5.12-14
5.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC .................................................................................................. 5.13-1
5.13.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................. 5.13-1
5.13.2 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................................................ 5.13-27
5.13.3 Relevant General Plan Policies .................................................................................................. 5.13-28
5.13.4 Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................................. 5.13-33
5.13.5 Existing Regulations ................................................................................................................... 5.13-45
5.13.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................................................................. 5.13-46
5.13.7 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................... 5.13-46
5.13.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation .................................................................................... 5.13-46
5.13.9 References ..................................................................................................................................... 5.13-46
5.14 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 5.14-1
5.14.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................. 5.14-1
5.14.2 Thresholds of Significance .......................................................................................................... 5.14-6
5.14.3 Relevant General Plan Policies .................................................................................................... 5.14-6
5.14.4 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................ 5.14-6
5.14.5 Existing Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 5.14-9
5.14.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................................................................. 5.14-10
5.14.7 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................... 5.14-10
5.14.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation .................................................................................... 5.14-10
5.14.9 References ..................................................................................................................................... 5.14-10
5.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................. 5.15-1
5.15.1 Wastewater Treatment and Collection ....................................................................................... 5.15-1
5.15.2 Water Supply and Distribution Systems .................................................................................. 5.15-14
5.15.3 Storm Drainage Systems ............................................................................................................ 5.15-33
5.15.4 Solid Waste ................................................................................................................................... 5.15-40
5.15.5 Other Utilities .............................................................................................................................. 5.15-47
6. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ................................................................ 6-1
7. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ..................................................................... 7-1
7.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 7-1
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Table of Contents
Contents Page
June 2017 Page v
7.1.1 Purpose and Scope .............................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.1.2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 7-2
7.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING/PROJECT
PLANNING PROCESS .................................................................................................................................... 7-3
7.2.1 Alternative Development Areas ....................................................................................................... 7-3
7.2.2 No-Growth Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 7-4
7.3 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS................................................................ 7-4
7.3.1 Alternatives Comparison ................................................................................................................... 7-5
7.4 NO PROJECT/CURRENT GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE A) ................. 7-5
7.4.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................................. 7-6
7.4.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................ 7-6
7.4.3 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................................... 7-6
7.4.4 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................... 7-7
7.4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................................................. 7-7
7.4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................... 7-7
7.4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................................... 7-8
7.4.8 Land Use and Relevant Planning ...................................................................................................... 7-8
7.4.9 Noise ...................................................................................................................................................... 7-8
7.4.10 Population and Housing .................................................................................................................... 7-8
7.4.11 Public Services ..................................................................................................................................... 7-9
7.4.12 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................. 7-9
7.4.13 Transportation and Traffic ................................................................................................................ 7-9
7.4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................... 7-9
7.4.15 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................................... 7-10
7.4.16 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 7-10
7.5 MID-CENTURY PLAN WITHOUT SPECIFIC PLAN (ALTERNATIVE B).................................. 7-11
7.5.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................ 7-11
7.5.2 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 7-12
7.5.3 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................................. 7-12
7.5.4 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................. 7-12
7.5.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................ 7-12
7.5.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................. 7-13
7.5.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 7-13
7.5.8 Land Use and Relevant Planning .................................................................................................... 7-13
7.5.9 Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 7-13
7.5.10 Population and Housing .................................................................................................................. 7-14
7.5.11 Public Services ................................................................................................................................... 7-14
7.5.12 Recreation ........................................................................................................................................... 7-14
7.5.13 Transportation and Traffic .............................................................................................................. 7-14
7.5.14 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................. 7-15
7.5.15 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................................... 7-15
7.5.16 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 7-15
7.6 MODIFIED RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE C) ................................................ 7-16
7.6.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................ 7-16
7.6.2 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 7-16
7.6.3 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................................. 7-17
7.6.4 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................. 7-17
7.6.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................ 7-17
7.6.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................. 7-18
7.6.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 7-18
7.6.8 Land Use and Relevant Planning .................................................................................................... 7-18
7.6.9 Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 7-18
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Table of Contents
Contents Page
Page vi PlaceWorks
7.6.10 Population and Housing .................................................................................................................. 7-18
7.6.11 Public Services ................................................................................................................................... 7-19
7.6.12 Recreation ........................................................................................................................................... 7-19
7.6.13 Transportation and Traffic .............................................................................................................. 7-19
7.6.14 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................. 7-19
7.6.15 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................................... 7-19
7.6.16 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 7-20
7.7 MODIFIED MIXED-USE AND RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE D) ......... 7-21
7.7.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................ 7-21
7.7.2 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 7-21
7.7.3 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................................. 7-21
7.7.4 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................. 7-21
7.7.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................ 7-22
7.7.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................. 7-22
7.7.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 7-22
7.7.8 Land Use and Relevant Planning .................................................................................................... 7-22
7.7.9 Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 7-22
7.7.10 Population and Housing .................................................................................................................. 7-23
7.7.11 Public Services ................................................................................................................................... 7-23
7.7.12 Recreation ........................................................................................................................................... 7-23
7.7.13 Transportation and Traffic .............................................................................................................. 7-23
7.7.14 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................. 7-23
7.7.15 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................................... 7-23
7.7.16 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 7-24
7.8 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ......................................................................... 7-24
8. IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ............................................................................ 8-1
8.1 ASSESSMENT IN THE INITIAL STUDY ................................................................................................. 8-1
9. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES DUE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ................. 9-1
10. GROWTH–INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................... 10-1
11. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED .................................................................... 11 -1
12. QUALIFICATIONS OF PERSONS PREPARING EIR ................................................................ 12-1
PLACEWORKS ................................................................................................................................................................. 12-1
13. BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 13-1
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Table of Contents
Contents Page
June 2017 Page vii
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP)
Appendix B: NOP Comment Letters
Appendix C: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data
Appendix D: Environmental Data Resource Report
Appendix E: Infrastructure Technical Report
Appendix F: Noise Background and Modeling Data
Appendix G: Public Service Provider Questionnaires
Appendix H: Transportation Impact Analysis
Appendix I: Water Supply Assessment
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Table of Contents
Figure Page
Page viii PlaceWorks
Figure 3-1 Regional Location ....................................................................................................................................... 3-3
Figure 3-2 Citywide Aerial Photograph ...................................................................................................................... 3-5
Figure 3-3 Aerial Photograph of Specific Plan Area ................................................................................................ 3-7
Figure 3-4 Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram ........................................................................................ 3-17
Figure 3-5 Specific Plan Land Use Diagram .......................................................................................................... 3-21
Figure 3-6 Specific Plan Pedestrian Concept Plan ................................................................................................ 3-25
Figure 3-7 Specific Plan Bicycle Concept Plan ...................................................................................................... 3-27
Figure 3-8 Specific Plan Street Concept Plan ......................................................................................................... 3-29
Figure 4-1 Existing Land Uses ..................................................................................................................................... 4-7
Figure 4-2 Current General Plan Land Use Diagram ........................................................................................... 4-17
Figure 5.1-1 Photographs of Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 5.1-5
Figure 5.6-1a Hazardous Materials Sites Map .......................................................................................................... 5.6-11
Figure 5.6-1b Hazardous Materials Sites Map .......................................................................................................... 5.6-13
Figure 5.7-1 Los Angeles Watershed ......................................................................................................................... 5.7-9
Figure 5.7-2 Existing Storm Drains ......................................................................................................................... 5.7-11
Figure 5.7-3 Storm Drain Deficiencies .................................................................................................................... 5.7-13
Figure 5.7-4 Main San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin .................................................................................. 5.7-17
Figure 5.9-1 Existing Conditions Noise Level Contour Map .............................................................................. 5.9-19
Figure 5.9-2 Rail-specific Existing Conditions Noise Level Contour Map ....................................................... 5.9-21
Figure 5.9-3 Future Plus Project Noise Level Contour Map ............................................................................... 5.9-31
Figure 5.9-4 Rail-specific Future Plus Project Noise Level Contour Map. ....................................................... 5.9-35
Figure 5.11-1 Public Facilities and Parks ................................................................................................................... 5.11-3
Figure 5.11-2 School District Boundaries ............................................................................................................... 5.11-17
Figure 5.13-1 Roadway Facility Categories ............................................................................................................... 5.13-5
Figure 5.13-2 Study Intersections and Roadway Segments .................................................................................. 5.13-13
Figure 5.13-3 Citywide Sidewalk Conditions .......................................................................................................... 5.13-19
Figure 5.13-4 Citywide Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................................. 5.13-21
Figure 5.13-5 Citywide Transit Facilities ................................................................................................................. 5.13-23
Figure 5.15-1 Existing Sewers Map ............................................................................................................................ 5.15-3
Figure 5.15-2 Temple City Existing Sewer System Deficiencies ........................................................................... 5.15-5
Figure 5.15-3 Water Provider Service Areas ........................................................................................................... 5.15-19
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Table of Contents
Table Page
June 2017 Page ix
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of
Significance After Mitigation ................................................................................................. 1-11
Table 2-1 NOP and Scoping Meeting Comment Summary .................................................................................. 2-2
Table 3-1 Current General Plan Elements ............................................................................................................ 3-12
Table 3-2 Estimated General Plan Land Use Designations and Buildout Projections .................................. 3-15
Table 3-3 Land Use Projections for Specific Plan Area ...................................................................................... 3-19
Table 4-1 Existing Land Use Statistical Summary .................................................................................................. 4-5
Table 4-2 Public Service and Utility Providers ..................................................................................................... 4-12
Table 4-3 Current General Plan Land Use Designations ................................................................................... 4-15
Table 5.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants .................................................................... 5.2-2
Table 5.2-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin ....................................... 5.2-12
Table 5.2-3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary ..................................................................................... 5.2-13
Table 5.2-4 Existing Plan Area Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Inventory .................................. 5.2-15
Table 5.2-5 Existing Specific Plan Area Daily Emissions Inventory ................................................................ 5.2-16
Table 5.2-6 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds ................................................................................................... 5.2-18
Table 5.2-7 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds ................................................................................ 5.2-19
Table 5.2-8 SCAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds ............................................. 5.2-20
Table 5.2-9 Construction Activities, Phasing and Equipment ........................................................................... 5.2-29
Table 5.2-10 Comparison of Population and Employment Forecast ................................................................. 5.2-31
Table 5.2-11 Crossroads Specific Plan Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions........................... 5.2-36
Table 5.2-12 Buildout Year 2035 Plan Area Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Inventory .............. 5.2-37
Table 5.2-13 Net Maximum Daily Operational Phase Regional Emissions ...................................................... 5.2-39
Table 5.5-1 GHG Emissions and their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2 ................... 5.5-3
Table 5.5-2 Summary of GHG Emissions Risks to California ............................................................................ 5.5-6
Table 5.5-3 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Emissions Reductions Gap to Achieve the 2030
GHG Target .......................................................................................................................... 5.5-11
Table 5.5-4 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Emissions Change by Sector to Achieve the
2030 Target ............................................................................................................................ 5.5-12
Table 5.5-5 Existing Plan Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory ........................................................... 5.5-19
Table 5.5-6 Existing Specific Plan Area GHG Emissions Inventory ............................................................... 5.5-20
Table 5.5-7 Forecasting the Post-2020 Program-Level GHG Reduction Targets ......................................... 5.5-22
Table 5.5-8 Forecasting the Post-2020 Project-Level GHG Reduction Targets ............................................ 5.5-23
Table 5.5-9 Plan Area GHG Emissions Forecast for Mid-Century Plan at Buildout .................................... 5.5-37
Table 5.5-10 Crossroads Specific Plan Total and Net Annual Operational Phase GHG Emissions
Forecast at Buildout ............................................................................................................. 5.5-38
Table 5.5-11 SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Consistency: Mid-Century Plan ...................................................... 5.5-43
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Table of Contents
Table Page
Page x PlaceWorks
Table 5.5-12 SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Consistency: Crossroads Specific Plan .......................................... 5.5-45
Table 5.5-13 Mid-Century Plan Consistency with the City of Temple City Energy Action Plan .................. 5.5-46
Table 5.5-14 Crossroads Specific Plan Consistency with the City of Temple City Energy Action
Plan .......................................................................................................................................... 5.5-49
Table 5.6-1 Environmental Database Listings ........................................................................................................ 5.6-8
Table 5.6-2 GeoTracker and EnviroStor: Open Cases in the Search Area ...................................................... 5.6-15
Table 5.6-3 Schools in and within One-Quarter Mile of the Plan Area ........................................................... 5.6-17
Table 5.7-1 Existing Storm Drain Deficiencies (2008 Temple City Final Drainage Master Plan) ................. 5.7-8
Table 5.8-1 Consistency with SCAG’s 2016–2040 RTP/SCS Goals ................................................................ 5.8-12
Table 5.9-1 Noise Perceptibility ................................................................................................................................ 5.9-3
Table 5.9-2 Typical Noise Levels .............................................................................................................................. 5.9-4
Table 5.9-3 Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels ................................................................................... 5.9-8
Table 5.9-4 Groundborne Vibration Criteria: Architectural Damage ................................................................. 5.9-9
Table 5.9-5 Community Noise and Land Use Compatibility ............................................................................. 5.9-10
Table 5.9-6 General Sound Level Standards ......................................................................................................... 5.9-13
Table 5.9-7 Groundborne Vibration Criteria: Human Annoyance ................................................................... 5.9-15
Table 5.9-8 Groundborne Vibration Criteria: Architectural Damage ............................................................... 5.9-16
Table 5.9-9 Existing Traffic Noise Levels and Contours.................................................................................... 5.9-17
Table 5.9-10 General Plan Buildout Traffic Noise Contributions ...................................................................... 5.9-27
Table 5.9-11 Crossroads Specific Plan Buildout Traffic Noise Contributions .................................................. 5.9-28
Table 5.9-12 Projections for Number of Trains on Union Pacific Railroad Corridor ..................................... 5.9-33
Table 5.9-13 Groundborne Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ..................................................... 5.9-38
Table 5.9-14 Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels ........................................................................... 5.9-41
Table 5.10-1 Census Data for San Gabriel Valley and City of Temple City, 2000–2010 ................................ 5.10-3
Table 5.10-2 Population Growth Trends in Temple City and the San Gabriel Valley .................................... 5.10-4
Table 5.10-3 Adopted SCAG Growth Forecasts ................................................................................................... 5.10-4
Table 5.10-4 Existing Housing Units and Households in Temple City ............................................................. 5.10-5
Table 5.10-5 SCAG Household Forecasts ............................................................................................................... 5.10-6
Table 5.10-6 Housing Units in Temple City by Unit Type ................................................................................... 5.10-6
Table 5.10-7 City of Temple City Regional Housing Needs Allocation for 2014–2021 ................................. 5.10-7
Table 5.10-8 Existing Temple City Employment by Business Sector................................................................. 5.10-8
Table 5.10-9 Historic Employment Growth Trends in Temple City.................................................................. 5.10-9
Table 5.10-10 Employment Forecasts ........................................................................................................................ 5.10-9
Table 5.10-11 Comparison of SCAG and Mid-Century Plan Projections for the Plan Area ......................... 5.10-17
Table 5.10-12 Comparison of SCAG and General Plan Buildout Projections for Temple City and
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Table of Contents
Table Page
June 2017 Page xi
the San Gabriel Valley ........................................................................................................ 5.10-18
Table 5.11-1 Existing LACoFD Fire Stations ......................................................................................................... 5.11-2
Table 5.11-2 Schools within the Plan Area ............................................................................................................ 5.11-19
Table 5.11-3 School Capacities and Enrollments ................................................................................................. 5.11-20
Table 5.11-4 Student Generation Rates ................................................................................................................. 5.11-21
Table 5.13-1 Temple City Minimum Acceptable Level of Service ...................................................................... 5.13-4
Table 5.13-2 Temple City Impact Thresholds ........................................................................................................ 5.13-7
Table 5.13-3 Temple City Roadway Functional Classifications ........................................................................... 5.13-8
Table 5.13-4 Intersection and Roadway Level of Service Criteria ..................................................................... 5.13-12
Table 5.13-5 Intersection Level of Service for Existing Conditions ................................................................. 5.13-15
Table 5.13-6 Roadway Level of Service for Existing Conditions ...................................................................... 5.13-16
Table 5.13-7 Roadway Segment Level of Service, Future (Year 2035) Plus Mid-Century Plan
Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 5.13-35
Table 5.13-8 Intersection Level of Service, Future (Year 2035) Plus Mid-Century Plan Conditions .......... 5.13-37
Table 5.13-9 Existing (Year 2016) Conditions, Citywide VMT ......................................................................... 5.13-38
Table 5.13-10 Future (Year 2035) Plus mid-century plan Conditions, Citywide VMT .................................... 5.13-38
Table 5.13-11 Intersection Level of Service, Existing (Year 2016) Plus Crossroads Specific Plan ................ 5.13-39
Table 5.13-12 Existing (Year 2016) Conditions, Specific Plan Area VMT ........................................................ 5.13-40
Table 5.13-13 Existing (Year 2016) Plus Project Conditions, Specific Plan Area VMT .................................. 5.13-40
Table 5.13-14 LOS Summary for Study-Area CMP Intersection (Rosemead Boulevard at Las
Tunas Drive) ........................................................................................................................ 5.13-41
Table 5.15-1 Recommended Sewer Replacements, City of Temple City ........................................................... 5.15-7
Table 5.15-2 Estimated Existing Wastewater Generation .................................................................................... 5.15-8
Table 5.15-3 Forecast Buildout Wastewater Generation .................................................................................... 5.15-10
Table 5.15-4 Water Supplies Compared to Demands Under Normal Water Conditions, Water
Providers Serving the Plan Area ....................................................................................... 5.15-21
Table 5.15-5 Estimated Existing Water Demand ................................................................................................. 5.15-23
Table 5.15-6 Planned Water System Upgrades ..................................................................................................... 5.15-23
Table 5.15-7 Forecast Buildout Water Demand ................................................................................................... 5.15-31
Table 5.15-8 Existing Storm Drain Deficiencies (2008 Temple City Final Drainage Master Plan) ............. 5.15-36
Table 5.15-9 Existing Landfill Capacity ................................................................................................................. 5.15-42
Table 5.15-10 Estimated Existing Solid Waste Generation .................................................................................. 5.15-43
Table 5.15-11 Estimated Buildout Solid Waste Generation ................................................................................. 5.15-45
Table 5.15-12 Estimated Existing Electricity Demands ........................................................................................ 5.15-49
Table 5.15-13 Estimated Existing Natural Gas Demands .................................................................................... 5.15-50
Table 5.15-14 Estimated Buildout Electricity Demands ....................................................................................... 5.15-52
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Table of Contents
Table Page
Page xii PlaceWorks
Table 5.15-15 Estimated Buildout Natural Gas Demands ................................................................................... 5.15-53
Table 7-1 Buildout Statistical Summary .................................................................................................................... 7-5
Table 7-2 Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project ....................................................................... 7-25
Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant ..................................................................................................... 8-1
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Abbreviations and Acronyms
June 2017 Page xiii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAQS ambient air quality standards
AB Assembly Bill
ACM asbestos-containing materials
ADT average daily traffic
amsl above mean sea level
AQMP air quality management plan
AST aboveground storage tank
BAU business as usual
bgs below ground surface
BMP best management practices
CAA Clean Air Act
CAFE corporate average fuel economy
CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention Program
CalEMA California Emergency Management Agency
Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
CalRecycle California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDE California Department of Education
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
cfs cubic feet per second
CGS California Geologic Survey
CMP congestion management program
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Page xiv PlaceWorks
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
Corps US Army Corps of Engineers
CSO combined sewer overflows
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR environmental impact report
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gases
GWP global warming potential
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HQTA high quality transit area
HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Ldn day-night noise level
Leq equivalent continuous noise level
LBP lead-based paint
LCFS low-carbon fuel standard
LOS level of service
LST localized significance thresholds
MW moment magnitude
MCL maximum contaminant level
MEP maximum extent practicable
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Abbreviations and Acronyms
June 2017 Page xv
mgd million gallons per day
MMT million metric tons
MPO metropolitan planning organization
MT metric ton
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
O3 ozone
OES California Office of Emergency Services
PM particulate matter
POTW publicly owned treatment works
ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC recognized environmental condition
RMP risk management plan
RMS root mean square
RPS renewable portfolio standard
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SIP state implementation plan
SLM sound level meter
SoCAB South Coast Air Basin
SOX sulfur oxides
SQMP stormwater quality management plan
SRA source receptor area [or state responsibility area]
SUSMP standard urban stormwater mitigation plan
SWP State Water Project
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Page xvi PlaceWorks
TAC toxic air contaminants
TNM transportation noise model
tpd tons per day
TRI toxic release inventory
TTCP traditional tribal cultural places
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
UWMP urban water management plan
V/C volume-to-capacity ratio
VdB velocity decibels
VHFHSZ very high fire hazard severity zone
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WQMP water quality management plan
WSA water supply assessment
June 2016 Page 1-1
1. Executive Summary
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This draft environmental impact report (DEIR) addresses the environmental effects associated with
implementation of the Temple City 2050 Mid-Century General Plan and Temple City Crossroads Specific
Plan, herein after referred to as “Proposed Project”. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
requires that local government agencies consider the environmental consequences before taking action on
projects over which they have discretionary approval authority. An environmental impact report (EIR)
analyzes potential environmental consequences in order to inform the public and support informed decisions
by local and state governmental agency decision makers. This document focuses on impacts determined to be
potentially significant in the Initial Study completed for this project (see Appendix A).
This DEIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and the City of Temple City’s (Temple
City or City) CEQA procedures. The City, as the lead agency, has reviewed and revised all submitted drafts,
technical studies, and reports as necessary to reflect its own independent judgment, including reliance on City
technical personnel from other departments and review of all technical subconsultant reports.
Data for this DEIR derive from onsite field observations; discussions with affected agencies; analysis of
adopted plans and policies; and review of available studies, reports, data and similar literature, and specialized
environmental assessments (air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality,
greenhouse gas emissions, noise, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems).
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
This DEIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA to assess the environmental effects associated with
implementation of the Proposed Project, as well as anticipated future discretionary actions and approvals.
CEQA established six main objectives for an EIR:
1. Disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed activities.
2. Identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage.
3. Prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures.
4. Disclose to the public reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental effects.
5. Foster interagency coordination in the review of projects.
6. Enhance public participation in the planning process.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
Page 1-2 PlaceWorks
An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation in CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines; it is intended to provide an objective, factually supported analysis and full disclosure of the
environmental consequences of a proposed project with the potential to result in significant, adverse
environmental impacts.
An EIR is one of various decision-making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and
disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Before approving a proposed project,
the lead agency must consider the information in the EIR; determine whether the EIR was prepared in
accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; determine that it reflects the independent judgment of
the lead agency; adopt findings concerning the project’s significant environmental impacts and alternatives;
and adopt a statement of overriding considerations if significant impacts cannot be avoided.
1.2.1 EIR Format
Chapter 1. Executive Summary: Summarizes the background and description of the proposed project, the
format of this DEIR, project alternatives, any critical issues remaining to be resolved, and the potential
environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified for the project.
Chapter 2. Introduction: Describes the purpose of this DEIR, background on the project, the notice of
preparation, the use of incorporation by reference, and Final EIR certification.
Chapter 3. Project Description: A detailed description of the project, including its objectives, its area and
location, approvals anticipated to be required as part of the project, necessary environmental clearances, and
the intended uses of this DEIR.
Chapter 4. Environmental Setting: A description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity
of the project as they existed at the time the notice of preparation was published, from local and regional
perspectives. These provide the baseline physical conditions from which the lead agency determines the
significance of the project’s environmental impacts.
Chapter 5. Environmental Analysis: Each environmental topic is analyzed in a separate section that
discusses: the thresholds used to determine if a significant impact would occur; the methodology to identify
and evaluate the potential impacts of the project; the existing environmental setting; the potential adverse and
beneficial effects of the project; the level of impact significance before mitigation; the mitigation measures
for the proposed project; the level of significance after mitigation is incorporated; and the potential
cumulative impacts of the proposed project and other existing, approved, and proposed development in the
area.
Chapter 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Describes the significant unavoidable adverse
impacts of the proposed project.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
June 2016 Page 1-3
Chapter 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project: Describes the alternatives and compares their impacts to
the impacts of the proposed project. Alternatives include the No Project/Current General Plan Alternative,
Mid-Century Plan Without Specific Plan Alternative, Modified Residential Alternative, and Modified Mixed-
Use and Residential Alternative.
Chapter 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant: Briefly describes the potential impacts of the project
that were determined not to be significant by the Initial Study and were therefore not discussed in detail in
this DEIR.
Chapter 9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project: Describes the significant
irreversible environmental changes associated with the project.
Chapter 10. Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Project: Describes the ways in which the proposed project
would cause increases in employment or population that could result in new physical or environmental
impacts.
Chapter 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted: Lists the people and organizations that were contacted
during the preparation of this DEIR.
Chapter 12. Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR: Lists the people who prepared this DEIR for the
proposed project.
Chapter 13. Bibliography: The technical reports and other sources used to prepare this DEIR.
Appendices: The appendices for this document (in PDF format on a CD attached to the front cover of the
DEIR) comprise these supporting documents:
Appendix A: Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP)
Appendix B: NOP Comment Letters
Appendix C: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data
Appendix D: Environmental Data Resource Report
Appendix E: Infrastructure Technical Report
Appendix F: Noise Background and Modeling Data
Appendix G: Public Service Provider Questionnaires
Appendix H: Transpor tation Impact Analysis
Appendix I: Water Supply Assessment
1.2.2 Type and Purpose of This DEIR
This DEIR fulfills the requirements for a Program EIR as defined by State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15161,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3). Although the legally required contents of a
Program EIR are the same as those of a Project EIR, Program EIRs are typically more conceptual and may
contain a more general discussion of impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures than a Project EIR. As
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
Page 1-4 PlaceWorks
provided in Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of
actions that may be characterized as one large project. Use of a Program EIR provides Temple City (as lead
agency) with the opportunity to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures and
provides the City with greater flexibility to address project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts on
a comprehensive basis.
Agencies generally prepare Program EIRs for programs or a series of related actions that are linked geo-
graphically, are logical parts of a chain of contemplated events, rules, regulations, or plans that govern the
conduct of a continuing program, or are individual activities carried out under the same authority and having
generally similar environmental effects that can be mitigated in similar ways. The Proposed Project covers
plans and programs that would guide the future development of the City and its sphere of influence over
more than 20 years. Therefore, this Program EIR meets the requirements of CEQA.
Once a Program EIR has been prepared, subsequent activities within the program must be evaluated to
determine whether an additional CEQA document needs to be prepared. However, if the Program EIR
addresses the program’s effects as specifically and comprehensively as possible, many subsequent activities
could be found to be within the Program EIR scope and additional environmental documents may not be
required (Guidelines Section 15168[c]). When a Program EIR is relied on for a subsequent activity, the lead
agency must incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the Program EIR into the
subsequent activities (Guidelines Section 15168[c][3]). If a subsequent activity would have effects not within
the scope of the Program EIR, the lead agency must prepare a new Initial Study leading to a Negative
Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR. In this case, the Program EIR still serves a valuable
purpose as the first-tier environmental analysis. The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15168[h]) encourage the use
of Program EIRs, citing five advantages:
Provide a more exhaustive consideration of impacts and alternatives than would be practical in an
individual EIR;
Focus on cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis;
Avoid continual reconsideration of recurring policy issues;
Consider broad policy alternatives and programmatic mitigation measures at an early stage when the
agency has greater flexibility to deal with them; and,
Reduce paperwork by encouraging the reuse of data (through tiering).
1.3 PROJECT LOCATION
1.3.1 Plan Area
Temple City is in the San Gabriel Valley in central-east Los Angeles County. Temple City is a built-out city
surrounded by the City of San Gabriel to the west; Rosemead and El Monte to the south; El Monte and
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
June 2016 Page 1-5
unincorporated Los Angeles County to the east; and Arcadia to the north. Rosemead Boulevard, which is
designated as a California state highway (State Route 19) traverses the City in a north-south alignment. The
City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) includes three areas of unincorporated Los Angeles County to its north,
east, and west. The planning area for the Proposed Project includes both the City and its SOI—herein after
referred to as the “Plan Area”.
1.3.2 Specific Plan Area
The Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan is a mixed-use specific plan that spans 72.55 acres along a key
corridor in the western end of the Plan Area. The specific plan is centered on the intersection of Las Tunas
Drive and Rosemead Boulevard and generally is bounded by Hermosa Drive to the north; Muscatel Avenue
and the Eaton Wash Flood Control Channel to the west; Olive Street and the Eaton Wash Flood Control
Channel to the west and south; and Sultana Avenue to the east. The area covered under the Temple City
Crossroads Specific Plan is described throughout this DEIR as the “Specific Plan Area”.
1.4 PROJECT SUMMARY
The Proposed Project consist of two components—the Temple City 2050 Mid-Century General Plan (Mid-
Century Plan), which is an update to the current (1987) Temple City General Plan, and the Temple City
Crossroads Specific Plan (Crossroads Specific Plan). Following is a discussion of each of the Proposed
Project’s components.
1.4.1 Mid-Century Plan
The Mid-Century Plan is intended to guide development in the Plan Area over the next 35 years. It also
involves reorganization of the 1987 Temple City General Plan into six elements, which include and/or
incorporate six of the seven state-required General Plan elements (the Housing Element was updated by the
City as part of a previous effort), as well as an optional Economic Development element. The elements of
the Mid-Century Plan include: Community Services Element, Natural Resources Element, Hazards Element,
Land Use Element, Mobility Element, and Economic Development Element.
Reasonable buildout of the Plan Area under the Mid-Century Plan would allow for approximately 20,520
residential units (5,220 more than existing conditions) and 3,867,597 square feet of nonresidential uses
(commercial, office, industrial, and institutional; 1,048,100 more than existing conditions). These land use
changes are anticipated to generate approximately 12,778 additional residents and 3,200 additional workers to
the Plan Area compared to existing conditions
1.4.2 Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan
The Crossroads Specific Plan would establish a land use, development, and implementation framework to
allow for enhancement and redevelopment of the Specific Plan Area in accordance with the vision, goals, and
policies of the Mid-Century Plan. The Crossroads Specific Plan would act as a bridge between the Mid-
Century Plan and any development that would occur within the Specific Plan Area. The Mid-Century Plan
establishes a new land-use designation for the Specific Plan Area, “Mixed-Use Specific Plan”.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
Page 1-6 PlaceWorks
Buildout of the Specific Plan Area, which is the reasonable buildout of the area through the year 2035, would
increase the number of residential units in the Specific Plan Area to approximately 1,887 dwelling units—
roughly 1,837 more than existing conditions. The Crossroads Specific Plan also increases potential
commercial building square footage to approximately 1,082,061 square feet–a net increase of approximately
454,713 square feet over existing conditions. An increase in population and the number of employees would
also occur as a result of the residential and nonresidential development, respectively, that would be
accommodated under the Crossroads Specific Plan
1.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
1.5.1 No-Project/Current General Plan Alternative (Alternative A)
Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate and analyze the impacts of the
“No-Project” Alternative. When the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy,
or ongoing operation, the no-project alternative is the continuation of the plan, policy, or operation into the
future.
Under the No Project/Current General Plan Alternative (Alternative A), neither of the Proposed Project’s
components—the Mid-Century Plan or Crossroads Specific Plan—would be implemented as proposed. The
current (1987) Temple City General Plan (1987 General Plan), including land use designations shown in
Figure 4-2, Current General Plan Land Use Diagram, would remain in effect and would not undergo any updates.
All elements and policies contained in the 1987 General Plan would remain as is. It should be noted that the
1987 General Plan does not addresses the same overall geographic boundaries as the Mid-Century Plan, as
the 1987 General Plan did not include the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). In contrast, the area covered
under the Mid-Century Plan (the Plan Area) does include the SOI.
Development in accordance with the 1987 General Plan would continue to occur, allowing for a total of
17,529 residential units, 53,243 residents, 3,318,313 square feet of nonresidential uses, and 8,088 jobs,
resulting in a jobs-to-housing ratio of 0.46. The No Project/Current General Plan Alternative A allows for
2,991 less residential units and 549,284 less square feet of nonresidential uses than what would occur under
buildout of the Mid-Century Plan.
1.5.2 Mid-Century Plan Without Specific Plan Alternative (Alternative B)
This alternative was evaluated for its potential to reduce short-term, construction-related air quality,
greenhouse gas emissions, and noise impacts; long-term operational air quality and greenhouse gas emissions
impacts; cultural and recreation impacts that would occur under the Proposed Project.
The Mid-Century Plan Without Specific Plan Alternative would be similar to the Mid-Century Plan, wherein
the land use designations of the areas outside of the Specific Plan Area would remain as proposed. However,
the properties within the boundaries of the area covered under the Crossroads Specific Plan (Specific Plan
Area) would retain the existing land use designations of the 1987 General Plan, which include Commercial
(comprises the vast majority of the Specific Plan Area), Low, Medium and High Density Residential, and
Institutional. Therefore, the Mixed-Use land use designation proposed for the Specific Plan Area under the
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
June 2016 Page 1-7
Proposed Project would not be implemented and auto-oriented commercial uses would continue to dominate
the area.
Alternative B would allow for a total of 18,675 residential units, 55,580 residents, 3,440,046 square feet of
nonresidential uses, and 8,876 jobs, resulting in a jobs-to-housing ratio of 0.47. Alternative B allows for 1,845
fewer residential units and 427,551 fewer square feet of nonresidential uses than what would occur under
buildout of the Mid-Century Plan.
1.5.3 Modified Residential Alternative (Alternative C)
The Modified Residential Alternative (Alternative C) was evaluated for its potential to reduce short-term,
construction-related air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise impacts; long-term operational air quality
and greenhouse gas emissions impacts; cultural and recreation impacts that would occur under the Proposed
Project.
This alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project, wherein the land use designation of the Specific
Plan Area (Mixed Use – Specific Plan) would remain as proposed under the Mid-Century Plan. However, the
existing residential properties throughout the Plan Area (outside the Specific Plan Area) would retain their
current 1987 General Plan residential land use designations, and up-zoning of residential properties (i.e.,
changing low-density residential to medium-density residential) would not occur. Additionally, the permitted
density of the High-Density Residential land use designation (13-36 dwelling units per acre [du/ac]), as
proposed under the Mid-Century Plan for this land use designation, would revert to the density currently
permitted under the R-3 zone (18-30 du/ac). This change in density would result in an overall reduction in
the number of dwelling units that would be developed in the Plan Area under this alternative.
The amount of nonresidential square footage under this alternative (and associated number of jobs) would
remain the same when compared to the Proposed Project. However, this alternative would result in a
reduction of 1,186 residential units when compared to the Proposed Project (20,520 under the Proposed
Project versus 19,334 under this alternative), which would lead to a proportional decrease in population by
approximately 3,423 persons.
1.5.4 Modified Mixed-Use and Residential Alternative (Alternative D)
The Modified Mixed-Use and Residential Alternative (Alternative D) was evaluated to determine the effects
of the redistribution of residential units within the Plan Area. Alternative D would be similar to the Proposed
Project, wherein the total buildout would be the same. However, the amount of mixed-use development
within the Specific Plan Area would be reduced. Specifically, the Mixed-Use Boulevard (MU-B) land use
district of the Crossroads Specific Plan would be changed to Commercial Core. This change in land use
districts would result in a decrease in residential uses by 166 units, which would be transferred to the
proposed Mixed Use and High Density Residential uses along Las Tunas Drive
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
Page 1-8 PlaceWorks
1.6 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe issues to be resolved including
the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With regard to the
Proposed Project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the lead agency as to the following:
Whether the benefits of the project override those environmental impacts which cannot be feasibly
avoided or mitigated to below a level of significance.
Whether the proposed land use changes are compatible with the character of the existing area.
Whether the identified goals, policies, or mitigation measures should be adopted or modified.
Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the project besides the Mitigation
Measures identified in the DEIR.
Whether there are any alternatives to the project that would substantially lessen any of the significant
impacts of the proposed project and achieve most of the basic project objectives.
1.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
In accordance with Section 15123(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the DEIR summary must identify areas of
controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public. There are no
specific areas of known controversy concerning the Proposed Project. The City of Temple City has no
knowledge of any expressed opposition to the Proposed Project.
Prior to the preparation of the DEIR, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released to the State
Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and interested parties to advise and solicit comments and suggestions
regarding the scope and content of the DEIR to be prepared, and to notice a public scoping meeting (see
Appendix A). The public review of the NOP extended from September 19 to October 18, 2016. Twelve
comment letters were received during the NOP review period.
Additionally, prior to preparation of the DEIR and during the NOP public review period, a public scoping
meeting was held on September 29, 2016, to determine the concerns of interested parties regarding the
General Plan Update and Specific Plan. The scoping meeting was held at the Temple City Council Chambers
and was attended by a few community members and public agency representatives. A number of comments
and concerns were raised at the scoping meeting, including noise, traffic, and buildout that would occur under
the Proposed Project. These and other environmental issues are fully addressed in Chapter 5 of this DEIR.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
June 2016 Page 1-9
1.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION
MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Table 1-1 summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis contained in this DEIR. Impacts are
identified as significant or less than significant, and mitigation measures are identified for all significant
impacts. The level of significance after imposition of the mitigation measures is also presented.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
Page 1-10 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
June 2016 Page 1-11
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
5.1 AESTHETICS
Impact 5.1-1: Implementation of the Proposed
Project would not substantially obstruct an
existing scenic vista.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Impact 5.1-2: Implementation of the Proposed
Project would alter the visual appearance and
character of the Plan Area and Specific Plan
Area, but would not substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of these
areas or their surroundings.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Impact 5.1-3: Future development that would
be accommodated by the Proposed Project
would generate additional light and glare within
the overall Plan Area and its surroundings,
which could adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
5.2 AIR QUALITY
Impact 5.2-1: The Proposed Project would be
inconsistent with the SCAQMD Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP) as its buildout
would exceed the growth projections assumed
in the AQMP and would cumulatively contribute
to the nonattainment designations of the
SoCAB.
Potentially Significant Mid-Century Plan
Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-4 apply here.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Mitigation Measures AQ-2, AQ-3, and AQ-5 through AQ-8 apply here.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact 5.2-2: Construction activities
associated with future development that would
be accommodated by the Proposed Project
could generate short-term emissions in
exceedance of SCAQMD’S threshold criteria.
Potentially Significant Mid-Century Plan
AQ-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Temple City for development
projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e.,
non-exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical
assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality
impacts to the City of Temple City Community Development Department for
review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) methodology for
Significant and Unavoidable
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
Page 1-12 PlaceWorks
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are
determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD-adopted thresholds
of significance, the City of Temple City shall require that applicants for new
development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant
emissions during construction activities. These identified measures shall be
incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction
management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s
Community Development Department. Mitigation measures to reduce
construction-related emissions include, but are not limited to:
• Requiring fugitive-dust control measures that exceed SCAQMD’s Rule
403, such as:
• Use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion.
• Applying water every four hours to active soil-disturbing activities.
• Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on
trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
• Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency as having Tier 3 (model year 2006 or newer) or Tier 4
(model year 2008 or newer) emission limits, applicable for engines
between 50 and 750 horsepower.
• Ensuring that construction equipment is properly serviced and
maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
• Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than
five consecutive minutes.
• Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces
whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating
manufactures can be found on the SCAQMD’s website at
http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/Super-Compliant_AIM.pdf.
Crossroads Specific Plan
AQ-2 Project applicants/construction contractors for new development projects
within the Specific Plan Area shall be required to use construction equipment
that meets the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 emissions
standards for off-road diesel-powered construction equipment with more than
50 horsepower, unless it can be demonstrated to the City of Temple City
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
June 2016 Page 1-13
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
Community Development Department that such equipment is not available.
Any emissions-control device used by the construction contractor shall
achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by
a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as
defined by the California Air Resources Board’s regulations.
Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the construction
contractor shall ensure that all demolition and grading plans clearly show the
requirement for EPA Tier 4 or higher emissions standards for construction
equipment over 50 horsepower. During construction, the construction
contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the
construction site for verification by the City of Temple City Community
Development Department. The construction equipment list shall state the
makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment onsite. Equipment
shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the
manufacturer’s recommendations. Construction contractors shall also ensure
that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five
minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources Board’s Rule
2449.
AQ-3 Project applicants/construction contractors for new development projects
within the Specific Plan Area shall be required to prepare a dust control plan
and implement the following measures during ground-disturbing activities—in
addition to the existing requirements for fugitive dust control under South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403—to further
reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. The City of Temple City Community
Development Department shall verify that these measures have been
implemented during normal construction site inspections.
• Following all grading activities, the construction contractor shall
reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and
watering within 21 days after active operations have ceased.
• During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall sweep
streets with SCAQMD Rule 1186–compliant, PM10-efficient vacuum
units on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public
thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
Page 1-14 PlaceWorks
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
• During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall
maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil,
or other loose materials and shall tarp materials with a fabric cover or
other cover that achieves the same amount of protection.
• During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall water
exposed ground surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum of every three
hours on the construction site and a minimum of three times per day.
• During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall limit
onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per
hour.
Impact 5.2-3: Buildout in accordance with the
Proposed Project would generate long-term
emissions that would exceed SCAQMD’s
regional significance thresholds and
cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment
designations of the SoCAB.
Potentially Significant Mid-Century Plan
AQ 4 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Temple City for development
projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e.,
non-exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical
assessment evaluating potential project operation phase-related air quality
impacts to the City of Temple City Community Development Department for
review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) methodology in
assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined
to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD-adopted thresholds of
significance, the City of Temple City Community Development Department
shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate
mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational
activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions
of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions can
include, but are not limited to the following:
• For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the
construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of
electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the
anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and
emissions.
• Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider
energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate
Significant and Unavoidable
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
June 2016 Page 1-15
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid
peak energy use.
• Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and
truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of
vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California
Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 § 2485).
• Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of
the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
• Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 (Residential
Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
• Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and
carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of the CALGreen Code
(Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
• Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section
A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) and Section A5.106.8.2
(Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
• Applicant-provided appliances shall be Energy Star-certified appliances
or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency (e.g., dishwashers,
refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers). Installation of Energy Star-
certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by Building & Safety
during plan check.
• Applicants for future development projects along existing and planned
transit routes shall coordinate with the City of Temple City, Los Angeles
County Metro, and Foothill Transit to ensure that bus pad and shelter
improvements are incorporated, as appropriate.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Stationary Source
AQ-5 Prior to the issuance of building permits for new development projects within
the Specific Plan Area, the project applicant shall show on the building plans
that all major appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and
dryers) to be provided/installed are Energy Star-certified appliances or
appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star-certified
or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City of Temple City
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
Page 1-16 PlaceWorks
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
Transportation and Motor Vehicles
AQ-6 For development projects within the Specific Plan Area that generate 50 or
more peak hour trips, the project applicant shall submit a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) plan to the City of Temple City Community
Development Director for review and approval. TDM strategies that could be
implemented include but are not limited to:
• Car sharing
• Carpool/vanpool
• Unbundled parking (parking spaces are rented or sold separately, rather
than automatically included with the rent or purchase price of a
residential or commercial unit)
• Joint use (shared parking)
• Transit, bicycle, and pedestrian system improvements
• Trip reduction incentives to employees, such as free transit passes
AQ-7 Prior to issuance of building permits for non-single-family residential and
mixed-use residential development projects within the Specific Plan Area, the
project applicant shall indicate on the building plans that the following features
have been incorporated into the design of the building(s). Proper installation
of these features shall be verified by the City of Temple City Community
Development Department prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
• Electric vehicle charging shall be provided as specified in Section
A4.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
• Bicycle parking shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.9
(Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
AQ-8 Prior to the issuance of building permits for nonresidential development
projects within the Specific Plan Area, project applicants shall indicate on the
building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the
design of the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
June 2016 Page 1-17
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
by the City of Temple City Community Development Department prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
• For buildings with more than ten tenant-occupants, changing/shower
facilities shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.4.3
(Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
• Preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van
vehicles shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.5.1
(Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
• Facilities shall be installed to support future electric vehicle charging at
each nonresidential building with 30 or more parking spaces. Installation
shall be consistent with Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary
Measures) of the CALGreen Code and the Temple City Municipal Code.
Impact 5.2-4: Operation of land uses
associated with buildout of the Proposed
Project could expose sensitive receptors to
substantial concentrations of toxic air
contaminants.
Potentially Significant Mid-Century Plan
AQ-9 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Temple City, project applicants
for new industrial or warehousing development projects that 1) have the
potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or
more trucks with operating diesel-powered transport refrigeration units, and 2)
are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools,
hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the
project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health
risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Temple City Community Development
Department for review and approval. The HRA shall be prepared in
accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment and the South Coast Air Quality Management
District. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk and/or noncancer
hazard index exceeds the respective thresholds, as established by the
SCAQMD at the time a project is considered, the project applicant will be
required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies
for toxics (T-BACTs), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms, are
capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable
level. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to, restricting idling onsite or
electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter, or requiring
use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall
Less Than Significant
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
Page 1-18 PlaceWorks
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or
incorporated into the site plan.
Crossroads Specific Plan
No significant impacts were identified for the Crossroads Specific Plan and no mitigation
measures are needed.
Impact 5.2-5: Operation of land uses in addition
to construction activities associated with
buildout of the Mid-Century Plan and
construction activities associated with buildout
of the Crossroads Specific Plan could expose
sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations
of criteria air pollutants.
Potentially Significant Mid-Century Plan
Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-4 apply here.
Crossroads Specific Plan
AQ-10 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Temple City for development
projects within the Specific Plan Area that are subject to CEQA (California
Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects) review and are
within 25 meters (82 feet) of a sensitive land use, the project applicant shall
submit a construction-related air quality study that evaluates potential
localized project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Temple
City Community Development Department for review and approval. The
evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) methodology for assessing localized
significance thresholds (LST) air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria
air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD-
adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Temple City shall require that
applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to
reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities. These identified
measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents
(e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be
verified by the City’s Community Development Department.
Significant and Unavoidable
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
June 2016 Page 1-19
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impact 5.2-6: Industrial and SCAQMD-
permitted land uses associated with buildout of
the Proposed Project would have the potential
to create objectionable odors that could affect a
substantial number of people.
Potentially Significant Mid-Century Plan
AQ-11 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Temple City, if it is determined
that a development project has the potential to emit nuisance odors beyond
the property line, an odor management plan shall be prepared by the project
applicant and submitted to the City of Temple City Community Development
Department for review and approval. Facilities that have the potential to
generate nuisance odors include but are not limited to:
• Wastewater treatment plants
• Composting, green waste, or recycling facilities
• Fiberglass manufacturing facilities
• Painting/coating operations
• Large-capacity coffee roasters
• Food-processing facilities
The odor management plan shall demonstrate compliance with the South
Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 402 for nuisance odors. The
Odor Management Plan shall identify the best available control technologies
for toxics (T-BACTs) that will be utilized to reduce potential odors to
acceptable levels, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs
may include but are not limited to scrubbers (i.e., air pollution control devices)
at the industrial facility. T-BACTs identified in the odor management plan shall
be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document prepared
for the development project and/or incorporated into the project’s site plan.
Crossroads Specific Plan
No significant impacts were identified for the Crossroads Specific Plan and no mitigation
measures are needed.
Less Than Significant
5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 5.3-1: Future development that would
be accommodated by the Proposed Project
could result in an impact to known and/or
unknown historic resources.
Potentially Significant CUL-1 Project applicants for future development projects with intact extant building(s)
more than 50 years old shall prepare and submit a historic resource technical
study to the City of Temple City for review and approval. The technical study
shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian meeting the Secretary
of the Interior Standards. The study shall evaluate the significance and data
potential of the resource in accordance with these standards. If the resource
Significant and Unavoidable
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
Page 1-20 PlaceWorks
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources
(Pub. Res. Code Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852): 1) mitigation
shall be identified within the technical study that ensures the value and
integrity of the historical resource is maintained in accordance with the
Secretary of the Interior Standards, or 2) provide evidence that
retention/relocation of the historical resources is not feasible through a
credible feasibility study and provide mitigation to preserve the historical value
through recordation, interpretive, commemorative, or educational measures.
Impact 5.3-2: Future development that would
be accommodated by the Proposed Project
could impact unknown archaeological or
paleontological resources.
Potentially Significant Mid-Century Plan
CUL-2 Prior to issuance of grading permits for excavations at depths of greater than
six feet, the City of Temple City shall ensure that an archeologist who meets
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for professional archaeology has
been retained by the project applicant/construction contractor and will be on
call during the grading activities associated with the aforementioned depths.
Evidence of the contracted professional retained shall be provided to the
City’s Community Development Department. If any evidence of archaeological
or cultural resources is discovered during the grading activities, the following
measures shall be taken:
• The Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians shall be notified of the find(s). The
tribe shall coordinate with the contracted archeologist to determine if a
certified Native American monitor is needed to assess the find.
• All below-grade work shall stop within a 50-foot radius of the discovery.
Work shall not continue until the discovery has been evaluated by the
contracted archaeologist and in consultation with the Native American
monitor.
• A qualified archaeologist shall assess the find(s) in coordination and
consultation with the appropriate City staff and Native American monitor
to determine if they are of archeological or cultural value. If the find(s)
are of value, then the following steps shall be taken:
• The archaeologist shall draft a monitoring program and monitor all
ground-disturbing activities related to the project. The monitoring
program shall include accommodations and procedures for Native
American monitors.
Less Than Significant
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
June 2016 Page 1-21
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
• The archeologist shall prepare all potential finds in excavated material
to the point of identification.
• Significant archaeological and/or cultural resources found shall be
preserved as determined necessary by the archaeologist and in
consultation with the Native American monitor.
• Excavated archeological finds shall be offered to the Los Angeles
County Museum of Natural History or California State University,
Fullerton, or its designee for curation on a first-refusal basis. After
which, finds shall be offered to a local museum or repository willing to
accept the resource.
• Within 30 days of completion of earth-moving activities, the
archeologist shall draft a report summarizing the finds and shall
include the inspection period, an analysis of any resources found, and
the present repository of the items.
• The archaeologist’s report shall be submitted to the City for review
and approval and filed with the County of Los Angeles and South
Central Coastal Information Center at the California State University,
Fullerton.
CUL-3 Prior to issuance of grading permits for excavations at depths of greater than
six feet, the City of Temple City shall ensure that a county-certified
paleontologist has been retained by the project applicant/construction
contractor and will monitor all grading and other significant ground-disturbing
activities that occur more than six feet below the ground surface in areas of
Holocene and late Pleistocene deposits. Evidence of the contracted
professional retained shall be provided to the City’s Community Development
Department. If any evidence of paleontological resources is discovered during
grading and ground-disturbing activities, the following measures shall be
taken:
• All below-grade work shall stop within a 50-foot radius of the discovery.
Work shall not continue until the discovery has been evaluated by a
qualified paleontologist.
• A qualified paleontologist in coordination with the appropriate City staff
shall assess the find(s) and determine if they are of paleontological
value. If the find(s) are of value, then:
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
Page 1-22 PlaceWorks
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
• The paleontologist shall draft a monitoring program and monitor all
ground-disturbing activities.
• The paleontologist shall prepare all potential finds in excavated
material to the point of identification.
• Significant paleontological resources found shall be preserved as
determined necessary by the paleontologist.
• Excavated finds shall be offered to the Los Angeles County Museum
of Natural History or its designee for curation on a first-refusal basis.
After which, finds shall be offered to an accredited and permanent
scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations.
• Within 30 days of completion of the end of earth-moving activities, the
paleontologist shall draft a report summarizing the finds and shall
include the inspection period, an analysis of any resources found, and
the present repository of the items.
• The paleontologist’s report shall be submitted to the City for review
and approval. Any resulting reports shall also be filed with the County
of Los Angeles and the permanent scientific institution where the
resources are curated
Crossroads Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure’s CUL-2 and CUL-3 apply here.
Impact 5.3-3: Grading activities of future
development that would be accommodated by
the Proposed Project would not be expected to
disturb human remains.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
5.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact 5.4-1: Development that would be
accommodated by the Proposed Project would
not result in the substantial increase of soil
erosion or topsoil loss.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
June 2016 Page 1-23
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
5.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact 5.5-1: Implementation of the
Crossroads Specific Plan would generate a
substantial increase in GHG emissions
compared to existing conditions and would
have a significant impact on the environment.
Potentially Significant Mid-Century Plan
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Mitigation Measures AQ-5 through AQ-8 apply here.
Significant and Unavoidable
Impact 5.5-2: Implementation of the Mid-
Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan
would not conflict with plans adopted for the
purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
5.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 5.6.1: The construction and operational
phases of development projects that would be
accommodated by the Proposed Project would
involve the transport, use, storage, and/or
disposal of hazardous materials and waste,
which in turn could create a significant hazard
to the public or environment.
Potentially Significant Mid-Century Plan
HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of demolition permits for any buildings or structures (both
residential and nonresidential) constructed prior to 1995, the project
applicant/developer shall conduct the following inspections and assessments
for all buildings and structures onsite and shall provide the City of Temple City
Community Development Department with a copy of the final report of each
investigation or assessment.
• The project applicant/developer shall retain a California Certified
Asbestos Consultant (CAC) to perform abatement project planning,
monitoring (including air monitoring), oversight, and reporting of all
asbestos-containing materials (ACM) encountered. The abatement,
containment, and disposal of all ACM shall be conducted in accordance
with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1403 and
California Code of Regulation Title 8, Section 1529 (Asbestos).
• The project applicant/developer shall retain a licensed or certified lead
inspector/assessor to conduct the abatement, containment, oversight,
and disposal of all lead waste encountered. The contracted lead
inspector/assessor shall be certified by the California Department of
Public Health (CDPH). All lead abatement shall be performed by a
CDPH-certified lead supervisor or a CDPH-certified worker under the
direct supervision of a lead supervisor certified by CDPH. The
Less Than Significant
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
Page 1-24 PlaceWorks
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
abatement, containment, and disposal of all lead waste encountered
shall be conducted in accordance with the US Occupational Safety and
Health Administration Rule 29; CFR Part 1926; and California Code of
Regulation, Title 8, Section 1532.1 (Lead).
Evidence of the contracted professionals attained by the project
applicant/developer shall be provided to the City of Temple City Community
Development Department.
HAZ-2 If soil is encountered during grading and construction activities that is
suspected of being impacted by hazardous materials, work at the subject
construction activity area shall be halted, and the suspect site conditions shall
be evaluated by a qualified environmental professional. The results of the
evaluation shall be submitted to the Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC), or the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or
other applicable oversight agency, as appropriate, and the necessary
response/remedial measures shall be implemented—as directed by DTSC,
RWQCB, or other applicable oversight agency—until all specified
requirements of the oversight agencies are satisfied and a no further action
status is attained. The results shall also be provided to the City of Temple City
Community Development Department.
HAZ-3 Concurrent with submittal of a development application for a project on a site
identified in the Environmental Data Resources report (provided as Appendix
D to the Temple City General Plan Update and Temple City Crossroads
Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report; State Clearinghouse No.
2016091047), the project applicant/developer shall submit a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to the City of Temple City Community
Development Department to identify environmental conditions of the
development site and determine whether contamination is present. The Phase
I ESA shall be prepared by an Environmental Professional in accordance with
the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E 1527-13,
Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Process. If recognized environmental
conditions related to soils or groundwater are identified in the Phase I ESA,
the project applicant shall perform soil and soil gas sampling, as required, as
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
June 2016 Page 1-25
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
a part of a Phase II ESA. If contamination is found at significant levels based
on the United Stated Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 Regional
Screening Levels, the project applicant/developer shall remediate all
contaminated soils with the oversight and in accordance with state and local
agency requirements (California Department of Toxic Substances Control,
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles County Fire Authority,
etc.). All contaminated soils and/or material encountered shall be disposed of
at a regulated site and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations
prior to the completion of grading. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a
report documenting the completion, results, and follow-up remediation on the
recommendations, if any, shall be provided to the City of Temple City
Community Development Department evidencing that all site remediation
activities have been completed.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 apply here.
Impact 5.6-2: Various properties within the
Plan Area are on a list of hazardous materials
sites; implementation of the Proposed Project
could result in an impact to properties listed.
Potentially Significant Mid-Century Plan
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 applies here.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 applies here.
Less Than Significant
5.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 5.7-1: Development pursuant to the
Proposed Project would increase the amount of
impervious surfaces in certain areas of the Plan
Area and would therefore, increase surface
water flows into drainage systems within the
watershed.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
Page 1-26 PlaceWorks
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impact 5.7-2: Development pursuant to the
Proposed Project would increase the amount of
impervious surfaces in certain areas of the Plan
Area and could therefore impact opportunities
for groundwater recharge.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Impact 5.7-3: During the construction phase of
development projects that would be
accommodated by the Proposed Project, there
is the potential for short-term unquantifiable
increases in pollutant concentrations from a
development site. After project development,
the quality of storm runoff (sediment, nutrients,
metals, pesticides, pathogens, and
hydrocarbons) may be altered.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Impact 5.7-4: A portion of the Plan Area is
within the inundation area of the Big Santa
Anita Dam.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
5.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impact 5.8-1: Implementation of the Proposed
Project would not conflict with applicable plans
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
5.9 NOISE
Impact 5.10-1: Implementation of the
Proposed Project would not result in long-term
operation-related noise that would exceed local
standards.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
June 2016 Page 1-27
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impact 5.10-2: Implementation of the
Proposed Project could result in short- and
long-term groundborne vibration impacts.
Potentially Significant Mid-Century Plan
N-1 Prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, applicants for individual
development projects that are subject to CEQA (California Environmental
Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects) and that involve vibration-
intensive construction activities—such as pile drivers, vibratory rollers, hoe
rams, and/or large bulldozers (as examples)—within 25 feet of sensitive
receptors (e.g., residences and historic structures), shall prepare and submit
to the City of Temple City Community Development Department an acoustical
study to evaluate potential construction-related vibration damage impacts.
The vibration assessment shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer
and be based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) vibration-induced
architectural damage criterion. If the acoustical study determines a potential
exceedance of the FTA thresholds, measures shall be identified that ensure
vibration levels are reduced to below the thresholds. Measures to reduce
vibration levels can include use of less-vibration-intensive equipment (e.g.,
drilled piles and static rollers) and/or construction techniques (e.g., non-
explosive rock blasting and use of hand tools) and preparation of a pre-
construction survey report to assess the condition of the affected sensitive
structure. Identified measures shall be included on all construction and
building documents and submitted for verification to the Community
Development Department.
N-2 Prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, applicants for individual
development projects that are subject to CEQA (California Environmental
Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects) and that involve vibration-
intensive construction activities—such as pile drivers, vibratory rollers, hoe
rams, and/or large bulldozers (as examples) —within 100 feet of sensitive
receptors (e.g., residences and historic structures) shall prepare and submit to
the City of Temple City Community Development Department an acoustical
study to evaluate potential construction-related vibration annoyance impacts.
The study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and shall
identify measures to reduce impacts to habitable structures to below the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) vibration-induced annoyance criterion. If
construction-related vibration is determined in the acoustical study to be
perceptible at vibration-sensitive uses, additional requirements, such as use
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
Page 1-28 PlaceWorks
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
of less-vibration-intensive equipment or construction techniques, shall be
implemented during construction (e.g., drilled piles, static rollers, and non-
explosive rock blasting). Identified measures shall be included on all
construction and building documents and submitted for verification to the
Community Development Department. Prior to discretionary approval by the
City of Temple City for development projects subject to CEQA (California
Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project
applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating
potential project construction-related”.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-2 apply here.
Impact 5.10-3: Implementation of the
Proposed Project would result in temporary
noise increases in the vicinity of project-specific
development sites.
Potentially Significant Mid-Century Plan
N-3 Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading and/or construction permits,
applicants for individual development projects that are subject to CEQA
(California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects) and
that are within 500 feet of noise-sensitive receptors (e.g., residences,
hospitals, schools) shall conduct a construction-level noise analysis to
evaluate potential construction-related noise impacts on sensitive receptors.
The analysis shall be conducted once the final construction equipment list that
will be used for demolition and grading activities is determined. The
construction-level noise analysis shall be submitted to the City of Temple City
Community Development Department for review and approval. If the analysis
determines that demolition and construction activities would result in an
impact to identified noise-sensitive receptors, then specific measures to
attenuate the noise impact shall be outlined in the analysis and reviewed and
approved by Temple City. Specific measures may include but are not limited
to the following best management practices:
• Post a construction site notice near the construction site access point or
in an area that is clearly visible to the public. The notice shall include the
following: job site address; permit number, name, and phone number of
the contractor and owner; dates and duration of construction activities;
construction hours allowed; and the City of Temple City and construction
contractor phone numbers where noise complaints can be reported and
logged.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
June 2016 Page 1-29
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
• Consider the installation of temporary sound barriers for construction
activities immediately adjacent to occupied noise-sensitive structures.
• Restrict haul routes and construction-related traffic to the least noise-
sensitive times of the day.
• Reduce non-essential idling of construction equipment to no more than
five minutes.
• Ensure that all construction equipment is monitored and properly
maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to
minimize noise.
• Fit all construction equipment with properly-operating mufflers, air intake
silencers, and engine shrouds, no less effective than as originally
equipped by the manufacturer, to minimize noise emissions.
• If construction equipment is equipped with back-up alarm shut offs,
switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters, as feasible.
• Stationary equipment (such as generators and air compressors) and
equipment maintenance and staging areas shall be located as far from
existing noise-sensitive land uses, as feasible.
• To the extent feasible, use acoustic enclosures, shields, or shrouds for
stationary equipment such as compressors and pumps.
• Shut off generators when generators are not needed.
• Coordinate deliveries to reduce the potential of trucks waiting to unload
and idling for long periods of time.
• Grade surface irregularities on construction sites to prevent potholes
from causing vehicular noise.
• Minimize the use of impact devices such as jackhammers, pavement
breakers, and hoe rams. Where possible, use concrete crushers or
pavement saws rather than hoe rams for tasks such as concrete or
asphalt demolition and removal.
The final noise-reduction measures to be implemented shall be determined by
the construction-level noise analysis. The final noise-reduction measures shall
be included on all construction and building documents and/or construction
management plans and submitted for verification to the City of Temple City
Community Development Department; implemented by the construction
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
Page 1-30 PlaceWorks
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
contractor through the duration of the construction phase; and discussed at
the pre-demolition, -grade, and/or -construction meetings.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure N-3 applies here.
Impact 5.10-4: Implementation of the
Proposed Project would not expose residents
and workers to airport-related noise.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
5.10 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impact 5.10-1: Buildout under the Proposed
Project would directly result in population
growth in the Plan Area.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
5.11 PUBLIC SERVICES
FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
Impact 5.11-1: Implementation of the
Proposed Project would introduce new
structures, residents, and workers into the Los
Angeles County Fire Department’s service
boundaries, thereby increasing the need for fire
protection and emergency medical services.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
POLICE PROTECTION
Impact 5.11-2: Implementation of the
Proposed Project would introduce new
structures, residents, and workers into the Los
Angeles County Sheriff’s Department service
boundaries, thereby increasing the need for
police protection facilities and personnel.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
June 2016 Page 1-31
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
SCHOOL SERVICES
Impact 5.11-3: Implementation of the
Proposed Project would result in the generation
of new students in the Plan Area, which in turn
would impact the school enrollment capacities
of area schools.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
LIBRARY SERVICES
Impact 5.11-4: Implementation of the
Proposed Project would generate additional
population in the Plan area, thereby increasing
the service needs of the Temple City Library.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
5.12 RECREATION
Impact 5.12-1: Implementation of the
Proposed Project would result in the generation
of additional residents in the Plan Area, which
would in turn result in an increase in the use of
existing City parks and recreational facilities.
Potentially Significant Mid-Century Plan
The City has considered mitigation to reduce the impacts created by the Mid-Century
Plan (includes development under the Crossroads Specific Plan, which is a subset of the
Mid-Century Plan), such as the acquisition of private property for the development of
additional parkland to serve its residents. However, this is not a feasible mitigation as
acquiring private property is not an attainable measure for the City for various reasons,
including financial and legal. No feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate
Impact 5.12 1.
Crossroads Specific Plan
The conclusion above applies here.
Significant and Unavoidable
Impact 5.12-2: Project implementation would
not result in environmental impacts as a result
of new and/or expanded recreational facilities
that would be needed to serve future project
residents.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
Page 1-32 PlaceWorks
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
5.13 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Impact 5.13-1: Project-related trip generation
would not impact levels of service for the
existing area roadway system.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Impact 5.13-2: Project-related trip generation
in combination with existing and proposed
cumulative development would not result in
designated road and/or highways exceeding
county congestion management agency
service standards.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Impact 5.13-3: The Proposed Project complies
with adopted policies, plans, and programs for
alternative transportation.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
5.14 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 5.14-1: Implementation of the
Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in
a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource that
is listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Impact 5.14-2: Implementation of the
Proposed Project could cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a Tribal
Cultural Resource that is determined by the
lead agency to be significant pursuant to
criteria in Public Resources Code section
5024.1(c).
Potentially Significant Mid-Century Plan
Mitigation Measure CUL-2 applies here.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure CUL-2 applies here.
Less Than Significant
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
June 2016 Page 1-33
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
5.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Impact 5.15-1: Project-generated wastewater
could result in an impact to the wastewater
service provider for the Plan Area.
Potentially Significant Mid-Century Plan
USS-1 Individual development projects tributary to the 15-inch line in Broadway shall
require flow tests to be conducted to validate flow capacity within the 8- and
12-inch lines in Rosemead Boulevard that deliver sewer flows to the 15-inch
line in Broadway. Prior to issuance of grading permits for development
projects tributary to the 15-inch line, project applicants shall conduct/prepare
site specific flow tests to verify actual flow depths and capacity. A report shall
be prepared documenting the methods and findings of such tests in
accordance with the City of Temple City and Los Angeles Department of
Public Works (LADPW) requirements. The report shall be submitted to the
City of Temple City Community Development Department for review and
approval prior to issuance of grading permits.
If development of such project(s) would generate wastewater exceeding the
capacities of one or more LADPW sewers, the project applicant of the
affected project(s) shall make fair-share payments toward the needed
upsizing if it has been identified in a Capital Improvement Plan/Program, or
construct the improvement.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Mitigation Measures USS-1 applies here.
Impact 5.15-2: Adequate water supply and
delivery systems are available to meet project
requirements.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Impact 5.15-3: Storm drainage systems
serving the Plan Area would be adequate to
serve the drainage requirements of the
Proposed Project.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
Impact 5.15-4: Solid waste facilities serving the
Plan Area would be able to accommodate
project-generated solid waste; and project
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
1. Executive Summary
Page 1-34 PlaceWorks
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
implementation would not adversely affect
Temple City’s ability to comply with existing
laws and regulations governing solid waste
disposal and recycling.
Impact 5.15-5: Electricity and natural gas
facilities serving the Plan Area would be able to
accommodate project-generated utility
demands.
Less Than Significant No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant
June 2017 Page 2-1
2. Introduction
2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all state and local governmental agencies
consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before
taking action on those projects. This Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared to
satisfy CEQA, as set forth in the Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., and the State CEQA
Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et seq. The Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) is the public document designed to provide decision makers and the public with an analysis of the
environmental effects of a proposed project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid environmental
damage, and to identify alternatives to the project. The EIR must also disclose significant environmental
impacts that cannot be avoided; growth inducing impacts; effects not found to be significant; and significant
cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.
Project means “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in
the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment” (CEQA
Guidelines § 15378). The Proposed Project, which includes the Temple City 2050 Mid-Century General Plan
(Mid-Century Plan) and Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan (Crossroads Specific Plan), is considered a
“project” under Section 15378.
The lead agency means “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or
approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment” (CEQA § 21067). The City of
Temple City (City or Temple City) has the principal responsibility for approval of the Proposed Project. For
this reason, Temple City is the CEQA lead agency for this project.
The intent of the DEIR is to provide sufficient information on the potential environmental impacts of the
Proposed Project to allow the City to make an informed decision regarding approval of the project. Specific
discretionary actions to be reviewed by the City are described in Section 3.5, Intended Uses of the EIR.
This DEIR has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the:
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et
seq.)
State Guidelines for the Implementation of the CEQA of 1970 (CEQA Guidelines), as amended
(California Code of Regulations, §§ 15000 et seq.)
The overall purpose of this DEIR is to inform the lead agency, responsible agencies, decision makers, and the
general public about the environmental effects of the implementation of the Proposed Project. This DEIR
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
2. Introduction
Page 2-2 PlaceWorks
addresses effects that may be significant and adverse; evaluates alternatives to the project; and identifies
mitigation measures to reduce or avoid adverse effects.
2.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY
Temple City determined that an EIR would be required for the Proposed Project and issued a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study on September 19, 2016 (see Appendix A). Comments received during
the public review period, which extended from September 19 to October 18, 2016, are provided in
Appendix B.
The NOP process is used to help determine the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the
DEIR. Based on this process and the Initial Study for the project, certain environmental categories were
identified as having the potential to result in significant impacts. Issues considered Potentially Significant are
addressed in this DEIR, but issues identified as Less Than Significant or No Impact are not. Refer to the
Initial Study in Appendix A for discussion of how these initial determinations were made.
Twelve agencies responded to the NOP—this DEIR has taken into consideration these responses. Table 2 -1
summarizes the issues identified by the commenting agencies or persons, along with a reference to the
section(s) of this DEIR where the issues are addressed.
Tabl e 2-1 NOP and Scoping Meeting Comment Summary
Commenting Agency/Person Date Comment Type Comment Summary Issue Addressed In:
Notice of Preparation
Caltrans 10/11/2016 Transportation/
Traffic
Concerned with potential increase in traffic that
would exacerbate existing conditions along SR-
19, I-210, and I-605.
Stated that prioritizing and allocating space for
efficient modes of travel such as bicycling and
public transit can allow streets to transport more
people in a fixed amount of right-of-way.
Stated that efforts should be made to reduce
number of vehicle trips generated by the Specific
Plan.
Stated that requiring bicycle parking and allowing
developments to replace a percentage of car
parking can reduce trip generation.
Stated that consideration should be given to
including elements to make walking more
convenient.
Stated that consideration should be given to
introducing a “road diet” on Broadway within the
Specific Plan Area.
Stated that Las Tunas Drive should be considered
for streetscape treatments to make the street
more pedestrian friendly.
Stated that the City should explore improvements
such as protected bike lanes, pedestrian refuge
islands, and sidewalk extensions.
Section 5.13,
Transportation
and Traffic
Chapter 3, Project
Description
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
2. Introduction
June 2017 Page 2-3
Tabl e 2-1 NOP and Scoping Meeting Comment Summary
Commenting Agency/Person Date Comment Type Comment Summary Issue Addressed In:
Stated that the City should consider updating
standard crosswalks to high-visibility continental
crosswalks.
City of San Gabriel 10/18/2016 Aesthetics,
Air Quality, and
Transportation/
Traffic
Stated that the DEIR should discuss visual
impacts due to an increase of density from the
potential buildout of the Specific Plan along the
Temple City and San Gabriel border.
Stated that the DEIR should discuss construction
air quality impacts that the Specific Plan will have
on San Gabriel schools, and schools that serve
San Gabriel residents.
Notes the San Gabriel streets that would be
impacted the most by the proposed Specific Plan.
Requests a copy of Traffic Study to review and
comment on.
Section 5.1,
Aesthetics
Section 5.2, Air
Quality
Section 5.13,
Transportation
and Traffic
City of San Marino 10/17/2016 General Notes that the City of San Marino has no
comment
Not applicable; not a
CEQA issue or
comment
County of Los Angeles
Fire Department
10/12/2016 Public services Planning Division confirms that the County of Los
Angeles Fire Department is responsible for the
provision of fire protection and emergency
medical services to the project area.
Land Development Unit states that the
development must comply with all applicable code
and ordinance requirements for construction,
access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants.
Forestry Division lists additional statutory
responsibilities of the Forestry Division that
should be addressed in the DEIR.
Health Hazardous Materials Division states that
they have no comment at this time.
Section 5.11,
Public Services
Section 5.15,
Utilities and
Service Systems
County of Los Angeles
Public Library
10/31/2016 General Requests that environmental documentation
should to be sent to public library’s headquarters
in the City of Downey.
Not applicable; not a
CEQA issue or
comment
County Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles
County
10/18/2016 Wastewater
treatment and
Sewers
Stated that the District cannot comment on any
sewerage system deficiencies in the City of
Temple City except to state that there are
presently no deficiencies in the Districts’ facilities
that serve the City.
Notes that wastewater generated by the City is
treated at the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation
Plant and presents current flow and capacity data.
States that the Districts should review individual
developments within the City to determine
whether or not sufficient trunk sewer capacity
exists.
Provides website link to help estimate wastewater
generation.
Notes that the Districts charge a connection fee
for connecting the Districts’ Sewerage System.
States that any expansion of Districts’ facilities
Section 5.15,
Utilities and
Service Systems
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
2. Introduction
Page 2-4 PlaceWorks
Tabl e 2-1 NOP and Scoping Meeting Comment Summary
Commenting Agency/Person Date Comment Type Comment Summary Issue Addressed In:
must be consistent with the SCAG regional
growth forecast.
Los Angeles County
Metropolitan
Transportation Authority
10/11/2016 Transportation States that several Metro bus lines operate within
the General Plan area, and requests that the
General Plan include language that states that
future development may impact Metro bus
operations
Encourages the City to incorporate amenities for
passengers at bus stops.
Recommends that the proposed project include a
minimum five-foot setback from the Metro right of
way.
Encourages that developments within the
proposed project be transit-oriented.
Section 5.13,
Transportation
and Traffic
Chapter 3, Project
Description
Native American
Heritage Commission
9/21/2016 Tribal
consultation
Summarizes the CEQA requirements related to
Native American tribal consultation under AB 52
and SB 18
Section 5.14
Tribal Cultural
Resources
Southern California
Association of
Governments
10/18/2016 Land use Requests that consistency with the RTP/SCS
goals and strategies and regional growth
forecasts be analyzed in the DEIR.
Section 5.5,
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
9/27/2016 Air quality Outlines SCAQMD’s methodology for air quality
analysis.
Notes that in the event that the project generates
significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA
requires that all feasible mitigation measures be
considered.
Section 5.2, Air
Quality
Section 5.5,
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
State Clearinghouse 9/19/2016 General Copy of the State Clearinghouse “courtesy notice”
to reviewing agencies as a reminder to submit
comments within the designated review period.
Not applicable; not a
CEQA issue or
Comment
Sunny Slope Water
Company
10/21/2016 Water supply
and treatment
States that based on initial calculations, the
Sunny Slope Water Company would be
responsible for 440 AFY in increased demand.
Inquires who will be responsible for the costs
associated with any necessary pipeline relocation
or upsizing.
Notes that additional demand for fire protection
needs will impact Sunny Slope Water Company’s
water supply capabilities.
Section 5.7,
Hydrology and
Water Quality
Section 5.15,
Utilities and
Service Systems
Scoping Meeting
Attendee Comment 9/29/2016 Density
increase and
building heights
Requested clarification regarding density and
where this will occur.
Requested clarification regarding maximum
building heights with regards to the Specific Plan
area.
Chapter 3, Project
Description
Section 5.1,
Aesthetics
Housing and
schools
Requested clarification whether the City accounts
for population by age to analyze impacts to
schools and senior housing products.
Section 5.10,
Population and
Housing
Section 5.11,
Public Services
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
2. Introduction
June 2017 Page 2-5
Tabl e 2-1 NOP and Scoping Meeting Comment Summary
Commenting Agency/Person Date Comment Type Comment Summary Issue Addressed In:
Cell towers and
emissions
Requested clarification whether the DEIR
addresses cell phone tower sites and emissions.
Not applicable;
issue not
associated with or
related to the
Proposed Project
Zoning and
land use
Requested clarification regarding what changes to
the zoning code will occur under the general plan
update.
Chapter 3, Project
Description
Section 5.8, Land
Use and Planning
General Requested clarification regarding where the
environmental checklist in the Initial Study came
from.
Initial Study,
provided as
Appendix A to this
DEIR
Water supply,
water quality,
and water and
wastewater
infrastructure
General comment about increase in population
during a drought and how this would affect water
supply.
Requested clarification on how the project
increase affects existing infrastructure conditions
and wastewater and water service.
Noted general comments regarding water quality,
stormwater runoff, and filtration.
Section 5.7,
Hydrology and
Water Quality
Section 5.15,
Utilities and
Service Systems
Housing Concern with certain housing types
accommodated under the proposed project,
especially those that may be challenging to
certain age groups (e.g., three story
developments with stairs are difficult for the
elderly).
Chapter 3, Project
Description
Section 5.10,
Population and
Housing
2.3 SCOPE OF THIS DEIR
Based on the Initial Study, the City determined that a DEIR should be prepared for the Proposed Project.
The scope of the DEIR was determined based on the City’s Initial Study, comments received in response to
the NOP (summarized above in Table 2-1), and comments received at the scoping meeting conducted by the
City on September 29, 2016 (summarized above in Table 2-1).
Pursuant to Sections 15126.2 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, the DEIR should identify any potentially
significant adverse impacts and recommend mitigation that would reduce or eliminate these impacts to levels
of insignificance.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
2. Introduction
Page 2-6 PlaceWorks
The information in Chapter 3, Project Description, establishes the basis for analyzing future, project-related
environmental impacts. However, further environmental review by the City would be required as more
detailed information and plans are submitted on a project-by-project basis following approval of the
Proposed Project.
This DEIR has been prepared to evaluate potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of
the Proposed Project, which consists of the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan. The Mid-
Century Plan’s policies and programs, existing regulations, and mitigation measures have been identified to
either reduce or eliminate potentially significant impacts. The focus of the impact analysis is on areas where
land use or physical changes are proposed that may result in environmental impacts (e.g., areas where land use
changes are proposed) and on ensuring that development and improvement activities are consistent with the
Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan. In addition, the DEIR describes a range of reasonable
alternatives to the Proposed Project that could feasibly attain the project’s basic objectives while substantially
avoiding or lessening significant impacts. It also evaluates the comparative merits of the alternatives and
Proposed Project.
2.3.1 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant
During preparation of the Initial Study, the City determined that three environmental impact categories were
not significantly affected by or did not affect the Proposed Project. The following topical issues are not
addressed in this DEIR.
Agricultural and Forest Resources
Biological Resources
Mineral Resources
2.3.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts
Fifteen environmental factors were identified in the Initial Study as having potentially significant impacts.
These factors are:
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
2. Introduction
June 2017 Page 2-7
Recreation
Transportation and Traffic
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
2.3.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
This DEIR identifies four significant and unavoidable adverse impacts in four environmental topic areas, as
defined by CEQA, that would result from implementation of the Proposed Project. Unavoidable adverse
impacts may be considered significant on a project-specific basis, cumulatively significant, and/or potentially
significant. If the City, as the lead agency, determines that unavoidable significant adverse impacts will result
from the project, the City must prepare a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” before it can approve
the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that the decision-making body has balanced the
benefits of the Proposed Project against its unavoidable significant environmental effects and has determined
that the benefits of the project outweigh the adverse effects and, therefore, the adverse effects are considered
to be acceptable. The impacts that were found in this DEIR to be significant and unavoidable are related to
the following environmental topics:
Air Quality
Cultural Resources
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Noise
Recreation
2.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The following documents are incorporated by reference into this DEIR, consistent with Section 15150 of the
CEQA Guidelines, and are available for review at the City of Temple City.
City of Temple City General Plan and Technical Report, adopted on April 21, 1987, by the City of Temple City.
City of Temple City 2014-2021 Housing Element, adopted on January 7, 2014, by the City of Temple City.
This DEIR also relies on previously adopted local, regional and statewide plans and programs, agency
standards, and background studies in its analysis, such as:
Temple City Municipal Code
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan
Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategies
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
2. Introduction
Page 2-8 PlaceWorks
South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook
Chapter 13, Bibliography, provides a complete list of references utilized in preparing this DEIR.
Whenever existing environmental documentation or previously prepared documents and studies are used in
the preparation of this DEIR, the information is summarized for the convenience of the reader and
incorporated by reference. In addition, each topical section of this DEIR that relies on previously adopted
plans, programs, environmental documentation, and background studies notes how it specifically relates to
the Proposed Project and that the information has been reconfirmed. These documents and other referenced
source materials in this DEIR will be made available to the public for inspection upon request, at the City of
Temple City, Community Development Department, 9701 Las Tunas Drive, Temple City, California 91780.
2.5 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION
This DEIR is being circulated for public review for 45 days. Agencies and members of the public are invited
to provide written comments on the DEIR to the City address shown on the title page of this document.
Upon completion of the 45-day review period, the City will review all written comments received and prepare
written responses for each. A Final EIR (FEIR) will incorporate all of the written comments received,
responses to the comments, and any changes to the DEIR that result from comments. The FEIR will be
presented to the Temple City City Council for potential certification as the environmental document for the
project. All persons who comment on the DEIR will be notified of the availability of the FEIR and the date
of the public hearing before the City.
The DEIR is available to the general public for review at the following locations:
City of Temple Department of Community Development and City Clerk’s Office, City Hall, 9701 Las
Tunas Drive, Temple City, CA 91780. Between 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Temple City Library, 5939 Golden West Avenue, Temple City, CA 91780. Library Hours: Monday
through Wednesday, 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.; Thursday, 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.; Friday, 12:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m.; Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. This branch is closed on Sundays.
The DEIR can also be viewed on the City of Temple City website at the following address:
www.maketchappen.com.
2.6 MITIGATION MONITORING
Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6, requires that agencies adopt a monitoring or reporting program for
any project for which it has made findings pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081. Such a program
is intended to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the preparation of an
EIR.
The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Proposed Project will be completed as part of the FEIR, prior to
consideration of the project by the Temple City City Council.
June 2017 Page 3-1
3. Project Description
3.1 PROJECT LOCATION
3.1.1 Plan Area
The City of Temple City (Temple City or City) and its Sphere of Influence (SOI)1 encompass approximately
four square miles (or 2,570 acres) in the west-central San Gabriel Valley in central-east Los Angeles County,
California. The San Gabriel Valley is surrounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, the San Rafael
Hills and Repetto Hills to the west, the Puente Hills to the south, and the San Jose Hills to the east. The area
covered by Temple City and its SOI is described throughout this DEIR as the “Plan Area”. Regional access to
the Plan Area is from Interstate 10 (I-10) and I-210, approximately 0.8 mile south and 1.8 miles north,
respectively, of the City boundary.
Temple City, which spans 2,043 acres (or approximately 3.2 square miles), is approximately five miles
southeast of Pasadena and 13 miles northeast of downtown Los Angeles, as shown in Figure 3-1, Regional
Location. It is a built-out city surrounded by the City of San Gabriel to the west; Rosemead and El Monte to
the south; El Monte and unincorporated Los Angeles County to the east; and Arcadia to the north (see
Figure 3-2, Citywide Aerial Photograph). Rosemead Boulevard, portions of which are designated as a California
state highway (State Route 19), traverses Temple City in a north-south alignment.
The City’s SOI spans 527 acres (or approximately 0.8 square mile) in areas of unincorporated Los Angeles
County. The bulk of Temple City’s SOI is north of the City in the unincorporated Community of East
Pasadena-East San Gabriel. Smaller areas are located east of the City in the unincorporated Community of
North El Monte and west of the southwest City boundary (see Figure 3-2).
3.1.2 Specific Plan Area
As part of the update to the current (1987) Temple City General Plan, Temple City is developing a specific
plan entitled the Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan (Crossroads Specific Plan). The Crossroads Specific
Plan spans 72.55 acres and is centered on the intersection of Las Tunas Drive and Rosemead Boulevard and
generally bounded by Hermosa Drive to the north, Muscatel Avenue and the Eaton Wash Flood Control
Channel to the west, Olive Street and the Eaton Wash Flood Control Channel to the west and south, and
Sultana Avenue to the east (see Figure 3-3, Aerial Photograph of Specific Plan Area, which depicts the extent and
1 Temple City’s SOI is the unincorporated County of Los Angeles lands adjacent to city boundaries that are defined by the county
local agency formation commission as areas likely to be served or annexed by the City in the future. As a general rule, cities do not
have regulatory control over these lands, but they have the authority to designate their preference for land use planning in these
county areas if the properties may be annexed to a city sometime in the future.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
Page 3-2 PlaceWorks
boundaries of the area covered under the Crossroads Specific Plan). The area covered under the Crossroads
Specific Plan is described throughout this DEIR as the “Specific Plan Area”.
3.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
The City established the objectives listed below for the Temple City 2050 Mid-Century General Plan (Mid-
Century Plan) to aid decision makers in their review of the project and associated environmental impacts.
The objectives incorporate the vision and guiding principles established for the Mid-Century Plan.
Objective 1: Provide a Land Use Element that targets growth to serve the community’s needs and
enhances the quality of life. Direct higher density development within the Crossroads Specific Plan and
downtown areas and away from established residential neighborhoods.
Objective 2: Provide safe, well-designed, accessible, and human-scale residential, commercial, and mix-
use development within the Crossroads Specific Plan and downtown areas where people of all ages can
live, work, shop, and play, including public and semi-public open spaces.
Objective 3: Promote distinct local and regional activity centers, sub-districts, and cultural destinations
within the Crossroads Specific Plan and downtown areas.
Objective 4: Reduce vehicle miles traveled for the City and region by providing a diverse housing stock,
job opportunities, and distinct sub-districts with commercial and entertainment uses, and transit
opportunities within the Crossroads Specific Plan and downtown areas.
Objective 5: Ensure new development builds upon Temple City’s tradition of strong sense of place and
great neighborhoods.
Objective 6: Help encourage a strong business community that is invested in maintaining the positive
image of Temple City, especially along its corridors and downtown.
Objective 7: Provide a General Plan that establishes the goals and policies to create a socially-,
economically-, and environmentally-sustainable community.
Objective 8: Ensure that Temple City continues to be a safe, vibrant place to live, work and visit by
providing City services that match the needs of the community and promote community engagement.
Objective 9: Be forward thinking and embrace sustainability, innovation, and technology to continually
improve the City.
Objective 10: Cultivate a special sense and quality of place that sets Temple City apart from its
neighboring cities.
Objective 11: Incorporate new goals, policies, and programs that balance multiple modes of
transportation and meet the requirements of the Complete Streets Act.
Objective 12: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage walking, biking, transit, and other
alternatives to motor vehicles by creating strategies to encourage nonautomotive travel and protect
residential neighborhoods consistent with AB 32, SB 375, and SB 743.
PlaceWorks
Figure 3-1 - Regional Location
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Base Map Source: ESRI, USGS, NOAA, 2016
3. Project Description
0
Scale (Miles)
3
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
Page 3-4 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
Base Map Source: ESRI, USGS, NOAA, 2016
PlaceWorks
Figure 3-2 - Citywide Aerial Photograph
0
Scale (Miles)
0.5
3. Project Description
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Specific Plan Boundary
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
Page 3-6 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
PlaceWorks
Figure 3-3 - Aerial Photograph of Specific Plan Area
Base Map Source: ESRI, USGS, NOAA, 2016
0
Scale (Feet)
500
City Boundary
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
Temple City SOI
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
Page 3-8 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
June 2017 Page 3-9
3.3 VISION, GUIDING PRINCIPLES, AND GOALS
3.3.1 Temple City General Plan Update
The following vision and guiding principles were established for the Temple City 2050 Mid-Century General
Plan, which is an update to the current (1987) Temple City General Plan. Along with the objectives outlined
above, the vison and guiding principles will aid decision makers in their review of the Mid-Century Plan and
associated environmental impacts.
3.3.1.1 VISION
In 2050 Temple City maintains its small-town, family-friendly atmosphere—its safe and attractive
neighborhoods have good neighbors; clean streets, sidewalks, and public spaces; excellent schools; and
thriving local businesses. People who grow up in Temple City can return after college to good jobs, a home
within their budget, and a thriving community where they choose to raise their own families. Downtown and
other commercial areas of the City are vibrant and prosperous, with a diverse mix of new and expanded
businesses that provide a variety of skilled jobs and quality retail, and with places to gather, be entertained,
recreate, and celebrate the community’s history, culture, and diversity. Temple City is “greener” and more
sustainable through investments made to attain water and energy efficiency, improve accessibility, reduce
vehicle commutes, and increase the health and well-being of the community. Streets enable people to get
where they need to go safely, efficiently, and cost effectively—on foot, on bike, on transit, or by vehicle.
Sidewalks serve as the outdoor living room for the community, with places to socialize, celebrate, and play.
Civic and community leaders are innovative and collaborative, and listen and respond to the interests of
residents and the business community. Temple City has an informed, involved, and engaged community with
a strong culture of civic engagement and support for the arts, education, and services that help community
members of all ages to be proud they are from Temple City.
3.3.1.2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The complete list of guiding principles is provided in the Mid-Century Plan. The guiding principles generally
fall under the following categories: quality of life, community character, community facilities and programs, a
“greener” community, and a healthy and safe environment
3.3.2 Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan
The following is a description of the vision, guiding principles, and goals and policies that will guide future
development and redevelopment activities that would occur within the Specific Plan Area–they will also aid
decision makers in their review of the Crossroads Specific Plan and associated environmental impacts.
3.3.2.1 VISION
The Specific Plan Area plays a vital role in the lives of Temple City residents. It is a neighborhood, providing
quality housing for residents of all incomes; it is a destination, offering a unique mix of retail shops, services,
restaurants, and entertainment options; it is a recreation area home to public open space and bicycle and
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
Page 3-10 PlaceWorks
pedestrian paths and trails; it is sustainable, featuring environmentally friendly buildings and landscapes; it is
multi-modal, where people travel to and through the area by foot, bike, bus, or car; and finally, it is a source
of community pride, a place that Temple City residents can bring visiting family and friends, meet neighbors,
and enjoy the quality of life that Temple City offers.
3.3.2.2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The guiding principles along with the Crossroads Specific Plan’s vision provide the foundation for the land
use diagram and design and development standards contained in the Crossroads Specific Plan and serve as a
benchmark for the analysis of future land use, urban design, transportation, and infrastructure decisions to
determine if they are supportive of the vision and intent of the Crossroads Specific Plan.
Mix of Uses. The Specific Plan Area will transition from its predominately auto-oriented, commercial-
strip development pattern into an attractive and desirable community destination, home to distinct sub-
districts that provide a mix of uses and functions serving Temple City residents and visitors from across
the San Gabriel Valley.
Sustainability and Healthy Living. The Specific Plan Area will be a model of sustainable development
and healthy living concepts. Buildings, landscaping, and infrastructure will be energy and water efficient
and the area’s development pattern and mix of uses will encourage active transportation and physical
activity, social interaction, and provide access to healthy foods, health and wellness facilities, and
education.
Enhanced Public Spaces. New public and semi-public open spaces, such as plazas, pocket parks, and
greenways, will create a network of useable and passive recreation areas suited to a variety of activities,
including relaxation, reflection, recreation, performance spaces, and art and cultural activities.
Mobility and Circulation. Residents, employees, and visitors will enjoy safe, comfortable, and well
connected bicycle and pedestrian facilities. These facilities will allow individuals the opportunity to walk,
bike, or use other forms of active transportation for recreation or daily trips. Additionally, the Specific
Plan Area will embrace advances in automobile transportation such as ride-sharing and on-demand
vehicle use.
Economic Vitality and Diversity. The Crossroads Specific Plan will support a diverse and vibrant
economic base to ensure the long-term fiscal health and sustainability of the Specific Plan Area and the
City as a whole. The mix of possible uses includes innovative start-up and local businesses, national
retailers, and high-tech companies, as well as the necessary infrastructure, services, and amenities to
support these.
Development Scale. Existing large blocks within the Specific Plan Area will be sub-divided into more
walkable, pedestrian-oriented blocks by new streets, paseos, and multi-use paths. The scale and character
of development will respect existing neighborhoods and contribute to an active, vibrant, people-focused
environment.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
June 2017 Page 3-11
Community Context. The Specific Plan Area’s buildings and public spaces will be located, designed, and
scaled to respect adjacent residential neighborhoods and recognize the existing physical form and context
of the community. Buildings and public spaces will embrace a range of architectural styles and feature
durable materials demonstrating investment, longevity, and encouraging people to stop, linger, and enjoy
the area.
3.3.2.3 GOALS AND POLICIES
The Mid-Century Plan establishes goals and policies for Temple City’s mixed-use districts, including the
Specific Plan Area. The goals and policies are focused on the mix of uses, development scale, development
compatibility, design integration, and onsite amenities. The Crossroads Specific Plan’s vision, guiding
principles, standards, and guidelines seek to implement the goals and policies for the Specific Plan Area
established by the Mid-Century Plan.
Mid-Century Plan Goals and Policies
A detailed list of goals and policies applicable to the Crossroads Specific Plan are included in the Mid-
Century Plan. For example, Goal LU 14 (Mixed Use Districts) of the Land Use Element calls for well-
designed and cohesive districts and corridors containing an integrated mix of residential with commercial
and/or office uses that create vibrant and safe pedestrian-active environments in Temple City, reducing
automobile use, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions
Specific Plan Policies
In addition to the goal and policies developed for the Specific Plan Area in the Mid-Century Plan, the
following policies support the vision for the Specific Plan Area and guided preparation of the Crossroads
Specific Plan.
Crossroads Policy 1: Accommodate the transition of the Specific Plan Area from an auto-oriented
commercial corridor to a mixed-use, multi-modal area with housing, retail and services, restaurants, and
recreation and open space.
Crossroads Policy 2: Ensure uses within the Specific Plan Area are compatible with one another and
create synergy and vitality within the plan area.
Crossroads Policy 3: Encourage the Mixed-Use Core be developed in a comprehensive, non-piecemeal
manner that establishes a critical mass of residents, employees, and visitors to the area.
Crossroads Policy 4: Require new development to employ sustainable building and site design practices
that support pedestrian activity and minimize water use and energy consumption.
Crossroads Policy 5: Create a network of streets through the area appropriate for the mix of land uses
and encourages walking, biking, and transit use.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
Page 3-12 PlaceWorks
Crossroads Policy 6: Create new connections, especially pedestrian and bicycle connections, and
recreation and open space in concert with new development and public improvements.
Crossroads Policy 7: Encourage the development of new public open space improvements, including
improving and activating the Eaton Wash, as part of new development projects or through acquisition of
land with fees collected from developers or other methods.
3.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
“Project,” as defined by the CEQA Guidelines, means:
... the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the
environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that is any
of the following: (1)…enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and
amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code
Sections 65100–65700. (14 Cal. Code of Reg. § 15378[a])
The project analyzed in this DEIR consists of the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan. For the
Mid-Century Plan, the DEIR compares the buildout potential (2050) for the proposed general plan land use
diagram with existing on-the-ground conditions as of the Notice of Preparation dated September 2016
(existing baseline). For the Crossroads Specific Plan, the DEIR compares the buildout potential (2035) for the
proposed specific plan land use diagram with existing baseline conditions (2016).
3.4.1 Project Background
The current (1987) Temple City General Plan was adopted on April 21, 1987, and comprises six elements,
which encompass the seven elements required by the state of California under California Government Code
Section 65302. Per Section 65302, there are seven mandatory elements of a general plan—land use, housing,
circulation, open space, conservation, noise, and safety. State law does not require that these elements be
organized in a particular fashion, and it allows for additional elements as the jurisdiction deems necessary to
address local needs and objectives. Elements in the current (1987) Temple City General Plan are listed in
Table 3-1. The existing land uses, conditions, and statistical summaries of the Plan Area are described in
detail in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting.
Table 3-1 Current General Plan Elements
Temple City 1987 General Plan Elements State-Required Elements
Land use (1987) Land Use
Circulation (1987) Circulation
Housing (2014) Housing
Resource Management (1987) Open Space
Conservation
Noise (1987) Noise
Public Safety (1987) Safety
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
June 2017 Page 3-13
3.4.2 Description of the Project
The project involves adoption and implementation of the Temple City 2050 Mid-Century General Plan and
Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan, herein after referred to as “Proposed Project”. Following is a
discussion of each of the components of the Proposed Project.
3.4.2.1 PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
The Temple City 2050 Mid-Century General Plan (Mid-Century Plan), which is an update to the current
(1987) Temple City General Plan, is intended to guide and shape development in the City and its SOI over
the next 35 years. A general plan is the principal long-range policy and planning document for guiding the
physical development, conservation, and enhancement of California cities and counties. Following is a
description of the key elements of the Mid-Century Plan.
Proposed General Plan Elements
The Mid-Century Plan involves reorganization of the current (1987) Temple City General Plan into six
elements, which include and/or incorporate six of the seven state-required General Plan elements (the
Housing Element was updated by the City as part of a previous effort), as well as an optional Economic
Development element. The elements of the Mid-Century Plan include:
The Community Services Element plans for the provision of public services, including education,
recreational programs and parks, libraries, schools, police, fire, and health services, as well as public
utilities and infrastructure consistent with the City’s growth and development strategy. Its components
include:
Public Facilities
Art & Culture
Education
Public Safety
Recreation & Open Space
Utilities
The Natural Resources Element addresses issues related to future air quality and climate change in the
community. It focuses on key topics related to the conservation and enhancement of the natural
environment. Its components include:
Air Quality & Climate
Natural Environment
Water Resources
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
Page 3-14 PlaceWorks
The Hazards Element plans for the welfare and safety of people/individuals and their property by
identifying and mitigating potential effects of natural and man-made disasters, including, but not limited
to, earthquakes, flooding, fires, hazardous waste, and other disasters. It also identifies existing and
potential noise sources within the community and strategies to minimize the exposure of residents to
noise. Its components include:
Fire
Flooding
Hazardous Wastes & Materials
Noise
Seismic
Wind
Emergency Preparedness
The Land Use Element addresses issues related to the growth, development, and the built environment.
It presents goals and policies pertaining to how existing development is to be maintained and enhanced
and new development is to occur, and it includes an overview of the General Plan’s standards for
population density and building intensity. Its components include:
Land Use Diagram & Development Standards
Citywide Goals & Policies
Neighborhoods & Districts
Community Places
The Mobility Element addresses the identification, location, and extent of existing and proposed major
thoroughfares, transportation routes, multimodal transportation options, and local public utilities and
facilities. It serves as an infrastructure plan and is correlated with the Land Use Element. Its components
include:
Livable Streets
Parking
Pedestrian Network
Bicycle Network
Transit Service
Sustainable Transportation
Monitoring
Regional Connectivity
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
June 2017 Page 3-15
The Economic Development Element identifies the City’s strategy for maintaining a strong economic
base and a fiscal balance that permits continued and enhanced levels of high-quality public services
within the community. It includes long-range goals for the community and policies to guide decision
making relative to economic development issues. Its components include:
Business Environment
Workforce Engagement
Real Estate Investment
Lifestyle Enrichment
Fiscal Sustainability
Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations and Buildout Projections
All California cities are required to identify development projections (i.e., a “buildout analysis”) in their
general plans. The buildout analysis refers to the reasonable development and growth associated with the land
uses adopted in a general plan. The analysis considers housing units, households, residents, jobs, and
nonresidential square footage. Buildout is important for several reasons—in particular, it allows a city to
adequately plan for roads, water service, parks, recreation, and other infrastructure and services.
Table 3 -2 outlines the land use designations proposed for the Plan Area and buildout projections for dwelling
units, residents, nonresidential building space, and employment that would be accommodated under the Mid-
Century Plan. The buildout projections represent reasonable development based on average levels of density
and intensity for each land use designation. The table also summarizes the acreage for each land use
designation and provides a comparison between existing and proposed conditions. Proposed land use
designations under the Mid-Century Plan are shown in Figure 3-4, Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram.
Table 3-2 Estimated General Plan Land Use Designations and Buildout Projections
Proposed Land Use Designation Acres1
Assumed Density (du/ac)2
Assumed Intensity (FAR) Dwelling Units Population3,4
Nonresidential Building Space (square feet) Employees5
City of Temple City
Residential Low 1,340 6 — 8,040 26,105 — —
Residential Medium 252 12 — 3,019 9,516 — —
Residential High 100 28 — 2,809 5,365 — —
Commercial 49 — — — — 947,937 2,722
Mixed Use6 58 36 0.4 628 1,200 1,013,522 2,667
Mixed Use - Specific Plan6,7 53 36 0.4 1,887 3,774 1,082,061 2,848
Industrial 29 — 0.4 — — 518,416 648
Institutional 113 — — — — — 332
Flood Control Channel 32 — — — — — —
Parks 17 — — — — — —
Subtotal 2,043 — — 16,383 45,960 3,561,936 9,217
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
Page 3-16 PlaceWorks
Table 3-2 Estimated General Plan Land Use Designations and Buildout Projections
Proposed Land Use Designation Acres1
Assumed Density (du/ac)2
Assumed Intensity (FAR) Dwelling Units Population3,4
Nonresidential Building Space (square feet) Employees5
Sphere of Influence
CG - General Commercial 14 — 0.5 — — 305,661 598
H30 - Residential 30 51 24 — 1,233 3,286 — —
H9 - Residential 9 403 7 — 2,904 9,983 — —
OS-W - Water 25 — — — — — —
P - Public and Semi-Public 33 — — — — — 39
Subtotal 527 — — 4,137 13,268 305,661 637
Total (City and SOI)7 2,570 — — 20,520 59,228 3,867,597 9,854
Existing Conditions (City and
SOI) 2,570 — — 15,300 46,450 2,819,497 6,654
Difference — — — 5,220 12,778 1,048,100 3,200
Notes: du/ac = dwelling units per acre; FAR = floor area ratio The Mid-Century Plan projections refer to realistic long-term development expected under the proposed land use plan over the next 35 years. The projections detailed in this table represent a likely amount of development over the long term based on average levels of density and intensity as properties transition over time.
1 Acres are given as adjusted gross acreages, which do not include the rights-of-way for major roadways, flood control facilities, or railroads.
2 Density/intensity includes both residential density, expressed as dwelling units per acre, and nonresidential intensity, expressed as floor-area-ratio (FAR), which is the
amount of building square feet in relation to the size of the lot. Historically, citywide buildout levels do not achieve the maximum allowable density/intensity on every
parcel and are, on average, lower than allowed by the current (1987) Temple City General Plan. Accordingly, the projections in the Mid-Century Plan do not assume buildout at the maximum density or intensity and are adjusted downward to account for variations in development.
3 Estimates of population by land use designation are based on reasonable person-per-household factors identified by the 2012 Department of Finance.
4 A 4.5 percent vacancy rate was assumed for population based on the 2013 5-Year American Community Survey.
5 Estimates of jobs by land use designation are based on employment generation rates derived from the Updated Land Use Survey in the Mid-Century Plan (Temple City
2013).
6 Mixed-Use designations assumed 30 percent residential and 70 percent nonresidential uses. While this mix should be used as a guideline for development, the ultimate
composition of the Mixed-Use area may vary in response to market conditions.
7 Within the Specific Plan Area, full buildout assumptions (vs. reasonable) were made for Traffic Analysis Zone 60210456.
As shown in Table 3-2, reasonable buildout of the Plan Area under the Mid-Century Plan would allow for
approximately 20,520 residential units (5,220 more than existing conditions) and 3,867,597 square feet of
nonresidential uses (commercial, office, industrial, and institutional; 1,048,100 more than existing conditions).
These land use changes are anticipated to generate 12,778 additional residents and 3,200 additional workers to
the Plan Area compared to existing conditions.
Proposed General Plan Goals and Policies
A detailed list of goals and policies that govern the decisions of Temple City is included in the Mid-Century
Plan.
3.4.2.2 PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN
The proposed Crossroads Specific Plan would establish a land use, development, and implementation
framework to allow for enhancement and redevelopment of the 72.55-acres covered under the Crossroads
Specific Plan (see Figure 3-3, Aerial Photograph of Specific Plan Area) in accordance with the vision, goals, and
policies of the Mid-Century Plan. The Mid-Century Plan establishes a new land-use designation for the
Specific Plan Area, “Mixed-Use Specific Plan” (see Figure 3-4, Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram).
Base Map Source: ESRI, USGS, NOAA, 2015; Temple City
PlaceWorks
Figure 3-4 - Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram
0
Scale (Miles)
0.5
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
Page 3-18 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
June 2017 Page 3-19
The California Government Code (Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 2, Article 8, Sections 65450–65457 [Specific
Plans]) provides authority for a city to adopt a specific plan by ordinance (as a regulatory plan) or resolution
(as a policy plan). When a specific plan is adopted by ordinance, the specific plan effectively replaces portions
or all of the current zoning regulations for specified parcels and becomes an independent set of zoning
regulations that provide specific direction to the type and intensity of uses permitted or define other types of
design and permitting criteria. The Crossroads Specific Plan would be adopted by the Temple City City
Council as ordinance and function as the regulatory document serving as the implementing zoning for the
Specific Plan Area, thereby ensuring the orderly and systematic implementation of the Mid-Century Plan.
The Crossroads Specific Plan would act as a bridge between the Mid-Century Plan and development activities
that would occur throughout the Specific Plan Area.
The Crossroads Specific Plan would provide the flexibility, innovative use of land resources and development,
a variety of housing and other nonresidential development types, and an equitable method of vehicular,
public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access for development of the Specific Plan Area. The Crossroads
Specific Plan is also intended to be more flexible than conventional zoning to encourage new investment,
improvements, and development throughout the Specific Plan Area. The Crossroads Specific Plan establishes
the necessary land use plan; development standards and regulations; design guidelines; infrastructure systems
(e.g., circulation, drainage, water, and wastewater); and implementation strategies/programs on which
subsequent, project-related development and redevelopment activities would be founded.
It is intended that design review plans, detailed site plans, grading and building permits, or any other action
requiring ministerial or discretionary approval applicable to the Specific Plan Area be consistent with the
intent of the Crossroads Specific Plan. Subsequent projects determined to be consistent with the Crossroads
Specific Plan would likewise be determined to be consistent with the Mid-Century Plan.
Upon adoption, the Crossroads Specific Plan would allow mixed-use development up to a density of 2.0 FAR
(floor area ratio). As shown in Table 3-3, buildout of the Specific Plan Area, which is the reasonable buildout
of the area through the year 2035, would increase the number of residential units in the Specific Plan Area to
approximately 1,887 dwelling units—roughly 1,837 more than existing conditions. The Crossroads Specific
Plan also increases potential commercial building square footage to approximately 1,082,061 square feet–a net
increase of approximately 454,713 square feet over existing conditions. As also shown in Table 3-3, an
increase in population and the number of employees would also occur as a result of the residential and
nonresidential development, respectively, that would be accommodated under the Crossroads Specific Plan.
The proposed land use plan for the Specific Plan Area is shown in Figure 3-5 Specific Plan Land Use Diagram.
Table 3-3 Land Use Projections for Specific Plan Area
Dwelling Units Population Commercial Square Feet Employees
Existing Land Use 50 101 627,348 1,652
Development Projected Under the Specific Plan1 1,887 3,774 1,082,061 2,848
Difference 1,837 3,673 454,713 1,196
1 While it is assumed that full buildout of the Plan Area under the Mid-Century Plan is not likely to occur, buildout of the Specific Plan Area is anticipated.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
Page 3-20 PlaceWorks
Land Use Districts
As shown in Figure 3-5, Specific Plan Land Use Diagram, the Crossroads Specific Plan establishes four land use
districts within the Specific Plan Area, each of which is described below. It delineates the boundaries of these
districts and assigns a specific designation to each individual property within the Specific Plan Area. The
location of each district is based on the desired distribution and mix of uses, development densities and
intensities, and urban form characteristics within the Specific Plan Area.
Neighborhood Transition
The Neighborhood Transition (NT) district is intended to accommodate a range of residential uses including
single-family, multifamily, and live-work units, while respecting the character and scale of the existing adjacent
residential development. The NT district provides an area of transition from the higher-intensity mixed-use
and commercial core districts of the Specific Plan Area to the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The NT
district allows residential development up to 30 dwelling units per acre.
Commercial Core
The Commercial Core (CC) district accommodates a diversity of commercial uses serving residents,
employees, and visitors. The range of commercial uses include retail stores (supermarkets, furniture,
appliances, etc.), general services (beauty stores and barbershops, copy shops, etc.), and restaurants and dining
options. Commercial uses in the CC district are permitted to be developed at a maximum 0.5 FAR.
Mixed-Use Core
The Mixed-Use Core (MU-C) district provides for the development of an active mixed-use environment for
Temple City and San Gabriel Valley residents to live, work, dine, be entertained, recreate, and relax. It allows
for the intermixing of a diversity of land uses that facilitate walking, biking, and other forms of active
transportation. Mixed-use buildings are encouraged in the MU-C district, integrating commercial uses with
multifamily residential units. Mixed-use projects are permitted at a maximum 2.0 FAR, including a maximum
0.5 commercial FAR and maximum 1.5 residential FAR.
Mixed-Use Boulevard
The Mixed-Use Boulevard (MU-B) district is intended to allow for the development of a mixed-use corridor
along Rosemead Boulevard between Las Tunas Drive and Olive Street. The MU-B district concentrates
mixed-use development at key street intersections, while allowing stand-alone multi-family residential and
commercial buildings in the interior of the corridor. Like the MU-C district, the mix of uses would be unified
by their urban form and relationship to street frontages and adjoining parcels. Mixed-use projects are
permitted at a maximum 1.75 FAR, including a 0.5 commercial FAR and 1.25 residential FAR. Stand-alone
multi-family residential buildings are permitted at a maximum density of 55 dwelling units per acre.
NT
CC
MU-BMU-C
5/13/2016 0 100 200 300 400
Feet| Community DiagramTemple City Crossroads Specific Plan
District
NT, Neighborhood Transition
CC, Commercial Core
MU-B, Mixed-Use Boulevard
MU-C, Mixed-Use Core
Specific Plan Boundary
Temple City Boundary
NT
CC
MU-BMU-C
5/13/2016 0 100 200 300 400
Feet| Community DiagramTemple City Crossroads Specific Plan
District
NT, Neighborhood Transition
CC, Commercial Core
MU-B, Mixed-Use Boulevard
MU-C, Mixed-Use Core
Specific Plan Boundary
Temple City Boundary
Figure 3-5 - Specific Plan Land Use Diagram3. Project Description
PlaceWorks
Base Map Source: ESRI, USGS, NOAA, 2016
0
Scale (Feet)
300
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
Page 3-22 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
June 2017 Page 3-23
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
The Crossroads Specific Plan contains detailed development standards and design guidelines that are
applicable to all development activities within the Specific Plan Area. The development standards identify the
land uses and densities and intensities permitted for each land use district, and regulate the features of site
development and buildings that contribute to the urban form and affect the public realm, including building
height, types, and setbacks; required onsite open space; streetscape design; parking; and signage.
The design guidelines contained in the Crossroads Specific Plan are intended to promote high-quality, well-
designed, site-appropriate development within the Specific Plan Area. The design guidelines direct the
physical design of building sites; architecture; landscape, open space, and streetscapes; and public art, signage
and lighting within the Specific Plan Area. Whereas the development standards are mandatory requirements
for new development to follow, design guidelines provide flexibility for developers.
Together, the Crossroads Specific Plan’s development standards and design guidelines provide a framework
for property owners, developers, designers, and City staff to follow when planning and reviewing
development projects.
Mobility Plan
The focus of the Crossroads Specific Plan’s m obility plan is improving circulation and access for pedestrians,
bicycles, transit users, and vehicular travel. The mobility plan envisions that existing land uses and new land
uses that would be accommodated under the Crossroads Specific Plan would be knitted together through a
series of multi-modal connections—including the establishment of connections to the larger local and
regional mobility and circulation network.
The mobility plan provides guidance for future improvements to the existing public right-of-way and
potential new streets associated with new development projects. It also describes multi-modal mobility
concepts for the Specific Plan Area, including pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and vehicular networks, with
potential improvements to each of these systems to best serve residents, employees, and visitors.
The mobility plan is not prescriptive, as future improvements would be implemented gradually and
opportunistically in coordination with future development; rather, it provides a conceptual framework to
achieve the vision of a multi-modal transportation network for the area. Additional analysis and engineering
will be necessary at the time of individual development projects to determine the exact need, type, and
dimensions of transportation improvements.
Pedestrian Concept Plan
Improved pedestrian access and circulation is a key component of the Specific Plan Area, including enhanced
pedestrian connections to the area from adjacent residential neighborhoods and commercial districts and
greater internal circulation for pedestrians within the area. As such, the Crossroads Specific Plan proposes an
improved pedestrian access and circulation concept focusing on potential new pedestrian connections,
crossings, amenities, and a new multi-use pedestrian and bicycle path along Eaton Wash (see Figure 3-6,
Specific Plan Pedestrian Concept Plan). The proposed pedestrian improvements are envisioned to facilitate a more
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
Page 3-24 PlaceWorks
inviting and comfortable pedestrian environment that encourages walking for transportation, recreation, or
leisure.
Bicycle Concept Plan
Temple City has a Bicycle Master Plan, which features proposed improvements to the bicycle network
throughout the City. In helping implement the City’s Bicycle Master Plan, proposed improvements in the
Specific Plan Area consist of a Bicycle Boulevard along Olive Street, as well as a proposed Class II bicycle
lane along Las Tunas Drive. With the proper cycling infrastructure and facilities in place and secure bicycle
storage and amenities available at key destinations, many trips to and within the Specific Plan Area would be
achieved by bicycle.
The Crossroads Specific Plan’s b icycle concept plan (see Figure 3-7, Specific Plan Bicycle Concept Plan), is
intended to leverage the City’s existing investment in bicycle infrastructure through additional amenities and
enhancements, enable safe, convenient, and accessible bicycle transportation and recreation for residents,
employees, or visitors of all ages and abilities.
Street Concept Plan
Major roadways in the Specific Plan Area include Rosemead Boulevard, Las Tunas Drive, and Broadway, as
shown in Figure 3-8, Specific Plan Street Concept Plan. These roadways provide users with both local and regional
connections to the Specific Plan Area. There is also the potential to provide smaller internal streets within
certain development areas of the Crossroads Specific Plan, as shown in Figure 3-8. Key components of the
street concept plan include the provision of enhanced multi-modal internal circulation and breaking up large
street blocks. Breaking up large street blocks such as the ones that occur within the Specific Plan Area would
increase the number of street crossings, providing flexibility in routes, and provide additional areas of human
activity and interaction, such as street corners.
Transit Concept Plan
Transit service in the Specific Plan Area is provided by four Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Metro) routes, serving six stops. The transit concept plan calls for several improvements
throughout the Specific Plan Area, which would help improve public transit in the area. Key components of
the transit concept plan include the provision of enhanced pedestrian access to transit and the provision of a
mix of land uses, which would in turn have a positive impact on the transit user experience.
As the Specific Plan Area transitions to a more dense, mixed-use neighborhood, more residents would live
within proximity to transit stops and likely support increased transit service. Additionally, as commercial and
recreational opportunities increase in the Specific Plan Area, residents of surrounding neighborhoods and
communities may be more likely to travel to the Specific Plan Area via transit.
PlaceWorks
Figure 3-6 - Specific Plan Pedestrian Concept Plan
Base Map Source: ESRI, USGS, NOAA, 2016
0
Scale (Feet)
500
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Existing Sidewalks
Potential Development
Potential Sidewalks
Eaton Wash Path
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
Page 3-26 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
PlaceWorks
Figure 3-7 - Specific Plan Bicycle Concept Plan
Base Map Source: ESRI, USGS, NOAA, 2017
Potential
Class I - Bike Path
Potential Development
Bike Lockers
Bike Racks
Existing
Class II - Bike Lane
Potential
Class II - Bike Lane
Potential
Class III - Bike Route
Potential
Bicycle Boulevard
0
Scale (Feet)
500
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
Page 3-28 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
PlaceWorks
Figure 3-8 - Specific Plan Street Concept Plan
Base Map Source: ESRI, USGS, NOAA, 2017
Existing Streets
Potential Development
Potential Streets
0
Scale (Feet)
500
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
Page 3-30 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
June 2017 Page 3-31
Parking Concept Plan
The increased densities and greater land use mix envisioned for the Specific Plan Area would create
opportunities to develop improved parking management strategies while balancing goals for enhanced
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use. Parking management strategies include the provision of public and private
parking structures, shared parking facilities, and valet or tandem parking.
Utility Infrastructure Plan
In addition to the proposed development that would be accommodated by the Crossroads Specific Plan,
improvements to utility infrastructure and systems would be required to support development that would be
accommodated by the Crossroads Specific Plan. Proposed onsite infrastructure improvements could include
new and/or expanded storm drains, wastewater, water, and dry utilities that would connect to existing
facilities throughout and adjacent to the Specific Plan Area. Improvements to existing streets could also be
needed to accommodate utility improvements.
Phasing Plan
Given the unique characteristics of the Specific Plan Area, including land ownership patterns, lot
configurations, and previously implemented streetscape improvements, it is anticipated that implementation
of the Crossroads Specific Plan and phasing of development will largely depend on private investment and
development. Therefore, a variety of economic, market, and demographic factors will ultimately determine
the timing and extent of private development. The Crossroads Specific Plan would be implemented on a
parcel by parcel basis as future development applications are submitted to the City. Public realm
improvements would occur as funding becomes available, since many of the public funding sources needed
to pay for improvements depend on new development. However, for purposes of environmental analysis in
this DEIR and as noted above, reasonable buildout of the Specific Plan Area is anticipated to occur by 2035.
3.5 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR
This is a program-level DEIR that examines the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project.
This DEIR also addresses various actions by Temple City and others to adopt and implement the Mid-
Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan. It is the intent of the DEIR to evaluate the environmental
impacts of the Proposed Project, thereby enabling Temple City, other responsible agencies, and interested
parties to make informed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements. The anticipated approvals
required for this project are:
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
3. Project Description
Page 3-32 PlaceWorks
Lead Agency Action
Temple City City Council
Certification of the Temple City 2050 Mid-Century General Plan and Temple City
Crossroads Specific Plan DEIR
Adoption of Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program
Adoption of the Temple City 2050 Mid-Century General Plan and Temple City
Crossroads Specific Plan
Responsible Agencies Action
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control
Board
Issuance of a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) for
future construction activities
June 2017 Page 4-1
4. Environmental Setting
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to provide, pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, a “description of the physical environmental conditions in the
vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, from both a local and a
regional perspective” (Guidelines § 15125[a]). Additional details of the environmental setting for each
environmental topic analyzed in this DEIR are provided in each topical section in Chapter 5, Environmental
Analysis. The environmental setting provides the baseline physical conditions from which the lead agency will
determine the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the Proposed Project.
4.2 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4.2.1 Regional Location
4.2.1.1 PLAN AREA
Temple City and its Sphere of Influence (SOI), or the Plan Area, encompass approximately four square miles
(or 2,570 acres) in the west-central San Gabriel Valley in central-east Los Angeles County, California. The San
Gabriel Valley is surrounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, the San Rafael Hills and Repetto
Hills to the west, the Puente Hills to the south, and the San Jose Hills to the east.
The Plan Area is approximately five miles southeast of Pasadena and 13 miles northeast of downtown Los
Angeles, as shown in Figure 3-1, Regional Location. Temple City is a built-out city surrounded by the City of
San Gabriel to the west; Rosemead and El Monte to the south; El Monte and unincorporated Los Angeles
County to the east; and Arcadia to the north (see Figure 3-2, Citywide Aerial). Regional access to the Plan Area
is from Interstate 10 (I-10) and I-210, approximately 0.8 mile south and 1.8 miles north, respectively, of the
City boundary.
4.2.1.2 SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
The regional location information outlined above also applies to the area covered under the Crossroads
Specific Plan, or the Specific Plan Area.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
4. Environmental Setting
Page 4-2 PlaceWorks
4.2.2 Regional Planning Considerations
4.2.2.1 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Temple City is in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which is managed by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD). Pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources
are regulated by federal and state law. Air pollutants for which ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have
been developed are known as criteria air pollutants; these are ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), volatile
organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide, coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10),
fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead. VOC and NOx are criteria pollutant precursors and go on
to form secondary criteria pollutants, such a as O3, through chemical and photochemical reactions in the
atmosphere. Air basins are classified as attainment/nonattainment areas for particular pollutants, depending
on whether they meet AAQS for that pollutant. The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM2.5, PM10,
and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the California and National AAQS and nonattainment for NO2
under the California AAQS.
The Proposed Project’s consistency with the applicable AAQS is discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality.
4.2.2.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTION LEGISLATION
Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are
generally embodied in Executive Order S-03-05; Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions
Act (2008); and Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act.
Executive Order S-03-05, signed June 1, 2005, set the following GHG reduction targets for the State of
California:
2000 levels by 2010
1990 levels by 2020
80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050
AB 32 was passed by the state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing
its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 tier of emissions reduction targets established in
Executive Order S-3-05. Based on the GHG emissions inventory conducted for the 2008 Scoping Plan, the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 million metric tons of
carbon dioxide-equivalent (MMTCO2e) for the state (CARB 2008). Since release of the 2008 Scoping Plan,
CARB has updated the statewide GHG emissions inventory to reflect GHG emissions in light of the
economic downturn and of measures not previously considered in the 2008 Scoping Plan baseline inventory.
The updated forecast predicts emissions to be 507 MMTCO2e by 2020. The new inventory identifies that an
estimated 80 MMTCO2e of reductions are necessary to achieve the statewide emissions reduction of AB 32
by 2020 (CARB 2012).
In 2008, SB 375 was adopted to connect the GHG emissions reductions targets established in the 2008
Scoping Plan for the transportation sector to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Its intent is
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
4. Environmental Setting
June 2017 Page 4-3
to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with goods
movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations to local
land use planning to reduce vehicle miles traveled and vehicle trips. Specifically, SB 375 requires CARB to
establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 17 regions in California managed by a
metropolitan planning organization (MPO). The Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG)
targets are an 8 percent per capita reduction from 2005 GHG emission levels by 2020 and a 13 percent per
capita reduction from 2005 GHG emission levels by 2035 (CARB 2010). The proposed targets would result
in 3 MMTCO2e of reductions by 2020 and 15 MMTCO2e of reductions by 2035. Based on these reductions,
the passenger vehicle target in CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan (for AB 32) would be met (CARB 2012).
The Proposed Project’s ability to meet the regional GHG emissions reduction target goals is analyzed in detail
in Section 5.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
4.2.2.3 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
SCAG is a council of governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,
and Ventura counties. SCAG is the federally recognized MPO for this region, which encompasses over 38,000
square miles. SCAG is a regional planning agency and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning
transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG is also the regional
clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under federal and state law. In this role,
SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze their impacts on regional
planning programs. As the southern California region’s MPO, SCAG cooperates with SCAQMD, the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and other agencies in preparing regional planning
documents. SCAG has developed regional plans to achieve specific regional objectives, as discussed below
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016-2040 RTP/SCS) was
adopted in April 2016. The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility
and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS charts a
course for closely integrating land use and transportation – so that the region can grow smartly and
sustainably (SCAG 2016). Major themes in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS include integrating strategies for land use
and transportation; striving for sustainability; protecting and preserving existing transportation infrastructure;
increasing capacity through improved systems managements; providing more transportation choices;
leveraging technology; responding to demographic and housing market changes; supporting commerce,
economic growth, and opportunity; promoting the links between public health, environmental protection,
and economic opportunity; and incorporating the principles of social equity and environmental justice.
The SCS portion of the RTP/SCS outlines a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated
with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce GHG
emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement). The SCS is meant to provide growth strategies
that will achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets identified by CARB. The SCS does not
require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS, but provides incentives
to governments and developers for consistency.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
4. Environmental Setting
Page 4-4 PlaceWorks
Unique to the SCAG region is the option for subregions to create their own SCS. However, the San Gabriel
Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG), of which the Tempe City is a member jurisdiction, has not
chosen to do this. Instead, SGVCOG relies on SCAG’s 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.
The Proposed Project’s consistency with the applicable 2016-2040 RTP/SCS goals and guiding policies is
analyzed in detail in Sections 5.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and 5.9, Land Use and Planning.
4.2.2.4 LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is Los Angeles County’s designated
congestion management agency. Metro is responsible for the conformance monitoring and updating of Los
Angeles County’s Congestion Management Program (CMP), a multimodal program. The most recent CMP
was issued by Metro in 2010. The goals of the CMP are to link local land use decisions with their impacts on
regional transportation and air quality, and to develop a partnership among transportation decision makers on
devising appropriate transportation solutions that include all modes of travel. To meet these goals, the CMP
provides:
Tracking and analysis to determine how the regional highway and transit systems are performing.
Local analysis of the impacts of local land use decisions on regional transportation.
Local implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) design guidelines that ensure new
development includes improvements supportive of transit and TDM.
Tracking of new building activity throughout Los Angeles County (Metro 2010).
The Proposed Project’s consistency with the CMP is provided in Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic.
4.2.2.5 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
The Plan Area is in the jurisdictional area of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
(LARWQCB), Region 4. The Plan Area lies within the Rio Hondo Watershed, which comprises 142 square
miles of the much larger 834-square-mile Los Angeles River Watershed. The Water Quality Control Plan for
the Los Angeles Region (Basin Plan) was adopted in 1995. The Basin Plan provides direction on the
beneficial uses of the state waters within Region 4, describes the water quality that must be maintained to
support such uses, and provides programs, projects, and other actions necessary to achieve the standards
established in the Basin Plan.
In 2012, LARWQCB re-issued the County of Los Angeles MS4 Storm Water Permit as WDR Order
R4-2012-0175 (NPDES Permit No. CAS004001). MS4 Permit requirements meet the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System regulations authorized by Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. In order to
comply with the MS4 Permit, a “Low Impact Development (LID) Standards Manual” was developed in 2014
by Los Angeles County, which regulates stormwater and non-stor mwater discharges within the coastal
watersheds of Los Angeles County. Pursuant to the MS4 Permit, Temple City is required to develop and
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
4. Environmental Setting
June 2017 Page 4-5
implement Minimum Control Measures as part of a Stormwater Management Program. In accordance with
this requirement and as a co-permittee of the MS4 Permit, the City prepared and adopted the City of Temple
City LID Technical Guidance Manual.
The Proposed Project’s consistency with the MS4 Permit and the City’s LID Technical Guidance Manual is
discussed in Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality.
4.3 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4.3.1 Location and Land Use
4.3.1.1 PLAN AREA
The Mid-Century Plan covers the entire Plan Area. Temple City, which spans 2,043 acres (or approximately
3.2 square miles), is a built-out city surrounded by the City of San Gabriel to the west; Rosemead and El
Monte to the south; El Monte and unincorporated Los Angeles County to the east; and Arcadia to the north
(see Figure 3-2, Citywide Aerial Photograph). Rosemead Boulevard, which is designated as a California state
highway (State Route 19) traverses Temple City in a north-south alignment. Temple City’s SOI spans 527
acres (or approximately 0.8 square mile) in areas of unincorporated Los Angeles County. The bulk of Temple
City’s SOI is north of the City in the unincorporated Community of East Pasadena-East San Gabriel. Smaller
areas are located east of the City in the unincorporated Community of North El Monte and west of the
southwest City boundary (see Figure 3-2).
Development intensities of existing land uses within the Plan Area, as well as existing demographics, are
summarized in Table 4-1. Existing, on-the-ground land uses are shown in Figure 4-1, Existing Land Uses.
Table 4-1 Existing Land Use Statistical Summary
Existing Land Use Acres1
Assumed Density (du/ac) Dwelling Units Population2,3
Nonresidential Building Space (square feet) Employees
City of Temple City
Single-Family Residential 1,428 6.0 8,568 26,757 — —
Single-Family Detached, Multiple Units 203 6.0 1,217 3,801 — 2
Duplexes, Triplexes, 2 or 3 2 22.5 50 133 — —
Low-Rise Apartments, Condominiums, and Townhomes 83 22.5 1,865 5,022 — —
Senior Housing 5 22.5 114 306 — —
General Office Use 18 — — — 318,442 1,061
Hotels and Motels 1 — — — 26,036 26
Commercial 90 — — — 1,484,639 3,720
Light Industrial 9 — — — 161,647 202
Heavy Industrial 25 — — — 518,211 648
Religious Facilities 25 — — — — 1
Public/Semi-Public 23 — — — — —
Educational Institutions 72 — — — — 305
Local Parks and Recreation 17 — — — — —
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
4. Environmental Setting
Page 4-6 PlaceWorks
Table 4-1 Existing Land Use Statistical Summary
Existing Land Use Acres1
Assumed Density (du/ac) Dwelling Units Population2,3
Nonresidential Building Space (square feet) Employees
Flood and Improved Waterways 32 — — — — —
Railroad 9 — — — — —
Vacant 1 — — — — —
Subtotal 2,043 — 11,813 36,019 2,508,975 5,965
Sphere of Influence
Single-Family Residential 360 6.0 2,160 6,746 — —
Single-Family Detached, Multiple Units 43 6.0 260 811 — —
Duplexes, Triplexes, 2 or 3 1 22.5 29 79 — —
Low-Rise Apartments, Condominiums, and Townhomes 46 22.5 1,038 2,794 — —
Special Care Facilities 2 22.5 — — — —
Nurseries 26 — — — — —
General Office Use 0 — — — 1,580 5
Hotels and Motels 2 — — — 82,278 82
Commercial 12 — — — 226,664 567
Elementary Schools 6 — — — — 35
Electric Power Facilities 2 — — — — —
Flood and Improved Waterways 26 — — — — —
Vacant 1 — — — — —
Subtotal 527 — 3,487 10,431 310,522 689
Total (City and SOI)7 2,570 — 15,300 46,450 2,819,497 6,654
Notes: du/ac = dwelling units per acre
1 Acres are given as adjusted gross acreages, which do not include the rights-of-way for major roadways, flood control facilities, or railroads.
2 Estimates of population by land use designation are based on reasonable person-per-household factors identified by the 2012 Department of Finance.
3 A 4.5 percent vacancy rate was assumed for population based on the 2013 5-Year American Community Survey.
4 Estimates of jobs by land use designation are based on employment generation rates derived from the Updated Land Use Survey in the Mid-Century Plan (Temple City 2013).
5 Exception for employment numbers exist at school sites—where employment is based on of real figures.
As shown in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1, approximately 85 percent of the land area of the Plan Area is
developed with residential uses totaling 15,300 dwelling units. Approximately 80 percent of the total
residential units in the Plan Area are single-family units, with the balance being multifamily units. There is just
over 2.8 million square feet of nonresidential land uses in the Plan Area, approximately 90 percent of which
is in the City. Approximately 75 percent of the nonresidential land uses in the Plan Area are commercial, and
the balance is industrial, public and education. The majority of the nonresidential uses in the Plan Area are in
two corridors—one east-west centered along Las Tunas Drive, and one north-south centered along
Rosemead Boulevard (see Figure 4-1).
PlaceWorks
Figure 4-1 - Existing Land Uses
0
Scale (Miles)
0.5
4. Environmental Setting
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Base Map Source: Temple City. 2015
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
4. Environmental Setting
Page 4-8 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
4. Environmental Setting
June 2017 Page 4-9
4.3.1.2 SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
The Specific Plan Area spans 72.55 acres along a key corridor in the western end of the City. The Crossroads
Specific Plan is centered on the intersection of Las Tunas Drive and Rosemead Boulevard and generally
bounded by Hermosa Drive to the north, Muscatel Avenue and the Eaton Wash Flood Control Channel to
the west, Olive Street and the Eaton Wash Flood Control Channel to the west and south, and Sultana Avenue
to the east (see Figure 3-3, Aerial Photograph of Specific Plan Area).
As shown in Figure 3-3, the Specific Plan Area is currently developed with a mix of commercial, general
service, office, and residential uses. As shown in Table 3-3, Land Use Projections for Specific Plan Area, there are
currently 50 dwelling units and 627,348 square feet of commercial building square footage within the
boundary of the Specific Plan Area.
4.3.2 Surrounding Land Uses
4.3.2.1 PLAN AREA
The Plan Area is surrounded by built-out urban uses, most of which are residential. The San Gabriel Valley
Airport is approximately 0.2 mile southeast of the southeast corner of the City. The Plan Area surrounded by
the City of San Gabriel to the west; Rosemead and El Monte to the south; El Monte and unincorporated Los
Angeles County to the east; and Arcadia to the north (see Figure 3-2, Citywide Aerial Photograph). The Rio
Hondo Channel passes approximately 475 feet southeast of the southeast corner of the City.
4.3.2.2 SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
The Specific Plan Area is surrounded by built-out urban uses, most of which are residential—commercial and
institutional uses also surround portions of the Specific Plan Area, but to a much lesser extent. Eaton Wash
abuts the majority of the western boundary of the Crossroads Specific Plan.
4.3.3 Existing Physical Conditions and Infrastructure
4.3.3.1 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY
Plan Area
The Plan Area is in the SoCAB, which consists of Los Angeles County (excluding the Antelope Valley
portion), Orange County, and the western, nondesert portions of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. Air
quality is affected by both the rate and location of pollutant emissions. Meteorological conditions such as
wind speed, wind direction, solar radiation, and atmospheric stability, along with local topography heavily
influence air quality by affecting the movement and dispersal of pollutants. Predominant meteorological
conditions in the SoCAB are primarily light winds and shallow vertical mixing due to low-altitude temperature
inversion. These conditions, when coupled with the surrounding mountain ranges, hinder the regional
dispersion of air pollutants. The strength and location of a semipermanent, high-pressure cell over the
northern Pacific Ocean is the primary climatological influence on the SoCAB, as is the ocean, which
moderates the local climate by acting like a large heat reservoir. Because of these influences, warm summers,
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
4. Environmental Setting
Page 4-10 PlaceWorks
mild winters, infrequent rainfall, and moderate humidity typify climatic conditions through most of the
SoCAB. These meteorological conditions, in combination with regional topography, are conducive to the
formation and retention of ground-level ozone (O3) and urban smog.
A description of the Proposed Project’s air quality and greenhouse gas impacts is included in Sections 5.2, Air
Quality, and 5.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Specific Plan Area
The above information also applies to the Specific Plan Area.
4.3.3.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Plan Area
Cultural resources include places, objects, and settlements that reflect group or individual religious,
archaeological, architectural, or paleontological activities. Historical resources are buildings, structures,
objects, sites, and districts of significance in history, archaeology, architecture, and culture. Tribal cultural
resources are site features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, or objects that are of cultural value to a
Native American tribe.
There are no known cultural resources in the Plan Area. However, considering that many of the buildings in
the Plan Area are older than 1952, some buildings may be eligible for listing on the California Register of
Historic Resources and/or National Register of Historic Places. Temple City also boasts a variety of historic
architectural styles from each decade from the 1920s through the 1950s, including Craftsman/California
Bungalow (1920s), French Revival (1920s-1940s), Streamline Moderne (late 1930s), Spanish Colonial Revival
(1930s-1940s), English Tudor Revival (1930s-1940s), and Mid-Century Modern (1940s-1950s).
Additionally, although unlikely due to its built-out conditions, there is the potential for tribal cultural
resources to exist within the confines of the Plan Area.
Refer to Sections 5.3, Cultural Resources, and 5.14, Tribal Cultural Resources, for further information concerning
cultural resources and an analysis of the Proposed Project’s impacts on such resources.
Specific Plan Area
The above information also applies to the Specific Plan Area.
4.3.3.3 GEOLOGY AND LANDFORM
Plan Area
The Plan Area is generally flat, with a nearly uniform south-southeast slope of approximately 1.5 percent
grade. Virtually the entire Plan Area is underlain by young alluvial fan deposits, consisting of gravel, sand, and
silt, of Holocene and late Pleistocene age.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
4. Environmental Setting
June 2017 Page 4-11
Refer to Section 5.4, Geology and Soils, for additional information concerning geological and soil conditions
and an analysis of Proposed Project’s impacts on geology and soils.
Specific Plan Area
The above information also applies to the Specific Plan Area.
4.3.3.4 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Plan Area
The Plan Area overlies part of the Main San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin, which underlies 255 square
miles of the San Gabriel Valley. The Plan Area lies within the Rio Hondo Watershed, which comprises 142
square miles of the much larger 834-square-mile Los Angeles River Watershed. The Rio Hondo Channel, an
engineered channel, originates at Santa Fe Dam on the San Gabriel River in the City of Irwindale; and
continues some 16 miles southwest until discharging into the Los Angeles River in the City of South Gate.
The Rio Hondo Channel passes approximately 475 feet south of the southeast corner of the Plan Area.
Major drainage channels in the Plan Area include Eaton Wash, which passes near the western boundary of
the Plan Area boundary; and Arcadia Wash, which passes through the eastern part of the Plan Area.
The portion of the Plan Area east of Arcadia Wash is in the dam inundation area of Big Santa Anita Dam,
which is on the Santa Anita Wash approximately five miles north of the Plan Area (OES 2016).
Refer to Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional information regarding hydrological conditions
and an analysis of the Proposed Project’s impacts on hydrology and water quality. Water resources and storm
drainage are also discussed in Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems.
Specific Plan Area
The above information regarding regional drainage also applies to the Specific Plan Area.
Additionally, the existing drainage system in and abutting the Specific Plan Area consists of Eaton Wash,
which passes along most of the western site boundary and through part of the northwestern end of the
Specific Plan Area; four storm drains traverse the Specific Plan Area west of Rosemead Boulevard.
However, the Specific Plan Area is not in a dam inundation area mapped by the Office of Emergency
Services.
Refer to Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional information regarding hydrological conditions
and an analysis of the Proposed Project’s impacts on hydrology and water quality. Water resources and storm
drainage are also discussed in Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
4. Environmental Setting
Page 4-12 PlaceWorks
4.3.3.5 NOISE
Plan Area
The Plan Area is impacted by a multitude of existing mobile and stationary noise sources. Mobile sources of
noise, especially cars and trucks, are the most common and significant sources of noise in most communities,
including Temple City. The dominant mobile-related noise sources in the Plan Area are Rosemead Boulevard
(State Route 19), Las Tunas Drive, Longden Avenue, and Baldwin Avenue, as well as surface streets. Some
areas of the Plan Area are also exposed to aircraft noise from the San Gabriel Valley Airport, a public airport
in El Monte, which is approximately 750 feet south of the Plan Area boundary. Additionally, a small portion
of the southern end of the Plan Area experiences train noise from a Union Pacific rail line that passes along
the southeastern-most edge of the Plan Area, between Temple City Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard.
In addition to traffic noise, commercial and industrial uses generate noise from stationary sources such as
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems; truck deliveries; and machinery. Noise generated by
residential or commercial uses are generally short and intermittent. Industrial uses may generate noise on a
more continual basis due to the nature of those activities.
Refer to Section 5.9, Noise, for further information concerning existing noise conditions in the Plan Area and
an analysis of the Proposed Project’s impacts on the local and regional noise environment.
Specific Plan Area
The above information also applies to the Specific Plan Area.
4.3.3.6 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Plan Area
Public services and utilities are provided to the Plan Area by providers listed in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2 Public Service and Utility Providers
Public Services
Police Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services Los Angeles County Fire Department
Public Schools Temple City Unified School District
Arcadia Unified School District
El Monte City School District
Rosemead School District
San Gabriel Unified School District
Library County of Los Angeles Public Library
Parks City of Temple City Parks and Recreation Department
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
4. Environmental Setting
June 2017 Page 4-13
Table 4-2 Public Service and Utility Providers
Utilities
Water Delivery California American Water
East Pasadena Water Company
Golden State Water Company
Sunny Slope Water Company
San Gabriel County Water District
Wastewater Collection Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District of Los Angeles County
Wastewater Treatment Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
Solid Waste Collection Athens Services
Solid Waste Disposal (Landfills) Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
Electricity Southern California Edison
Natural Gas Southern California Gas Company
Refer to Sections 5.11, Public Services, and 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, for additional information regarding
public services and utilities and service systems, respectively, and an analysis of project impacts on services
and utilities.
Specific Plan Area
The above information also applies to the Specific Plan Area.
4.3.3.7 SCENIC VISTAS AND FEATURES
Plan Area
The San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the Puente Hills to the south are visible from certain vantage
points of the Plan Area. These vistas are considered to contribute to the unique character of the community.
Section 5.1, Aesthetics, provides a detailed analysis of the Plan Area’s scenic vistas and features, as well as the
potential impact to such vistas and features resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project.
Specific Plan Area
Backdrop views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north are also visible from certain vantage points of the
Specific Plan Area—particularly to motorists and passersby traveling north on Rosemead Boulevard. Very
limited views of these mountains are afforded to motorists and passersby traveling east-west on Las Tunas
Road and Broadway.
Section 5.1, Aesthetics, provides a detailed analysis of the Specific Plan Area’s scenic vistas and features, as well
as the potential impact to such vistas and features resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
4. Environmental Setting
Page 4-14 PlaceWorks
4.3.3.8 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Plan Area
Regional access to the Plan Area is from I-10 and I-210, approximately 0.8 mile south and 1.8 miles north,
respectively, of the Plan Area boundary. The local circulation network serving the Plan Area is essentially a
grid system of roadways generally oriented north–south and east–west. Roads in the Plan Area are primarily
two-lane streets with no medians, shading from large trees is typical, and the roadways are generally wide as
compared to other small cities. Some major arterials, such as Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive, tend
to have medians and four lanes of traffic. Posted speed limits within the Plan Area are typically between 25
and 40 mph.
Two transportation agencies provide transit services in Temple City, Foothill Transit and the Los Angeles
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). Foothill Transit service includes Line 492—this line begins in
El Monte, travels north along Santa Anita Avenue through Temple City, and then runs east-west traveling
along Arrow Highway until the Montclair transit center. Metro service includes Line 78/79/378, which runs
east-west connecting the Cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena, San Marino, Alhambra, Temple City, and Arcadia.
Just before Alhambra, the line splits and Line 78/378 travels along Las Tunas Drive, while Line 79 travels
along Huntington Drive. Other Metro lines serving the Plan Area include Line 266, 228, 487, and 489.
Temple City also provides opportunities for bicycling via a network of bikeways, bicycle parking, and other
accommodations, as detailed in Temple City’s Bicycle Master Plan; the master plan also features proposed
improvements to the bicycle network throughout Temple City.
Refer to Section 5.13, Transportation and Traffic, for additional information concerning existing transportation
facilities and traffic conditions and an analysis of project-related impacts.
Specific Plan Area
Major roadways in the Specific Plan Area include Rosemead Boulevard, Las Tunas Drive, and Broadway.
These roadways provide users with both local and regional connections to the Specific Plan Area.
Transit service in the Specific Plan Area is provided by four Metro routes (Lines 78, 378, 266, and 489),
serving six stops.
Current bicycle facilities in the Specific Plan Area consist of a Class II bike lane with protected and buffered
portions along both sides Rosemead Boulevard. These bike lanes provide dedicated facilities for bicyclists
traveling north/south along Rosemead Boulevard to and through the Specific Plan Area.
Refer to Section 5.13, Transportation and Traffic, for additional information concerning existing transportation
facilities and traffic conditions and an analysis of project-related impacts.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
4. Environmental Setting
June 2017 Page 4-15
4.3.4 General Plan and Zoning
Plan Area
Table 4-3 presents a breakdown of current Temple City General Plan land use designations in the Plan Area.
As shown in this table, Temple City is currently divided into seven land use designations, and the
predominant land use designation within the City limits is residential, comprising approximately 85 percent of
the land in the City. As shown in the table, the SOI is comprised of five land use designations. The
predominant land use designation within the SOI limits is residential, comprising approximately 87 percent of
the land in the SOI. Figure 4-2, Current General Plan Land Use Diagram, illustrates the distribution and location
of the current land use designations of the Plan Area.
Table 4-3 Current General Plan Land Use Designations
Acres1 Percent of Planning Area Current General Plan Densities/FAR Development Capacity
City of Temple City
Residential
Low Density 1,346 67% 1-6 du/acre 1,346 – 8,076 units
Medium Density 253 13% 7-12 du/acre 1,701 – 3,036 units
High Density 110 5% 13-30 du/acre2 1,430 – 2,640 units
Residential Subtotal 1,709 85% — —
Other
Commercial 117 6% 2.8 FAR 14,270,256 SF
Industrial 52 2% N/A
Parks 18 1% N/A
Institutional 121 6% N/A
Other Subtotal 308 15% — —
City Total 2,017 100% — —
Sphere of Influence
Residential
Residential 9 403 77%
Residential 30 51 10%
Residential Subtotal 454 87% — —
Other
General Commercial 14 3%
Public and Semi-Public 33 6%
Opens Space - Water 25 5%
Other Subtotal 72 14% — —
Sphere of Influence Total 527 100% — —
TOTAL (City and SOI) 2,544 — — —
Notes: FAR = floor area ratio
1 Source: 1987 Temple City General Plan
2 R-3 zoned properties not adjacent to an R-1 zone allows a maximum density of 30 units per acre.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
4. Environmental Setting
Page 4-16 PlaceWorks
The majority of the Temple City portion of the Plan Area is comprised of residential zoning designations,
including: R-1 (Single-Family Residential), R-2 (Light Multiple Residential), R-2/IC (R-2/Infill Community
Overlay District), R-3 (Heavy Multiple Residential), and RPD (Residential Planned Development).
Commercial zoning designations make up the second largest, consisting of C-2 (General Commercial) and
C-3 (Heavy Commercial)—manufacturing zoning designations consists of M-1 (Light Manufacturing) and
M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing). Zoning designations related to the downtown area of the City include: DSP-CC
(DSP-City Center Commercial District), DSP-WC (DSP-Las Tunas West Commercial District), DSP-EC
(DSP-Las Tunas East Commercial District), DSP-GC (DSP-Gateway Commercial District), DSP-TC (DSP-
Temple City Blvd Commercial District), and DSP-RC (DSP-Residential-Commercial District). A very small
portion of the City zoned OS (Open Space)—other limited areas are unzoned and consist of flood control
and rail facilities.
As with Temple City, the majority of the SOI portion of the Plan Area is comprised of residential zoning
designations, including: R-1 (Single Family Residence), R-2 (Two Fam ily Residence), R-3 (Limited Multiple
Residence), R-A (Residential Agriculture). The remaining zoning designations that make up the SOI include
A-1 (Light Agriculture), C-1: Restricted Business, and C-2 (Neighborhood Business).
Specific Plan Area
Approximately 94 percent of the Specific Plan Area is designated for commercial use in the current Temple
City General Plan, with the balance being designated for residential and public/semi-public uses (see Figure
4-2, Current General Plan Land Use Diagram).
Approximately 32 percent of the Specific Plan Area is zoned for C-2 (General Commercial) and 43 percent
zoned for C-3 (Heavy Commercial), with the remaining 21 percent zoned for residential uses ranging in
density from single-family residential (R1) to duplex (R2) to multifamily residential (R3). The remaining 4
percent is unzoned and consists of the Eaton Wash Flood Control Channel.
4.4 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines states that cumulative impacts shall be discussed where they are
significant. It further states that this discussion shall reflect the level and severity of the impact and the
likelihood of occurrence, but not in as great a level of detail as that necessary for the project alone.
Section 15355 of the Guidelines defines cumulative impacts to be “...two or more individual effects which,
when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.”
Cumulative impacts represent the change caused by the incremental impact of a project when added to other
proposed or committed projects in the vicinity.
Base Map Source: Temple City. 2015
PlaceWorks
Figure 4-2 - Current General Plan Land Use Diagram
0
Scale (Miles)
0.5
4. Environmental Setting
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
4. Environmental Setting
Page 4-18 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
4. Environmental Setting
June 2017 Page 4-19
The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130 [b][1]) state that the information utilized in an analysis of cumulative
impacts should come from one of two sources:
A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if
necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency.
A summary of projections contained in an adopted General Plan or related planning document designed
to evaluate regional or area-wide conditions.
The cumulative impact analysis in this DEIR uses the second method. The Proposed Project consists of the
Temple City General Plan Update and Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan. Consistent with
Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines, this DEIR analyzes the environmental impacts of
development within the Plan Area in accordance with the proposed land use plan of the Mid-Century Plan—
development under the Mid-Century Plan includes buildout of the Specific Plan Area under the Crossroads
Specific Plan land use plan. As a result, this DEIR addresses the cumulative impacts of development in the
Plan Area and greater Los Angeles County region surrounding it, as appropriate. In most cases, the potential
for cumulative impacts is contiguous with the City boundary, since the City is the service provider for various
City services and public utilities. The geographic scope of air quality is the SoCAB, which is the air basin
where the City is located. Potential cumulative impacts related to traffic, air quality, and noise, which have the
potential for impacts beyond the City boundary, have been addressed through use of a traffic model. The City
utilizes a traffic model to forecast cumulative growth in the City and regionally. Regional growth outside of
the City has accounted for traffic, air quality, and noise impacts through use of this socioeconomic traffic
model that utilizes regional growth projections to calculate future traffic volumes. The growth projections
adopted by the City and surrounding area are used for the cumulative impact analyses of this DEIR. Please
refer to Chapter 5 of this DEIR for a discussion of the cumulative impacts associated with development and
growth in the Plan Area and region.
The area considered for cumulative impacts of the Crossroads Specific Plan buildout is the same as that
considered for impacts associated with implementation of the Mid-Century Plan, unless otherwise specified
in Chapter 5 of this DEIR.
4.5 REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2012. Status of Scoping Plan Recommended Measures.
———. 2008, October. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ cc/scopingplan/status_of_scoping_plan_measures.pdf.
California Office of Emergency Services (OES). 2016, February 23. DVD. Dam Inundation Maps.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). 2010, October 28. 2010 Congestion
Management Program. http://media.metro.net/docs/cmp_final_2010.pdf.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
4. Environmental Setting
Page 4-20 PlaceWorks
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016. Final 2016 RTP/SCS.
http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx.
June 2017 Page 5-1
5. Environmental Analysis
Chapter 5 examines the environmental setting, impacts, and mitigation measures associated with the Proposed
Project. This chapter is divided into sections for respective environmental topical areas that were determined to
need further study in this DEIR as part of the scoping process.
The scope of the environmental analysis was determined using the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation
(NOP) that were published September 2016 (see Appendix A), as well as incorporating public and agency
comments received concerning the NOP comment period, which extended from September 19 to October 18,
2016; see Appendix B). Environmental issues and their corresponding sections are:
5.1 Aesthetics
5.2 Air Quality
5.3 Cultural Resources
5.4 Geology and Soils
5.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
5.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
5.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
5.8 Land Use and Planning
5.9 Noise
5.10 Population and Housing
5.11 Public Services
5.12 Recreation
5.13 Transporatin and Traffic
5.14 Tribal Cultural Resources
5.15Utilities and Service Systems
Sections 5.1 through 5.15 provide a detailed discussion of the environmental setting, impacts associated with the
Proposed Project, and mitigation measures designed to reduce significant impacts where required and when
feasible. The residual impacts following the implementation of any mitigation measure are also discussed, as
applicable.
For the impact analysis contained in Sections 5.1 through 5.15, it is important to note that while the Mid-Century
Plan establishes City-wide policy level guidance, includes a revision to the current Temple City General Plan land
use diagram (see Figures 3-4, Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram, and 4-2, Existing General Plan Land Use
Diagram), and modifies the development potential of certain areas in the City, it does not contain specific
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 5-2 PlaceWorks
development project proposals. The Mid-Century Plan is a regulatory document that sets forth the framework for
future growth and development (e.g., infill development, redevelopment, and revitalization/restoration) in the
Plan Area and does not directly result in development in and of itself. Before any development can occur in the
City, all such development is required to be analyzed for conformance with the Mid-Century Plan, zoning
requirements, and other applicable local and state requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA (e.g.,
preparation of site-specific environmental documentation in accordance with CEQA); and obtain all necessary
approvals, clearances, and permits.
Likewise, the Crossroads Specific Plan is a regulatory document that sets forth the framework for future growth
and development (e.g., infill development, redevelopment, and revitalization/restoration) in the Specific Plan Area
and does not directly result in development in and of itself. Before any development can occur in the Specific
Plan Area, all such development is required to be analyzed for conformance with the Mid-Century Plan,
Crossroads Specific Plan, zoning requirements, and other applicable local and state requirements; comply with the
requirements of CEQA; and obtain all necessary approvals, clearances, and permits.
As presented in the Initial Study prepared for the Proposed Project (Appendix A), some specific issues under each
of the environmental topics listed above were determined not to be significantly affected by implementation of
the project and therefore are not included for further discussion in this DEIR.
Organization of Environmental Analysis
To assist the reader in comparing information about the respective environmental issues, each section (Sections
5.1 to 5.15) is organized as follows:
Environmental Setting
Thresholds of Significance
Relevant General Plan Policies
Environmental Impacts
Existing Regulations
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
References
In addition, Chapter 1, Executive Summary, includes a table summarizing all the impacts and mitigation measures by
environmental issue.
Terminology Used in This Draft DEIR
For each impact identified in this DEIR, a statement of the level of significance of the impact is provided. While
criteria for determining significant impacts are unique to each topical area, the environmental analysis applies a
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2017 Page 5-3
uniform classification of the impacts based on the following definitions consistent with CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines:
No impact. A designation of no impact is given when no changes in the environment would occur.
Less than significant. A less than significant impact would cause no substantial adverse change in the
environment.
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. A less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated
avoids substantial adverse impacts on the environment through mitigation measures.
Significant and unavoidable. A significant unavoidable impact would cause a substantial adverse effect on the
environment, and no feasible mitigation measures would be available to reduce the impact to a less than
significant level.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
Page 5-4 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2017 Page 5.1-1
5.1 AESTHETICS
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) discusses potential impacts to the visual
appearance and character of the Plan Area and Specific Plan Area associated with implementation of the
Proposed Project, which includes the Temple City 2050 Mid-Century General Plan (Mid-Century Plan) and
Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan (Crossroads Specific Plan). This section includes a discussion of the
qualitative aesthetic characteristics of the environment that could be potentially degraded by the Proposed
Project’s implementation and evaluates consistency between the Proposed Project and established relevant
regulations and policies. The information presented in this section is based on field reconnaissance, review of
the Plan Area in aerial photographs, and graphic representation of the Proposed Project as presented in the
proposed Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan.
The assessment of aesthetic impacts is subjective by nature. Aesthetics generally refer to the identification of
visual resources and the quality of what can be seen, as well as an overall visual perception of the
environment. This analysis attempts to identify and objectively examine factors that contribute to the
perception of aesthetic impacts. Potential aesthetic impacts can be evaluated by considering proposed grade
separations, landform alteration, building setbacks, scale, massing, and landscaping features associated with
the design of the proposed project. It should be noted, however, that there are no locally designated or
defined standards or methodologies for the assessment of aesthetic impacts.
5.1.1 Environmental Setting
5.1.1.1 REGULATORY SETTING
State and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are applicable to the Proposed Project are
summarized below.
State
California Building Code: Building Energy Efficiency Standards
Energy conservation standards for new residential and non-residential buildings were adopted by the
California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the California Energy
Commission [CEC]) in June 1977 and most recently revised in 2013 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code
of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve
energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new
energy efficiency technologies and methods. On May 31, 2012, CEC adopted the 2013 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards, which went into effect on July 1, 2014. Title 24 requires outdoor lighting controls to
reduce energy usage; in effect, this reduces outdoor lighting.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
Page 5.1-2 PlaceWorks
Local
City of Temple City Zoning Code
The Temple City Zoning Code (codified as Title 9 [Zoning Regulations], Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] of the
City’s Municipal Code) identifies land use categories, development standards, and other provisions that ensure
consistency between the City’s General Plan and proposed development and redevelopment projects.
Adherence to the following sections of the zoning code improves and maintains the visual quality of the
community, and are relevant to the Proposed Project.
Article L (Signs). This section of the code aims to “allow the orderly and compatible display of signs
identifying locations and businesses” and to “provide minimum standards in order to safeguard life,
health, property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, quality of materials,
construction, illumination, location and maintenance of all signs and sign structures.” It also identifies
permitted and prohibited signs for specific zones.
Article M (Residential Districts). This section outlines regulations related to the design and
construction of land uses on properties zoned for residential uses. It includes numerous provisions that
relate to aesthetic considerations, including design guidelines related to site design, building design,
landscaping, walls, fences, and materials.
Article N (Commercial Districts). Similar to Article M, this section of the zoning code identifies
development standards and design guidelines for the applicable zoning districts. Special attention is
devoted to aspects of commercial development that affect a neighborhood’s visual appearance, such as
business signage and the screening of mechanical equipment.
The City’s Zoning Code is notable in that it does not contain chapters that comprehensively address exterior
lighting or landscaping.
Downtown Specific Plan
The Temple City Downtown Specific Plan (Downtown Specific Plan), adopted December 17, 2002, is a long-
range planning document aimed at revitalizing the commercial districts along Las Tunas Drive. It includes
numerous provisions that address visual appearance and character, including detailed design guidelines for
development and redevelopment projects. These design guidelines address many aspects of the built
environment, including the following:
Site planning and building orientation
Architectural design, character, and style
Commercial facades (including doors, windows, materials, and signage)
Screening walls and fences
Signage
Streetscape design (including entry treatments, street trees, and street furniture)
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
June 2017 Page 5.1-3
Implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan is intended to ensure that the most visually-prominent areas
of the Plan Area (the downtown area covered under this specific plan) are aesthetically pleasing and that new
development and redevelopment projects are compatible with the community’s existing and historic character.
Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance
The City’s Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance (Article D [Tree Preservation and Protection] of the
City’s Municipal Code) was adopted for the purpose of establishing policies, regulations, and specifications
related to the “planting, care, maintenance, and removal of trees in public areas and private trees that impact
private areas” (Temple City 2016a). In general, the ordinance protects the community’s extensive tree canopy.
5.1.1.2 VISUAL SETTING
Visual Character
Plan Area
The Plan Area is a heavily urbanized, built-out portion of the San Gabriel Valley. The community generally
features a suburban residential character, since most of the Plan Area consists of single-family and low-
density multifamily residential uses. Commercial uses are largely concentrated along Rosemead Boulevard and
Las Tunas Drive. In particular, sidewalk-facing rows of commercial uses and consistent street trees along Las
Tun as Drive lend the corridor a “main street” type character. A highly connective street grid throughout the
Plan Area and the prevalence of flat, turf-dominated front yards lend the community a sense of visual
orderliness and regularity. A predominance of single-story buildings also gives the community a low vertical
profile. Vegetation in the community is almost entirely ornamental.
Adjacent neighborhoods in the surrounding cities (i.e., Arcadia, El Monte, Rosemead, San Gabriel, and
portions of unincorporated of Los Angeles County) are similarly built-out, heavily urbanized, and dominated
by residential land uses. Therefore, in many cases, the community character of Temple City is seamless with
that of surrounding neighborhoods and boundaries are often not obvious. A notable exception to this is a
concentration of industrial uses south of Lower Azusa Road in Temple City and the City of El Monte. The
visual appearance and character of this area is dramatically different than that of the residential uses across
the street in Temple City.
Specific Plan Area
The 72.55-acre Specific Plan Area is comprised almost entirely of auto-oriented commercial land uses
oriented toward two major intersections: Rosemead Boulevard at Las Tunas Drive and Broadway. The area’s
single-story commercial buildings, large surface parking lots, and wide arterial roadways give it a suburban
visual character. However, relatively new landscaping along Rosemead Boulevard, including street trees,
visually softens the corridor’s extensive hardscape. Additionally, the Mediterranean-style architecture of the
new commercial buildings at the northeast corner of Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive lends that
portion of the Specific Plan Area a unique character different from the industry-standard retail architecture
found in other nearby shopping centers.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
Page 5.1-4 PlaceWorks
Scenic Vistas and Corridors
Plan Area
The San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the Puente Hills to the south are visible from certain vantage
points of the Plan Area. These vistas contribute to the unique character of the community.
Specific Plan Area
Backdrop views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north are also visible from certain vantage points of the
Specific Plan Area—particularly to motorists and passersby traveling north on Rosemead Boulevard. Very
limited views of these mountains are afforded to motorists and passersby traveling east-west on Las Tunas
Drive and Broadway.
Landform
Plan Area
The Plan Area, including the Specific Plan Area, is generally flat, with a nearly uniform south-southeast slope
of approximately 1.5 percent grade. Overall, there is little change in elevation throughout the Plan Area.
Specific Plan Area
The existing conditions information provided above applies to the Specific Plan Area.
Visual Resources
Plan Area
Because the Plan Area is largely dominated by a network of single-family residential neighborhoods, there are
few notable visual landmarks in the City. However, there are numerous historic homes in the community,
which are distributed throughout central Temple City. Unique visual resources in the Plan Area are listed
below and shown in Figure 5.1-1, Photographs of Existing Conditions.
City Hall and Civic Center (midcentury modern buildings and mural)
Temple City Public Library (midcentury modern building and reading-themed mural)
Temple City Park (performing arts pavilion, mature trees, and ornamental landscaping)
Downtown Temple City (continuous urban fabric, historic street light fixtures, and large, mature Ficus
trees)
Modernist church buildings (e.g., Temple City Seventh Day Adventist Church and Temple City Christian
Church)
Public art along Rosemead Boulevard (including statues and mosaic tilework)
PlaceWorks
Figure 5-1.1 - Photographs of Existing Conditions
One of Temple City’s many craftsman bungalow style homes.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
City Hall, which was designed in the modernist style.
Regularly spaced palm trees on Rosemead Boulevard at the
community’s southwest corner.
Statue of a woman riding a streetcar
along Rosemead Boulevard.
First United Methodist Church near the Civic Center.
Temple City Park, including the performing arts pavilion.Businesses along Las Tunas Drive in Downtown Temple City.
Commercial uses along Rosemead Boulevard.Gateway monumentation at the intersection of Las
Tunas Drive and Rosemead Boulevard.
Reading-themed mural at the Temple City Library.Single family home.Single family home.
Whimsical commerical signage
along Rosemead Boulevard.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
Page 5.1-6 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
June 2017 Page 5.1-7
In general, the tightly-clustered collection of commercial and public buildings along Las Tunas Drive indicate
to residents and visitors that downtown and the civic center form the heart of the community. In particular,
the lawns, large trees, and performing arts pavilion at Temple City Park lend the civic center a visual formality
and offer a distinct landmark for residents and visitors. Other unique visual resources in the Plan Area include
businesses and places of worship built in the 1950s and 1960s that represent modernist architectural styles
designed by notable modernist architects (Historic Resources Group 2012).
Specific Plan Area
The existing conditions information provided above applies to the Specific Plan Area.
Light and Glare
Plan Area
Because the Plan Area and Specific Plan Area are developed with urban land uses and are surrounded by
additional urbanized uses, light and glare are present in the area. Ambient lighting exists from surrounding
uses and automobile traffic traveling through the community. Lighting is also generated by external building
lighting and safety and security lighting associated with streets and parking lots.
Specific Plan Area
The existing conditions information provided above applies to the Specific Plan Area.
5.1.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
AE-1 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
AE-2 Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
AE-3 Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
AE-4 Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area.
The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following threshold
would be less than significant:
Threshold AE-2
This impact will not be addressed in the following analysis.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
Page 5.1-8 PlaceWorks
5.1.3 Relevant General Plan Policies
The following are relevant policies of the Mid-Century Plan Land Use Element, which are designed to reduce
the potential impacts on aesthetics (scenic vistas and resources, visual character and quality, and light and
glare) from implementation of the Proposed Project.
LU 1.1 Basic Growth Policy. Accommodate growth that is consistent with community values, character,
and scale and complements and enhances existing uses.
LU 3.1 Development Pattern and Urban Form. Maintain and enhance Temple City’s urban form with
distinct, compact, and walkable residential neighborhoods and business districts containing a diversity of
uses, densities, and physical characteristics.
LU 3.2 Complete and Livable Neighborhoods. Maintain the pattern of distinct residential
neighborhoods oriented around parks, schools, and community facilities that are connected to and
walkable from neighborhood-serving businesses.
LU 3.4 Arterial Nodes. Cluster higher density, pedestrian-oriented mixed uses at key intersections, such
as Las Tunas Drive and Rosemead Boulevard, and Las Tunas Drive and Temple City Boulevard, to create
an active, vibrant, and prosperous commercial environment.
LU 3.9 Cohesive and Integrated Development. Promote the use of specific plans to guide cohesive
and integrated development of residential, commercial, and mixed-use projects of large areas, complex or
multi-parcel sites, areas with multiple property owners, or areas of particular importance to the
community.
LU 3.10 Gateways. Define prominent points of entry to Temple City with high quality and well-
designed signs, and architecture.
LU 3.11 Architecture that Enhances. Locate and design buildings to relate to and frame major public
streets, open spaces, and cityscape.
LU 4.1 Development Compatibility. Require that development is located and designed to assure
compatibility among land uses, addressing such elements as building orientation and setbacks, buffering,
visibility and privacy, automobile and truck access, impacts of noise and lighting, landscape quality, and
aesthetics.
LU 4.2 High-Impact Uses. Avoid the overconcentration of uses and facilities in any neighborhood or
district where their intensities, operations, and/or traffic would adversely impact the character, safety,
health, and/or quality of life.
LU 4.7 Development that is Compatible. Require that development demonstrates a contextual
relationship with neighboring structures and sites addressing such elements as building scale, massing,
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
June 2017 Page 5.1-9
orientation, setbacks, buffering, arrangement of shared and private open spaces, visibility, privacy,
automobile and truck access, impacts of noise and lighting, landscape quality, infrastructure, and
aesthetics.
LU 4.8 Transitions in Scale. Require that the scale and massing of new higher density development
provide appropriate transitions in building height and bulk, and lot coverage to retain the character of
adjacent lower-density neighborhoods.
LU 6.2, Healthy Building Design and Construction. Promote a healthy built environment by
designing buildings and sites for healthy living and working conditions, including enhanced pedestrian-
oriented circulation, lighting, attractive and open stairs, healthy building materials, and universal
accessibility.
LU 9.1 Neighborhood Conservation. Maintain the character, amenities, and scale of Temple City’s
residential neighborhoods, recognizing their contribution to the City’s identity, economic value, and
quality of life.
LU 9.2 Neighborhood Character. Maintain elements of residential streets that unify and enhance the
character of the neighborhood including parkways, street trees, and compatible setbacks.
LU 9.3 New Residential Development. Accommodate the development of new residential
development that is well-conceived, constructed, and maintained in a variety of types and densities,
scales, and costs.
LU 9.8 Incompatible Uses. Prohibit the development of uses, structures, or infrastructure that are
incompatible with or physically divide residential neighborhoods.
LU 10.1 Neighborhood Identity. Maintain distinguishing characteristics, such as housing scale and
form, and public streetscapes that define and differentiate Temple City’s single-family neighborhoods.
LU 10.3 Residential Character. Discourage mansionization of existing single family residential units by
requiring building scale and massing that is compatible with existing neighborhood development.
LU 11.1 Multi-Family Opportunities. Support development projects that provide high-quality, well-
designed, and well-maintained and affordable multi-family residential housing.
LU 11.2 Multi-Family Character and Design. Design new and renovated multi-family residential
development to achieve a high level of architectural design and quality of life for residents, avoiding the
visual sense of (a) “blocky” and undifferentiated building mass, incorporating well-defined entries, using
building materials, colors, and architectural details complementing the neighborhood; and (b) automobile-
dominated streets, incorporating extensive landscaping along building frontages, minimizing long, linear
driveways, and undergrounding parking in higher density projects.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
Page 5.1-10 PlaceWorks
LU 11.3 Development Transitions. Require the multi-family residential buildings are located and
designed to ensure sensitive transitions with adjoining buildings in areas designated for lower residential
densities.
LU 13.4 Differentiation of Commercial Districts and Corridors. Establish and maintain distinct
identities for Temple City’s commercial districts differentiating the downtown Las Tunas Drive/Temple
City Boulevard core, Rosemead Boulevard/Las Tunas Drive center, and other centers at key intersections
by use, scale, form of development, and amenities.
LU 13.5 Retail Streetscapes. Maintain, and where deficient, increase street trees, plantings, furniture,
signage, public art, and other streetscape amenities that encourage pedestrian activity in retail corridors.
LU 13.7 Cohesive Development. Discourage the piecemeal development of commercial sites and
corridors.
LU 13.8 Enhanced Design Character. Encourage the renovation, infill, and redevelopment of existing
commercial corridors and districts to improve their aesthetic appearance, reduce the visual dominance of
surface parking lots, make centers more pedestrian-friendly, reduce the visual clutter of signs, and
enhance the definition and character of their street frontages and streetscapes.
LU 13.9 Connectivity to Neighborhoods. Link commercial corridors and districts to adjoin residential
neighborhoods and other districts by well-designed and attractive pedestrian sidewalks, corridors, and
trails.
LU 14.2 Development Scale. Establish development standards to assure that mixed-use development is
constructed in a cohesive manner that minimizes impacts attributable to the adjacency of differing uses.
This may include minimum parcel and building sizes, number of housing units, residential and non-
residential square footages, and relationships and setbacks among uses. When the mixed-use parcel is
located on non-primary streets adjoining single-family neighborhoods, lower intensity residential uses
shall be located along this frontage.
LU 14.3 Compatibility of Residential and Non-residential Uses. Require that buildings and sites
integrating residential and non-residential uses are designed to assure compatibility between uses and
public safety features, including separate accesses, fire suppression barriers, secured resident parking,
noise insulation, and other similar elements.
LU 14.4 Design Integration. Require that mixed-use buildings and sites be integrated through
architectural design, landscaping, and pedestrian features.
LU 16.1 Small-Town Character. Accommodate a mix and density of uses in a well-designed,
pedestrian-oriented environment that enhances the small-town character and identity of the Las Tunas
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
June 2017 Page 5.1-11
Drive/Temple City Boulevard core as the symbolic and functional downtown of Temple City, respecting
the scale and character of surrounding commercial areas and residential neighborhoods.
LU 17.2 Village Character and Design. Require that properties containing a mix of uses be designed
to convey the character of a distinct, cohesive, and pedestrian-oriented place that is linked with and
walkable from adjoining residential neighborhoods. Design elements should include a unifying network
of pedestrian walkways, plazas, courtyards, and open spaces; buildings located directly along these public
spaces and designed to foster active pedestrian use; landscaped pedestrian walkways connecting parking
areas with the public spaces and buildings; consolidation of parking in structures with ground level retail
use; and site landscaping that is sustainable and contributes to the aesthetic and economic value of the
center.
5.1.4 Environmental Impacts
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance listed above. The applicable thresholds are
identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 5.1-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially obstruct an existing scenic vista. [Threshold AE-1]
Impact Analysis: A scenic vista, as defined by the California Department of Transportation, is a viewpoint
that provides expansive views of a highly-valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. The San
Gabriel Mountains to the north of the City and to a lesser extent the Puente Hills to the south are considered
scenic, as they provide a backdrop to the overall Plan Area’s urban environment. Following is a discussion of
the potential impacts to scenic vistas as a result of development that would be accommodated under each
component of the Proposed Project.
Mid-Century Plan
As discussed under Section 5.1.1.2, Visual Setting, portions of the Plan Area offer views of the San Gabriel
Mountains to the north and the Puente Hills to the south. However, due to the Plan Area’s urbanized nature,
these views are sporadic and are often partially obstructed by near-view trees and elements of the built
environment such as buildings, signage, and infrastructure (e.g., street lights, traffic lights, and electrical poles).
There are no locations in the Plan Area that offer expansive, unobstructed scenic vistas.
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, and shown in Figure 3-4, Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram,
the proposed Mid-Century Plan generally focuses on preservation of existing residential neighborhoods and
selectively introducing mixed uses and flexibility in building densities in specific areas of the Plan Area.
Except in the Specific Plan Area (see following subsection), buildout of allowable development capacity
under the Mid-Century Plan would not introduce buildings or structures that would be substantially out of
scale with existing patterns of development. Development projects accommodated under the Mid-Century
Plan would also be required to comply with height requirements specified in the City’s Zoning Code.
Therefore, new land uses would not be expected to have a substantial effect on scenic vistas.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
Page 5.1-12 PlaceWorks
Additionally, implementation of the Mid-Century Plan would not result in the removal of open space,
recreational areas, or other undeveloped lands of scenic value.
Furthermore, no changes to the existing grid-based street network—and related urban fabric–of the
community are proposed or planned under the Mid-Century Plan. Therefore, distant vistas of the San
Gabriel Mountains and Puente Hills along the Plan Area’s many north-south oriented streets would be
preserved.
Finally, the height of the San Gabriel Mountains and Puente Hills also ensure that they will remain a scenic
backdrop to the Plan Area without detriment from buildout of the Mid-Century Plan. There are also no
locally designated scenic corridors or vistas that would be affected by development that would be
accommodated under the Mid-Century Plan.
In summary, impacts to existing scenic vistas as a result of buildout under the Mid-Century Plan, as well as
land use changes or new or updated policies proposed under the Mid-Century Plan, are not anticipated to be
significant.
Crossroads Specific Plan
As discussed under Section 5.1.1.2, Visual Setting, backdrop views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north
are visible from certain vantage points in the Specific Plan Area—particularly to motorists and passersby
traveling north on Rosemead Boulevard. Very limited views of these mountains are afforded to motorists and
passersby traveling east-west on Las Tunas Road and Broadway.
As discussed in Chapter 3, the Crossroads Specific Plan would allow more intense development in the
Specific Plan Area than currently exists, including buildings up to six stories tall. Additional building heights
and massing could further obscure some limited views of the San Gabriel Mountains. However, this impact
would be expected to be minimal since most mountain vistas are extremely fragmented under existing
conditions and the most unobstructed vistas are those viewed from motorists and pedestrians using
Rosemead Boulevard, a north-south view corridor that would remain.
Additionally, views of these mountains along Rosemead Boulevard would not be obstructed for motorists
and pedestrians because development under the Crossroads Specific Plan would occur on the east and west
sides of Rosemead Boulevard and the viewshed of the mountains along this corridor is to the north. The
Crossroads Specific Plan also includes provisions for the upper levels (e.g., fifth and sixth floors) of buildings
developed on the west side of Rosemead Boulevard. Specifically, the provisions call for the upper levels of
buildings to be set back 300 from the property line. The provision of greater setbacks for the upper levels
would affording greater views, although currently limited, of the ridge lines of the San Gabriel Mountains.
Views of these mountains are also already obstructed by existing buildings, structures, and mature
landscaping along both sides of Rosemead Boulevard. Also, private views of the mountains from private
residences and properties throughout the Specific Plan Area are not protected by the Mid-Century Plan or
City’s Municipal Code.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
June 2017 Page 5.1-13
Furthermore, the height of the San Gabriel Mountains also ensures that they will remain a scenic backdrop to
the Specific Plan Area without detriment from development that would be accommodated under the
Crossroads Specific Plan. There are also no locally-designated scenic corridors or vistas within or in proximity
of the Specific Plan Area that would be affected by buildout of the Crossroads Specific Plan.
Finally, the Specific Plan Area is quite a way north of the Whittier Narrows, a gap between the Puente Hills to
the east and the Repetto Hills to the west. No portion of the Puente Hills, including Whittier Narrows are
visible from any vantage point along Rosemead Boulevard or any other part of the Specific Plan Area.
In summary, impacts to scenic vistas as a result of development that would be accommodated under the
Crossroads Specific Plan are not anticipated to be significant.
Impact 5.1-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would alter the visual appearance and character of
the Plan Area and Specific Plan Area, but would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of these areas or their surroundings. [Thresholds AE-1 and AE-3]
Impact Analysis: Following is a discussion of the potential impacts to the visual appearance and character
of the Plan Area and Specific Plan Area as a result of development that would be accommodated under each
component of the Proposed Project.
Mid-Century Plan
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the Mid-Century Plan is an update to Temple City’s currently
adopted General Plan. It is a long-range planning and policy document that, at buildout, would accommodate
up to 20,520 housing units and approximately 3.8 million square feet of nonresidential building space.
Compared to existing conditions, this growth would represent 5,220 additional housing units and just over a
million additional square feet of nonresidential building space (see Table 3 -2, Proposed General Plan Land Use
Designations and Buildout Projections, in Chapter 3).
Although growth allowed under the Mid-Century Plan would result in a change to the visual appearance of
the Plan Area, this change would be incremental and would, overall, represent a beneficial change. The vision
and guiding principles of the Mid-Century Plan identify enhancement and preservation of community
character as a high priority. For example, 14 guiding principles of the Mid-Century Plan fall under the
subheading of “community character”, including the following principles that directly relate to aesthetic
concerns:
Our housing and commercial uses will be scaled and designed to complement and transition with
adjoining neighborhoods and districts.
We respect the importance of designing and maintaining our buildings, properties, and public spaces at
the highest level of quality.
As shown by a comparison of Figures 3-4, Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram, and 4-1, Existing Land Uses,
changes in land use proposed for the Plan Area generally involve the introduction of mixed uses in areas that
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
Page 5.1-14 PlaceWorks
currently feature a single land use and targeted increases in allowable residential and nonresidential intensity—
the target areas include the Crossroads Specific Plan Area and City’s downtown area. Buildout of these land
use designations would involve incremental growth through infill development on a parcel-by-parcel basis
rather than wholesale reinvention and/or redevelopment of neighborhoods or corridors. Additionally,
proposed land use changes would create more visually cohesive development along Temple City’s main
commercial corridors (Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive) while generally maintaining the current
appearance and character of existing residential neighborhoods. Therefore, changes in the community’s visual
appearance and character are expected to be focused and generally beneficial, since in many cases obsolete
and/or poorly maintained structures and properties would be replaced with new, high-quality development.
The Mid-Century Plan also contains numerous goals and policies related to community aesthetics and
neighborhood compatibility. Adherence with these goals and policies would ensure that development and
redevelopment that would be accommodated under the Mid-Century Plan would reflect Temple City’s unique
character and neighborhood scale. For example, Policy LU 4.1 requires that all development is designed to be
compatible with its surroundings. Policy LU 4.8 requires that new land uses be sensitive to the character and
scale of existing lower-density neighborhoods. Policy LU 9.2 directly addresses neighborhood character. The
detailed list of applicable policies is provided in Section 5.1.3, Relevant General Plan Policies, above.
Compliance with these and other proposed policies would preserve Temple City’s overall community
character and the character of specific neighborhoods. Individual development projects would also be
reviewed by the City for the consistency with specific policies and the overall intent of the Mid-Century Plan.
Fur thermore, a substantial portion of the development capacity introduced by the Mid-Century Plan is
located in Temple City’s downtown, which is subject to development standards and design guidelines found in
the Downtown Specific Plan (see Subsection 5.1.1.1, above). As with the those found in the Mid-Century
Plan, these provisions would ensure that development and redevelopment is of high quality and is visually
compatible with surrounding land uses.
Finally, recognizing that trees represent a vital public resource in beautifying neighborhoods and encouraging
community pride, the City maintains a strong urban forestry program that oversees the maintenance and care
of over 6,000 City-owned street trees within the public right-of-way and on City property (Templ e City
2016b). The main component of the urban forestry program is the City’s Tree Preservation and Protection
Ordinance (Article D [Tree Preservation and Protection] of the City’s Municipal Code), which in general,
protects the community’s extensive tree canopy. Continued implementation of the City’s urban forestry
program ensures that future development that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan would not
be detrimental to the City’s urban forest 1.
Crossroads Specific Plan
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the Crossroads Specific Plan would establish a land use,
development, and implementation framework to allow for enhancement and redevelopment of the 72.55-acre
1 The urban forest is a collection of trees that grow within a city and can refer to the entire ecosystem formed between trees and its
surrounding environment.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
June 2017 Page 5.1-15
Specific Plan Area. The Crossroads Specific Plan would allow mixed-use development up to a density of 2.0
FAR (floor area ratio) and, at buildout, would accommodate 1,887 housing units and 1,082,061 square feet of
commercial space. This is 1,837 more housing units and 454,713 additional square feet compared to existing
conditions. This scale of development would be a substantial change from the existing auto-oriented,
suburban-scaled commercial development (mostly single-story building with a few two -story buildings
scattered throughout)—and resulting community character—that now dominates the Specific Plan Area. The
existing character of the Specific Plan Area would transition into an area with mid- and high-density
residential, higher-intensity commercial, and mixed-use land uses. Greater allowable building heights, building
intensity, and allowance of mixed uses in accordance with the uses envisioned and permitted under the
Crossroads Specific Plan would result in a change to the visual character of the Specific Plan Area, but it
would not result in a degradation of visual character or quality.
The Crossroads Specific Plan would create vibrant, mixed-use developments with improved access to
services, retail, entertainment, jobs, and alternative transportation. The development and design
improvements proposed under the Crossroads Specific Plan would enhance mobility and complete streets to
heighten the pedestrian experience for walkers, shoppers, workers, bicyclists, and users of transit. Planned
residential, commercial, and mixed-use buildings would form a consistent matrix of urban fabric that is
punctuated by common open space, gathering and recreation areas, as well as quality and appealing landscape
improvements along Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive.
Also, the provisions of the Crossroads Specific Plan have been designed to create a unique and welcoming
place that is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. The Crossroads Specific Plan devotes considerable
attention to building massing and scale; architectural design and character; community compatibility;
landscaping, streetscape, and open space; public art, signage, and lighting; and other elements of the built
environment that affect community character through its various guiding principles, policies, design
guidelines, development standards, and diagrams.
The Crossroads Specific Plan provides design guidelines created to ensure that future development projects
are visually compatible with surrounding land uses, and establishes detailed development standards that
address land use compatibility. The Crossroads Specific Plan would ensure high-quality and context-sensitive 2
design within the Specific Plan Area and along its boundaries through implementation of the design
guidelines and development standards. Compliance with the design guidelines and development standards
would be ensured through the City’s development review process.
For example, future development within the Specific Plan Area would be required to comply with design
guidelines of the Crossroads Specific Plan, which establish parameters for building design and massing,
façades, open space, circulation and parking, landscaping, signage, public art, and utility areas. These design
guidelines would help create a uniform architectural theme throughout the Specific Plan Area, which
currently has no consistent architectural theme, as well as a unique character for the Specific Plan Area. New
development within the Specific Plan Area would also be designed with a pedestrian emphasis and
2 Context-sensitive design integrates projects into the context or setting in a sensitive manner through careful planning, consideration
of different perspectives, and tailoring designs to particular project circumstances.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
Page 5.1-16 PlaceWorks
architectural aesthetic to encourage alternative modes of transportation to the various retail, service, and
entertainment uses of the Specific Plan Area.
In addition, compliance with the development standards of the Crossroads Specific Plan related to permitted
uses, development intensity, building placement (i.e., setbacks and fronting), building heights, and parking
requirements would ensure that all new development projects that would be accommodated by the
Crossroads Specific Plan are built to share similar character and style to unify the Specific Plan Area. For
example, minimum and maximum setbacks and building heights have been established in the Crossroads
Specific Plan to create a consistent street scene, provide attractive landscaping, and provide a buffer for
pedestrians from street activity.
The Specific Plan also includes detailed diagrams showing appropriate ways for new buildings to be
sensitively incorporated with the existing surrounding neighborhoods. Although the Crossroads Specific Plan
would allow development that is taller than surrounding neighborhoods (see analysis under Impact 5.1-1,
above), development standards in the specific plan require that upper stories be set back to reduce their
visibility from the surrounding low-density residential uses. Implementation of these provisions, along with
maintenance of the existing recent streetscape improvements to Rosemead Boulevard (e.g., landscaping, street
trees, public art, and other improvements), development and redevelopment activities in the Specific Plan
Area would enhance the existing visual setting and character of the area and its surroundings.
Furthermore, the Crossroads Specific Plan contains guiding principles related to community aesthetics and
neighborhood compatibility. Adherence with these guiding principles would ensure that development and
redevelopment throughout the Specific Plan Area would reflect the unique character and development scale
called for in the Crossroads Specific Plan, as well as respect the character of the adjacent surrounding
neighborhoods. The following guiding principles are identified in the Crossroads Specific Plan:
Enhanced Public Spaces. New public and semi-public open spaces, such as plazas, pocket parks, and
greenways, will create a network of useable and passive recreation areas suited to a variety of activities,
including relaxation, reflection, recreation, performance spaces, and art and cultural activities.
Development Scale. Existing large blocks within the Specific Plan Area will be sub-divided into more
walkable, pedestrian-oriented blocks by new streets, paseos, and multi-use paths. The scale and character
of development will respect existing neighborhoods and contribute to an active, vibrant, people-focused
environment.
Community Context. The Specific Plan Area’s buildings and public spaces will be located, designed, and
scaled to respect adjacent residential neighborhoods and recognize the existing physical form and context
of the community. Buildings and public spaces will embrace a range of architectural styles and feature
durable materials demonstrating investment, longevity, and encouraging people to stop, linger, and enjoy
the area.
In addition to the guiding principles, the following policies support the vision for the Specific Plan Area and
are related to community aesthetics and compatibility.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
June 2017 Page 5.1-17
Crossroads Policy 2: Ensure uses within the Specific Plan Area are compatible with one another and
create synergy and vitality within the plan area.
Crossroads Policy 3: Encourage the Mixed-Use Core be developed in a comprehensive, non-piecemeal
manner that establishes a critical mass of residents, employees, and visitors to the area.
Development standards and design guidelines identified in the Crossroads Specific Plan—and various policies
in the Mid-Century Plan—are designed to implement these guiding principles and policies.
Overall, the Crossroads Specific Plan would include landscaping and architectural treatments that would bring
consistency and stylistic improvements to the existing visual character of the Specific Plan Area and its
surroundings. Although development in accordance with the Crossroads Specific Plan would visually alter the
area, it would not deteriorate the existing visual character or conflict with any existing architectural
characteristics specific to the area.
Conclusion
Based on the preceding, adverse impacts related to aesthetics and visual character are not anticipated to be
significant. In fact, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in beneficial impacts related to the
visual quality and character of Temple City.
Impact 5.1-3: Future development that would be accommodated by the Proposed Project would generate additional light and glare within the overall Plan Area and its surroundings, which could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. [Threshold AE-4]
Impact Analysis: Nighttime illumination and glare impacts are the effects of a project’s exterior lighting on
adjoining uses and areas. Glare can also be generated by light reflecting off passing cars and large expanses of
glazing (i.e., glass windows) or other reflective surfaces. Excessive light and/or glare can impair vision, cause
annoyance, affect sleep patterns, and generate safety hazards when experienced by drivers. Light and glare
impacts are determined by comparing existing light and glare sources with the proposed lighting plan or
policies and the type of development proposed.
Following is a discussion of the potential light and glare impacts resulting from development that would be
accommodated under each component of the Proposed Project.
Mid-Century Plan
Development allowed under the Mid-Century Plan would generate new sources of light and glare that could
affect day or nighttime views in the Plan Area. Sources of light include lighting needed to provide nighttime
street and building illumination, security lighting, nighttime traffic, and to a lesser extent, lighting associated
with construction activities. However, growth planned under buildout of the Mid-Century Plan would occur
from increased development intensities in areas of the Plan Area that already feature buildings, parking,
streets, and other light-generating land uses. Therefore, additional light and glare resulting from
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
Page 5.1-18 PlaceWorks
implementation of the Mid-Century Plan would be incremental rather than an expansion of the geographic
range of impacts.
Daytime Glare
Urban glare is largely a daytime phenomenon occurring when sunlight is reflected off the surfaces of
buildings or objects. Excessive glare not only impedes visibility, but also increases the ambient heat reflectivity
in a given area.
As shown in a comparison of Figure 3-4, Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram, and 4-2, Current General Plan
Land Use Diagram, most of the land use changes proposed for the Plan Area are increases in allowable
development intensity along targeted corridors that already feature a range of development and building types
(i.e., Rosemead Boulevard, Las Tunas Drive, Temple City Boulevard). Other concentrations of land use
designations that would allow more intense growth are residential areas that already feature a range of
residential densities (e.g., between McCulloch Avenue and Santa Anita Avenue in eastern Temple City, and
between Rosemead Boulevard and Eaton Wash in the southwestern corner of the Plan Area).
Greater allowable building intensity in these areas could result in greater surface areas of buildings and other
flat surfaces that create glare. However, since the majority of parcels in the aforementioned areas are built
out, changes in surface area would be negligible. The introduction of mixed-use development in areas
currently occupied by a single land use type would be a key outcome of the Mid-Century Plan. However,
mixed uses are not anticipated to generate more glare than their constituent parts (residential, commercial,
and office uses), which are already present in areas proposed for mixed use.
Nighttime Lighting
Light intrusion into the night sky obstructs views of astrological features, has been shown to disrupt animal
behavior, and negatively impacts human health. Existing sources of nighttime light in the Plan Area include
building lights (interior and exterior), security lights, sign illumination, and parking facility lighting. Other
sources of nighttime light include street lights, vehicular traffic along roadways, and athletic field lighting.
Although the City is generally built out, continued development and redevelopment throughout the City and
increased development intensities and land use changes within targeted areas (see Figure 3-4) under the Mid-
Century Plan would likely generate new sources of nighttime lighting. Especially where vacant or
underutilized parcels are converted to new or more intense uses, new sources of light could increase
nighttime illumination. However, because the City is largely built out, the lighting associated with
improvements and structures of future development projects would not substantially increase nighttime light
within the project area. Additionally, the design guidelines contained within the City’s Zoning Code (see
subsection 5.1.1.1, above) contain provisions related to light overspill, including the following standard for
exterior lighting in Zone R-3:
Exterior Lighting: All exterior lighting operated or maintained in conjunction with any activity
or purpose on the premises, shall be so arranged as to reflect the light away from any
premises upon which a dwelling unit is located. The lighting elements thereof shall be
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
June 2017 Page 5.1-19
directed or shielded so as to not be directly visible from any dwelling unit on the same or
adjacent premises.
Additionally, future development projects would be required to comply with California’s Building Energy
Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of
Regulations, which outlines mandatory provisions for lighting control devices and luminaires. For example,
the Proposed Project’s lighting sources would be required to be installed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 110.9 (Mandatory Requirements for Lighting Control Devices and Systems, Ballasts, and Luminaires).
Nighttime light is also indirectly addressed in the proposed Mid-Century Plan Land Use Element. The
element contains the following policies, which would help to ensure that development and redevelopment
projects reduce light overspill and prevent excessive nighttime illumination:
LU 4.1 Development Compatibility. Require that development is located and designed to assure
compatibility among land uses, addressing such elements as building orientation and setbacks, buffering,
visibility and privacy, automobile and truck access, impacts of noise and lighting, landscape quality, and
aesthetics.
LU 6.2 Healthy Building Design and Construction. Promote a healthy built environment by
designing buildings and sites for healthy living and working conditions, including enhanced pedestrian-
oriented circulation, lighting, attractive and open stairs, healthy building materials, and universal
accessibility.
LU 7.2 Sustainable Design and Construction. Require new development and substantial renovations
to comply with the Cal Green Code’s sustainable building practices incorporating a “whole system”
approach to designing and constructing buildings that consume comparatively less energy, water, and
other natural resources, reduce wastes, facilitate natural ventilation, use daylight effectively, and are
healthy, safe, comfortable, and durable.
Furthermore, a substantial portion of the development capacity introduced by the Mid-Century Plan is
located in Temple City’s downtown, which is subject to development standards and design guidelines found in
the Downtown Specific Plan (see Subsection 5.1.1.1, above). For example, on Page III-6, the Downtown
Specific Plan requires: “All lighting of the building, landscaping, parking lot, or similar facilities, shall be so
shielded and directed as to reflect away from adjoining properties, particularly adjacent R-zoned properties.”
The Specific Plan also requires security lighting to not be “overly bright” and that all lighting be “shielded to
confine light spread within the site boundaries” (Temple City 2002).
Conclusion
In summary, adherence to design standards in the City’s Zoning Code and other applicable state and local
regulations would ensure that light and glare from new development and redevelopment projects allowed
under the Mid-Century Plan would be minimized. Therefore, impacts of the Mid-Century Plan related to
light and glare are not anticipated to be significant.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
Page 5.1-20 PlaceWorks
Crossroads Specific Plan
The greatest amount of development under the Proposed Project would occur within the Specific Plan Area.
Implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan would alter and intensify land uses and their related lighting
sources throughout the Specific Plan Area by introducing new building (interior and exterior), open space,
security, sign, street, and parking lights. In addition to necessary lighting for safety and security, the
Crossroads Specific Plan would also introduce aesthetic lighting, such as illumination of areas for
architectural and façade detailing. Additional sources of daytime glare could also be introduced throughout
the Specific Plan Area in the form of large expanses of glazing (i.e., glass windows) and building materials
(i.e., reflective metal treatments).
Daytime Glare
Because the Crossroads Specific Plan allows higher-intensity development throughout the Specific Plan Area,
its implementation would likely result in larger buildings with more exterior glazing (e.g., windows and doors)
and building materials (i.e., reflective metal treatments) that could result in new sources of day or nighttime
glare.
However, the architectural treatments of future development projects that would be accommodated under
the Crossroads Specific Plan would include style-appropriate architectural building materials, such as stucco
walls and accent stucco, painted metal finishing, vinyl windows, and precision-cut CMU-block veneer. These
building materials and architectural treatments are not reflective in nature and would therefore not create
substantial day or nighttime glare. They would be similar to building materials used of existing land uses
throughout the Specific Plan Area.
Windows that would be installed in new development projects could potentially increase sources of glare,
because they would reflect sunlight during certain times of the day. In addition, vehicles parked on future
development sites would increase the potential for reflected sunlight during certain times of the day.
However, glare from these sources is typical of the Specific Plan Area and its surroundings and would not
increase beyond what is expected for a highly-urbanized area. Additionally, the Crossroads Specific Plan
includes architectural design guidelines that reduce the potential for glare. For example, one of the design
guidelines calls for the use of white or green roofs, non-reflective coatings, low-emissivity glass, and external
shade devices to control heat and glare.
Nighttime Lighting
Despite new and expanded sources of nighttime illumination, development that would be accommodated by
the Crossroads Specific Plan is not expected to generate a substantial increase in light and glare in a manner
that would result in a significant impact. As in other areas in the Plan Area, development and redevelopment
activities in the Specific Plan Area would be subject to state regulations related to California’s Building Energy
Efficiency Standards, along with the Mid-Century Plan’s policies related to the community compatibility of
new development.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
June 2017 Page 5.1-21
The Crossroads Specific Plan also includes design guidelines that directly address nighttime illumination and
help reduce the impacts of light and glare on adjacent uses. For example, the following guidelines address
light overspill:
Light fixtures installed in the public right-of-way, in parking areas, along pedestrian or bicycle paths, and
elsewhere in the interior of a building or development project should be pedestrian scaled and directed
towards the ground to avoid light pollution and spill-over to surrounding residential areas.
Lighting of public open spaces should be motion-activated when possible to limit unnecessary energy
use.
Natural light should be utilized as much as possible, to limit use of and reliance on artificial light sources.
Artificial lighting should consist solely of energy efficient bulbs, lamps, and the like.
Furthermore, the Specific Plan Area is already developed with urbanized land uses and therefore future
development and redevelopment that would be accommodated under the Crossroads Specific Plan would not
be expected to substantially increase sources of nighttime lighting. New lighting sources would be similar to
those of the surrounding residential and nonresidential land uses. Considering existing sources of lighting
through the Specific Plan Area and its surroundings, the amount and intensity of nighttime lighting that
would occur under the Crossroads Specific Plan would not be substantially greater or different than existing
lighting in the area.
Conclusion
In summary, adherence to the design guidelines of the Crossroads Specific Plan and compliance with other
applicable state and local regulations would ensure that light and glare from new development and
redevelopment projects allowed under the Crossroads Specific Plan would be minimized. Therefore, impacts
of the Crossroads Specific Plan related to light and glare are not anticipated to be significant.
5.1.5 Existing Regulations
State
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6: Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings
Local
City of Temple City Zoning Code, Chapter 1, Zoning Code: Article L, Signs; Article M, Residential
Districts; Article N, Commercial Districts
City of Temple City Municipal Code: Article D, Tree Preservation and Protection
Downtown Specific Plan
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AESTHETICS
Page 5.1-22 PlaceWorks
5.1.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon adherence to regulatory requirements, implementation of the policies contained in the Mid-Century
Plan, and compliance with the provisions of the Crossroads Specific Plan, the following impacts would be
less than significant: 5.1-1, 5.1-2, and 5.1-3.
5.1.7 Mitigation Measures
No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary.
5.1.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No significant adverse impacts related to aesthetics were identified.
5.1.9 References
Historic Resources Group. 2012, May. City of Temple City Historic Resources Survey.
http://www.templecity.us/DocumentCenter/View/839.
Temple City, City of. 2017. City of Temple City Zoning Code.
http://sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=889&chapter_id=84694.
———. 2016a. A Greener Temple City (flyer). http://www.ci.temple-
city.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1917.
———. 2016b. Urban Forestry. http://www.ci.temple-city.ca.us/225/Urban-Forestry.
———. 2002. Downtown Specific Plan. http://www.ci.temple-city.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/841.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2017 Page 5.2-1
5.2 AIR QUALITY
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for the Proposed
Project, which includes the Temple City 2050 Mid-Century General Plan (Mid-Century Plan) and Temple City
Crossroads Specific Plan (Crossroads Specific Plan), to impact air quality in a local and regional context. This
evaluation is based on the methodology recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD). The analysis focuses on air pollution from regional emissions and localized pollutant
concentrations. Criteria air pollutant emissions modeling for the Proposed Project is included in Appendix C
of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Transportation-sector impacts are based on trip
generation and vehicle miles traveled provided in the traffic study (see Appendix H). Cumulative impacts
related to air quality are based on the regional boundaries of the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB).
5.2.1 Environmental Setting
5.2.1.1 REGULATORY SETTING
Ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been adopted at the state and federal levels for criteria air
pollutants. In addition, both the state and federal government regulate the release of toxic air contaminants
(TACs). The Plan Area, including the Specific Plan Area, is in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) and are
subject to the rules and regulations imposed by SCAQMD as well as the California ambient air quality
standards (AAQS ) adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and National AAQS adopted by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Federal, State, regional, and local laws,
regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the project are summarized below.
Federal and State
Ambient Air Quality Standards
The Clean Air Act was passed in 1963 by the US Congress and has been amended several times. The 1970
Clean Air Act amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory
scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment
requirements for areas not meeting National AAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.
The 1990 amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air
quality in the United States. The Clean Air Act allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include
other pollution species. The California Clean Air Act, signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state to
achieve and maintain the California AAQS by the earliest practical date. The California AAQS tend to be
more restrictive than the National AAQS.
The National and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in
the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect “sensitive receptors” most
susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already
weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can
tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards
before adverse effects are observed.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-2 PlaceWorks
Both California and the federal government have established health-based AAQS for seven air pollutants,
which are shown in Table 5.2-1. These pollutants are ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide
(CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5),
and lead (Pb). In addition, the state has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and
visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace
with a reasonable margin of safety.
Table 5.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard1 Federal Primary Standard2 Major Pollutant Sources
Ozone (O3)3 1 hour 0.09 ppm * Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and
solvents. 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily
gasoline-powered motor vehicles. 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual Arithmetic
Mean
0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum-refining
operations, industrial sources, aircraft, ships,
and railroads. 1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Annual Arithmetic
Mean
* 0.030 ppm Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur
recovery plants, and metal processing.
1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm
24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
Respirable Coarse
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean
20 µg/m3 * Dust and fume-producing construction,
industrial, and agricultural operations,
combustion, atmospheric photochemical
reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind-
raised dust and ocean sprays).
24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
Respirable Fine
Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)4
Annual Arithmetic
Mean
12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 Dust and fume-producing construction,
industrial, and agricultural operations,
combustion, atmospheric photochemical
reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind-
raised dust and ocean sprays).
24 hours * 35 µg/m3
Lead (Pb) 30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 * Present source: lead smelters, battery
manufacturing & recycling facilities. Past
source: combustion of leaded gasoline. Calendar Quarter * 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-Month
Average
* 0.15 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4)5 24 hours 25 µg/m3 * Industrial processes.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-3
Table 5.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard1 Federal Primary Standard2 Major Pollutant Sources
Visibility Reducing
Particles
8 hours ExCo =0.23/km
visibility of 10≥
miles
No Federal
Standard
Visibility-reducing particles consist of
suspended particulate matter, which is a
complex mixture of tiny particles that consists
of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid
coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These
particles vary greatly in shape, size and
chemical composition, and can be made up
of many different materials such as metals,
soot, soil, dust, and salt.
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm No Federal
Standard
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas with
the odor of rotten eggs. It is formed during
bacterial decomposition of sulfur-containing
organic substances. Also, it can be present in
sewer gas and some natural gas, and can be
emitted as the result of geothermal energy
exploitation.
Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0.01 ppm No Federal
Standard
Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a chlorinated
hydrocarbon, is a colorless gas with a mild,
sweet odor. Most vinyl chloride is used to
make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and
vinyl products. Vinyl chloride has been
detected near landfills, sewage plants, and
hazardous waste sites, due to microbial
breakdown of chlorinated solvents.
Source: CARB 2016a. Notes: ppm: parts per million; μg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter * Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity.
1 California standards for O3, CO (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1 and 24 hour), NO2, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in
Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
2 National standards (other than O3, PM, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained
when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard.
3 On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm.
4 On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 µg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards
(primary and secondary) were retained at 35 µg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 µg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and
secondary) of 150 µg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over three years.
5 On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. The 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.
California has also adopted a host of other regulations that reduce criteria pollutant emissions, including:
AB 1493: Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards
California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 20: Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards
24 CCR, Part 6: Building and Energy Efficiency Standards
24 CCR, Part 11: Green Building Standards Code
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-4 PlaceWorks
Tanner Air Toxics Act and Air Toxics Hots Information and Assessment Act
Public exposure to TACs is a significant environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California
legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and reduce exposure to them. The
California Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an
increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health”
(17 CCR § 93000). A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to Section 112(b) of the
federal Clean Air Act (42 US Code § 7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under state law, the California
Environmental Protection Agency, acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it
is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or may pose a
present or potential hazard to human health.
California regulates TACs primarily through AB 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot
Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act set up a formal procedure for
CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an “airborne toxics control
measure” for sources that emit that TAC. If there is a safe threshold for a substance (i.e., a point below which
there is no toxic effect), the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe
threshold, the measure must incorporate “toxics best available control technology” to minimize emissions. To
date, CARB has established formal control measures for 11 TACs that are identified as having no safe
threshold.
Under AB 2588, TAC emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality
management district or air pollution control district. High priority facilities are required to perform a health
risk assessment, and if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public
through notices and public meetings.
CARB has promulgated the following specific rules to limit TAC emissions:
CARB Rule 2485 (13 CCR, Chapter 10 § 2485), Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled
Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling
CARB Rule 2480 (13 CCR Chapter 10 § 2480), Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit School Bus
Idling and Idling at Schools
CARB Rule 2477 (13 CCR § 2477 and Article 8), Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-
Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs
Operate
Air Pollutants of Concern
Criteria Air Pollutants
The pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are categorized as primary
and/or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-5
(CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable
particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. Of
these, CO, SO2, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are “criteria air pollutants,” which means that AAQS have been
established for them. VOC and NOx are criteria pollutant precursors that form secondary criteria air
pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (O3) and nitrogen
dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants.
A description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and its known health effects is
presented below.
Carbon Monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon
substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. CO is a primary criteria air pollutant. CO concentrations tend
to be the highest during winter mornings with little to no wind, when surface-based inversions trap the
pollutant at ground levels. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near traffic-
congested corridors and intersections. The primary adverse health effect associated with CO is
interference with normal oxygen transfer to the blood, which may result in tissue oxygen deprivation
(SCAQMD 2005; USEPA 2016). The SoCAB is designated under the California and National AAQS as
being in attainment of CO criteria levels (CARB 2015).
Volatile Organic Compounds are composed primarily of hydrogen and carbon atoms. Internal
combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of VOCs. Other sources include
evaporative emissions from paints and solvents, asphalt paving, and household consumer products such
as aerosols (SCAQMD 2005). There are no AAQS for VOCs. However, because they contribute to the
formation of O3, SCAQMD has established a significance threshold.
Nitrogen Oxides are a by-product of fuel combustion and contribute to the formation of ground-level
O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The two major forms of NOX are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes
place under high temperature and/or high pressure. The principal form of NOX produced by
combustion is NO, but NO reacts quickly with oxygen to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and
NO2 commonly called NOX. NO2 is an acute irritant and more injurious than NO in equal
concentrations. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially irritating. NO2 absorbs
blue light; the result is a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. NO2 exposure
concentrations near roadways are of particular concern for susceptible individuals, including asthmatics,
children, and the elderly. Current scientific evidence links short-term NO2 exposures, ranging from
30 minutes to 24 hours, with adverse respiratory effects, including airway inflammation in healthy people
and increased respiratory symptoms in people with asthma. Also, studies show a connection between
elevated short-term NO2 concentrations and increased visits to emergency departments and hospital
admissions for respiratory issues, especially asthma (SCAQMD 2005; USEPA 2016). The SoCAB is
designated an attainment area for NO2 under the National and California AAQS (CARB 2015).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-6 PlaceWorks
Sulfur Dioxide is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous fossil fuels.
It enters the atmosphere as a result of burning high-sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and chemical
processes at plants and refineries. Gasoline and natural gas have very low sulfur content and do not
release significant quantities of SO2. When sulfur dioxide forms sulfates (SO4) in the atmosphere,
together these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX). Thus, SO2 is both a primary and
secondary criteria air pollutant. At sufficiently high concentrations, SO2 may irritate the upper respiratory
tract. Current scientific evidence links short-term exposures to SO2, ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours,
with an array of adverse respiratory effects, including bronchoconstriction and increased asthma
symptoms. These effects are particularly adverse for asthmatics at elevated ventilation rates (e.g., while
exercising or playing) at lower concentrations and when combined with particulates, SO2 may do greater
harm by injuring lung tissue. Studies also show a connection between short-term exposure and increased
visits to emergency facilities and hospital admissions for respiratory illnesses, particularly in at-risk
populations such as children, the elderly, and asthmatics (SCAQMD 2005; USEPA 2016). The SoCAB is
designated attainment under the California and National AAQS (CARB 2015).
Suspended Particulate Matter consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols,
fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized and regulated. Inhalable coarse
particles, or PM10, include particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less (i.e.,
≤10 millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch). Inhalable fine particles, or PM2.5, have an aerodynamic
diameter of 2.5 microns or less (i.e., ≤2.5 millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch). Particulate discharge into
the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities.
Both PM10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in people who are
naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems. The EPA’s scientific review concluded that PM2.5,
which penetrates deeply into the lungs, is more likely than PM10 to contribute to health effects and at far
lower concentrations. These health effects include premature death in people with heart or lung disease,
nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased
respiratory symptoms (e.g., irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing) (SCAQMD 2005).
There has been emerging evidence that ultrafine particulates, which are even smaller particulates with an
aerodynamic diameter of <0.1 microns or less (i.e., ≤0.1 millionths of a meter or <0.000004 inch), have
human health implications, because their toxic components may initiate or facilitate biological processes
that may lead to adverse effects to the heart, lungs, and other organs (SCAQMD 2013). However, the
EPA or CARB has yet to adopt AAQS to regulate these particulates. Diesel particulate matter is classified
by CARB as a carcinogen (CARB 1998). Particulate matter can also cause environmental effects such as
visibility impairment,1 environmental damage,2 and aesthetic damage 3 (SCAQMD 2005; USEPA 2016).
The SoCAB is a nonattainment area for PM2.5 under California and National AAQS and a nonattainment
area for PM10 under the California AAQS (CARB 2015).
1 PM2.5 is the main cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the United States.
2 Particulate matter can be carried over long distances by wind and then settle on ground or water, making lakes and streams acidic;
changing the nutrient balance in coastal waters and large river basins; depleting the nutrients in soil; damaging sensitive forests and
farm crops; and affecting the diversity of ecosystems.
3 Particulate matter can stain and damage stone and other materials, including culturally important objects such as statues and
monuments.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-7
Ozone is commonly referred to as “smog” and is a gas that is formed when VOCs and NOX, both by-
products of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo photochemical reactions in sunlight. O3 is a
secondary criteria air pollutant. O3 concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when
direct sunlight, light winds, and warm temperatures create favorable conditions for its formation. O3
poses a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as well as to healthy people.
Breathing O3 can trigger a variety of health problems, including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation,
and congestion. It can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. Ground-level O3 also can reduce lung
function and inflame the linings of the lungs. Repeated exposure may permanently scar lung tissue. O3
also affects sensitive vegetation and ecosystems, including forests, parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness
areas. In particular, O3 harms sensitive vegetation during the growing season (SCAQMD 2005; USEPA
2016). The SoCAB is designated extreme nonattainment under the California AAQS (1-hour and 8-hour)
and National AAQS (8-hour) (CARB 2015).
Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. Once taken into
the body, lead distributes throughout the body in the blood and accumulates in the bones. Depending on
the level of exposure, lead can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system,
reproductive and developmental systems, and the cardiovascular system. Lead exposure also affects the
oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. The effects of lead most commonly encountered in current
populations are neurological effects in children and cardiovascular effects in adults (e.g., high blood
pressure and heart disease). Infants and young children are especially sensitive to even low levels of lead,
which may contribute to behavioral problems, learning deficits, and lowered IQ (SCAQMD 2005;
USEPA 2016). The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources.
As a result of the EPA’s regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, emissions of lead from the
transportation sector dramatically declined by 95 percent between 1980 and 1999, and levels of lead in
the air decreased by 94 percent between 1980 and 1999. Today, the highest levels of lead in air are usually
found near lead smelters. The major sources of lead emissions today are ore and metals processing and
piston-engine aircraft operating on leaded aviation gasoline. However, in 2008 the EPA and CARB
adopted more strict lead standards, and special monitoring sites immediately downwind of lead sources
recorded very localized violations of the new state and federal standards.4 As a result of these violations,
the Los Angeles County portion of the SoCAB is designated as nonattainment under the National AAQS
for lead (SCAQMD 2012; CARB 2015). Because emissions of lead are found only in projects that are
permitted by SCAQMD, lead is not a pollutant of concern for the proposed project.
Toxic Air Contaminants
By the last update to the TAC list in December 1999, CARB had designated 244 compounds as TACs (CARB
1999). Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high
risks and show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be
4 Source-oriented monitors record concentrations of lead at lead-related industrial facilities in the SoCAB, which include Exide
Technologies in the City of Commerce; Quemetco, Inc., in the City of Industry; Trojan Battery Company in Santa Fe Springs; and
Exide Technologies in Vernon. Monitoring conducted between 2004 through 2007 showed that the Trojan Battery Company and
Exide Technologies exceed the federal standards (SCAQMD 2012).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-8 PlaceWorks
attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel-fueled
engines.
Diesel Particulate Matter
In 1998, CARB identified diesel particulate matter as a TAC. Previously, the individual chemical compounds
in diesel exhaust were considered TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particles are 10 microns or less in diameter.
Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial
and alveolar regions of the lungs.
Air Quality Management Planning
SCAQMD is the agency responsible for improving air quality in the SoCAB and assuring that the National
and California AAQS are attained and maintained. SCAQMD is responsible for preparing the air quality
management plan (AQMP) for the SoCAB in coordination with the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG). Since 1979, a number of AQMPs have been prepared.
2016 AQMP
On March 3, 2017, SCAQMD adopted the 2016 AQMP, which serves as an update to the 2012 AQMP. The
2016 AQMP addresses strategies and measures to attain the following National AAQS:
2008 National 8-hour ozone standard by 2031,
2012 National annual PM2.5 standard by 20255,
2006 National 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 2019,
1997 National 8-hour ozone standard by 2023, and the
1979 National 1-hour ozone standard by year 2022.
It is projected that total NOX emissions in the SoCAB would need to be reduced to 150 tons per day (tpd) by
year 2023 and to 100 tpd in year 2031 to meet the 1997 and 2008 federal 8-hour ozone standards. The
strategy to meet the 1997 federal 8-hour ozone standard would also lead to attaining the 1979 federal 1-hour
ozone standard by year 2022 (SCAQMD 2017), which requires reducing NOX emissions in the SoCAB to 250
tpd. This is approximately 45 percent additional reductions above existing regulations for the 2023 ozone
standard and 55 percent additional reductions above existing regulations to meet the 2031 ozone standard.
Reducing NOX emissions would also reduce PM2.5 concentrations within the SoCAB. However, as the goal is
to meet the 2012 federal annual PM2.5 standard no later than year 2025, SCAQMD is seeking to reclassify the
SoCAB from “moderate” to “serious” nonattainment under this federal standard. A “moderate” non-
attainment would require meeting the 2012 federal standard by no later than 2021.
Overall, the 2016 AQMP is composed of stationary and mobile-source emission reductions from regulatory
control measures, incentive-based programs, co-benefits from climate programs, mobile-source strategies, and
5 The 2016 AQMP requests a reclassification from moderate to serious non-attainment for the 2012 National PM2.5 standard.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-9
reductions from federal sources such as aircrafts, locomotives, and ocean-going vessels. Strategies outlined in
the 2016 AQMP would be implemented in collaboration between CARB and the EPA (SCAQMD 2017).
Lead Implementation Plan
In 2008, the EPA designated the Los Angeles County portion of the SoCAB as a nonattainment area under
the federal lead classification due to the addition of source-specific monitoring under the new federal
regulation. This designation was based on two source-specific monitors in the City of Vernon and the City of
Industry that exceeded the new standard in the 2007-to-2009 period. The remainder of the SoCAB, outside
the Los Angeles County nonattainment area, remains in attainment of the new 2008 lead standard. On
May 24, 2012, CARB approved the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the federal lead standard,
which the EPA revised in 2008. Lead concentrations in this nonattainment area have been below the level of
the federal standard since December 2011. The SIP revision was submitted to the EPA for approval.
SCAQMD Rules and Regulations
All development projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of activity,
including the following:
Rule 401, Visible Emissions. This rule is intended to prevent the discharge of pollutant emissions from
an emissions source that results in visible emissions. Specifically, the rule prohibits the discharge of any
air contaminant into the atmosphere by a person from any single source of emission for a period or
periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour that is as dark as or darker than designated
No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart, as published by the U.S. Bureau of Mines.
Rule 402, Nuisance. This rule is intended to prevent the discharge of pollutant emissions from an
emissions source that results in a public nuisance. Specifically, this rule prohibits any person from
discharging quantities of air contaminants or other material from any source such that it would result in
an injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public.
Additionally, the discharge of air contaminants would also be prohibited where it would endanger the
comfort, repose, health, or safety of any number of persons or the public, or that cause, or have a natural
tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to odors emanating
from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. This rule is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in
the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic (human-made) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to
prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or human-made
condition capable of generating fugitive dust, and requires best available control measures to be applied
to earth moving and grading activities.
Rule 1113, Architectural Coatings. This rule serves to limit the VOC content of architectural coatings
used on projects in the SCAQMD. Any person who supplies, sells, offers for sale, or manufactures any
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-10 PlaceWorks
architectural coating for use on projects in the SCAQMD must comply with the current VOC standards
set in this rule.
5.2.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
South Coast Air Basin
The Plan Area is in the SoCAB, which includes all of Orange County and the nondesert portions of Los
Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The SoCAB is in a coastal plain with connecting broad
valleys and low hills and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant, with high mountains
forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of
the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild weather
pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds
(SCAQMD 2005).
Temperature and Precipitation
The annual average temperature varies little throughout the SoCAB, ranging from the low to middle 60s,
measured in degrees Fahrenheit (°F). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less
variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station near
the City is the San Gabriel Fire Department Monitoring Station (ID No. 047785). The average low is reported
at 41.9°F in December and January, and the average high is 89.7°F in August (WRCC 2016).
In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost
all rain falls from November through April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered
thundershowers near the coast, with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains.
Rainfall averages 17.2 inches per year in the project area (WRCC 2016).
Humidity
Although the SoCAB has a semiarid climate, the air near the earth’s surface is typically moist because of the
presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into
the SoCAB by offshore winds, the “ocean effect” is dominant. Periods of heavy fog, especially along the
coast, are frequent. Low clouds, often referred to as high fog, are a characteristic climatic feature. Annual
average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the SoCAB (SCAQMD
2005).
Wind
Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly or southwesterly onshore winds
during the day and by easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is somewhat greater during the
dry summer months than during the rainy winter season.
Between periods of wind, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Air
stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-11
and fall months, surface high-pressure systems over the SoCAB, combined with other meteorological
conditions, can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue a few days
before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished.
The mountain ranges to the east affect the transport and diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting their eastward
transport. Air quality in the SoCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of
coastal southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during
prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions (SCAQMD 2005).
Inversions
In conjunction with the two characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal
pollutant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that control the vertical
depth through which pollutants are mixed. These are the marine/subsidence inversion and the radiation
inversion. The combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants in leading to the highly-
degraded air quality in summer and the generally good air quality in the winter in the project area (SCAQMD
2005).
SoCAB Nonattainment Areas
The AQMP provides the framework for air quality basins to achieve attainment of the state and federal
ambient air quality standards through the SIP. Areas are classified as attainment or nonattainment areas for
particular pollutants depending on whether they meet the ambient air quality standards. Severity
classifications for ozone nonattainment range in magnitude from marginal, moderate, and serious to severe
and extreme.
Unclassified. A pollutant is designated unclassified if the data are incomplete and do not support a
designation of attainment or nonattainment.
Attainment. A pollutant is in attainment if the AAQS for that pollutant was not violated at any site in
the area during a three-year period.
Nonattainment. A pollutant is in nonattainment if there was at least one violation of an AAQS for that
pollutant in the area.
Nonattainment/Transitional. A subcategory of the nonattainment designation. An area is designated
nonattainment/transitional to signify that the area is close to attaining the AAQS for that pollutant.
The attainment status for the SoCAB is shown in Table 5.2-2, Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South
Coast Air Basin.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-12 PlaceWorks
Table 5.2-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin
Pollutant State Federal
Ozone – 1-hour Extreme Nonattainment No Federal Standard
Ozone – 8-hour Extreme Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment
PM10 Serious Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Attainment Attainment
NO2 Attainment Attainment/Maintenance
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Nonattainment (Los Angeles County only )1
All others Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified
Source: CARB 2015.
1 In 2010, the Los Angeles portion of the SoCAB was designated nonattainment for lead under the new 2008 federal AAQS as a result of large industrial emitters. Remaining areas in the SoCAB are unclassified.
Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study IV
The Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES) is a monitoring and evaluation study on ambient
concentrations of TACs and estimated the potential health risks from air toxics in the SoCAB. In 2008,
SCAQMD conducted its third update to the MATES study (MATES III). The results showed that the overall
basinwide risk for excess cancer from a lifetime exposure to ambient levels of air toxics was about 1,200 in a
million. The largest contributor to this risk was diesel exhaust, accounting for 84 percent of the cancer risk
(SCAQMD 2008).
SCAQMD recently released the fourth update (MATES IV). The results showed that the overall monitored
basinwide risk for excess cancer from a lifetime exposure to ambient levels of air toxics decreased to
approximately 418 in one million. Compared to the 2008 MATES III, monitored excess cancer risks
decreased by approximately 65 percent. Approximately 90 percent of the risk is attributed to mobile sources,
and 10 percent is attributed to TACs from stationary sources, such as refineries, metal processing facilities, gas
stations, and chrome plating facilities. The largest contributor to this risk was diesel exhaust, accounting for
approximately 68 percent of the air toxics risk. Compared to MATES III, MATES IV found substantial
improvement in air quality and associated decrease in air toxics exposure. As a result, the estimated basinwide
population-weighted risk decreased by approximately 57 percent compared to the analysis done for the
MATES III time period (SCAQMD 2015a).
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment updated the guidelines for estimating cancer risks
on March 6, 2015. The new method utilizes higher estimates of cancer potency during early life exposures,
which result in a higher calculation of risk. There are also differences in the assumptions on breathing rates
and length of residential exposures. When combined, SCAQMD estimates that risks for a given inhalation
exposure level will be about 2.7 times higher using the proposed updated methods from MATES IV (e.g., 2.7
times higher than 418 in one million overall excess cancer risk) (SCAQMD 2015a).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-13
Existing Ambient Air Quality
Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the vicinity of the Plan Area are
best documented by measurements made by SCAQMD. The majority of the City, half of the City’s sphere of
influence (SOI) area, and a small eastern portion of the Specific Plan are within Source Receptor Area (SRA)
9 – East San Gabriel Valley. The remaining portions of the City and its SOI, as well as the majority of the
Specific Plan Area are within SRA 8 – West San Gabriel Valley. The air quality monitoring station closest to
the Plan Area is the Pasadena – South Wilson Avenue Monitoring Station. Because this station does not
monitor SO2 and PM10, data for these pollutants were obtained from the Burbank – West Palm Avenue
Monitoring Station and the Azusa Monitoring Station, respectively. Data from these stations are summarized
in Table 5.2-3. The data show that the area regularly exceeds the state and federal eight-hour O3 standards and
the state one hour standards. The state PM10 standards are also regularly exceeded while the federal PM2.5
standards have occasionally exceeded. The CO, SO2, and NO2 standards have not been exceeded in the last
five years in the project vicinity.
Table 5.2-3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Pollutant/Standard
Number of Days Thresholds Were Exceeded and Maximum Levels
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Ozone (O3)1
State 1-Hour ≥ 0.09 ppm (days exceed threshold)
State 8-hour ≥ 0.07 ppm (days exceed threshold)
Federal 8-Hour > 0.075 ppm (days exceed threshold)3
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm)
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm)
5
13
5
0.107
0.084
8
20
9
0.111
0.086
2
2
0
0.099
0.075
6
13
7
0.124
0.096
12
18
7
0.111
0.084
Carbon Monoxide (CO)1
State 8-Hour > 9.0 ppm (days exceed threshold)
Federal 8-Hour ≥ 9.0 ppm (days exceed threshold)
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm)
0
0
2.15
0
0
1.58
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)1
State 1-Hour ≥ 0.18 ppm (days exceed threshold)
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppb)
0
0.1015
0
0.0712
0
0.0667
0
0.0752
0
0.0749
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 3
State 24-Hour ≥ 0.04 ppm (days exceed threshold)
Federal 24-Hour ≥ 0.14 ppm (days exceed threshold)
Max 24-Hour Conc. (ppm)
0
0
0.002
0
0
0.001
0
0
0.001
*
*
*
*
*
*
Coarse Particulates (PM10)2
State 24-Hour > 50 µg/m3 (days exceed threshold)
Federal 24-Hour > 150 µg/m3 (days exceed threshold)
Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3)
8
0
65.0
6
0
78.0
6
0
76.0
21
0
96.0
12
0
101.0
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-14 PlaceWorks
Table 5.2-3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Pollutant/Standard
Number of Days Thresholds Were Exceeded and Maximum Levels
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Fine Particulates (PM2.5)1
Federal 24-Hour > 35 µg/m3 (days exceed threshold)
Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3)
1
43.8
0
30.5
0
25.7
0
32.5
2
48.5
Source: CARB 2016b. Notes: ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter * Data not available.
1 Data obtained from the Pasadena – South Wilson Avenue Monitoring Station in the City of Pasadena.
2 Data obtained from the Azusa Monitoring Station in the City of Azusa.
3 Data obtained from the Burbank – West Palm Avenue Monitoring Station in the City of Burbank.
Existing Emissions
Plan Area
Table 5.2-4 identifies the existing criteria air pollutant emissions inventory of the overall Plan Area using
emission rates for year 2016 (current conditions) and year 2035 (future conditions). The inventories are based
on existing land uses in the Plan Area. The Year 2016 inventory represents the projected emissions currently
generated by existing land uses using the baseline year 2016 emission factors for on-road vehicles. The Year
2035 inventory represents the projected emissions that the existing land uses would generate in the future
utilizing year 2035 emission factors for on-road vehicles. To isolate the impacts related to the change in land
uses proposed under the Mid-Century Plan, emissions related to the Mid-Century Plan will be based on the
difference in emissions generated by the existing and proposed land uses under year 2035 conditions. This
approach is taken because existing land uses would be subject to regulations that come into effect in the
future that reduce mobile-source emissions. Thus, the level of emissions the existing land uses generate today
would not be generated in perpetuity, but would be affected by these state regulations.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-15
Table 5.2-4 Existing Plan Area Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Inventory
Sector
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Year 2016
Transportation (2016 emission factors)1 97 821 2,723 7 110 50
Energy (natural gas use) 15 126 65 1 10 10
Area – Landscaping/Light Commercial Equipment2 106 43 1,515 <1 6 5
Area – Consumer Products3 559 0 0 0 0 0
Area – Construction2 210 1,387 1,470 2 78 77
Total 989 2,378 5,782 11 204 142
Year 2035
Transportation (2035 emissions factors)1 33 143 855 5 101 41
Energy 15 126 65 1 10 10
Area – Landscaping/Light Commercial Equipment2 106 43 1,515 <1 6 5
Area – Consumer Products3 559 0 0 0 0 0
Area – Construction2 210 1,387 1,470 2 78 77
Total 922 1,700 3,904 8 195 134
Sources:
1 EMFAC2014, Version 1.0.7, based on daily VMT provided by Fehr & Peers. Transportation sector includes the full trip length for internal-internal trips and 50 percent trip length for external-internal/internal-external trips. VMT per year based on a conversion of VMT x 347 days per year to account for less travel on weekend, consistent with CARB statewide GHG emissions inventory methodology (CARB 2008).
2 OFFROAD2007. Estimated based on population (Landscaping) and employment (Light Commercial Equipment) for Temple City as a percentage of Los Angeles County. Estimated based on housing permit data for Los Angeles County and Temple City from the US Census. Daily off-road construction emissions multiplied by
347 days/year to account for reduced/limited construction activity on weekends and holidays. Excludes fugitive emissions from construction sites and wood-burning
fireplaces. Various industrial and commercial processes (e.g., manufacturing, dry cleaning) allowed under the land use diagram of the proposed Mid-Century Plan
would require permitting and would be subject to further study pursuant to SCAQMD Regulation XIII, New Source Review. Because the nature of those emissions cannot be determined at this time and are subject to further regulation and permitting, they would be speculative and are not included in the table.
3 Based on CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.1, methodology utilized to calculate VOC emissions from use of household consumer cleaning products.
Criteria air pollutant emissions generated within the Plan Area were estimated using EMFAC2014,
OFFROAD2007, and data provided by SoCal Gas for natural gas use. Emissions within the City and SOI
come from the following sources:
Transportation: Emissions from vehicle trips beginning and ending within the Plan Area (i.e.,
internal/internal vehicle trips) and from trips that either begin or end within the Plan Area, but not both
(i.e., external/internal vehicle trips).
Area Sources: Emissions from lawn and garden equipment use, commercial equipment use, and
construction equipment use.
Energy: Emissions generated from natural gas consumption used for cooking and heating in the Plan
Area.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-16 PlaceWorks
Crossroads Specific Plan
The Specific Plan Area consists of commercial land uses and single- and multi-family residences. These uses
currently generate criteria air pollutant emissions from natural gas use for energy, heating and cooking, vehicle
trips associated with each land use, and area sources such as landscaping equipment and consumer cleaning
products. Table 5.2-5 shows the average daily emissions inventory currently associated with the Specific Plan
Area.
Table 5.2-5 Existing Specific Plan Area Daily Emissions Inventory
Phase
Operation-Related Regional Emissions (pounds/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area 17 1 17 <1 2 2
Energy <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Transportation 19 31 273 1 50 17
Total 36 32 290 1 52 16
Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1. Based on highest winter or summer emissions using 2016 transportation emission rates. Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. Excludes permitted sources of emissions that are covered under SCAQMD regulations.
1 Purposes of this analysis, single-family residences are assumed to have gas fireplaces while multi-family residences are assumed to not have fireplaces.
Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population
groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the
chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases.
Residential areas are also considered sensitive to air pollution because residents (including children and the
elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants
present. Other sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. Recreational land uses
are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise
places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable
air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial, commercial, retail, and office areas are
considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, because
the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the workforce is generally the
healthiest segment of the population.
The nearest offsite sensitive receptors to the Specific Plan Area include the surrounding residences, adjacent
San Gabriel Academy to the west across the channel, Jefferson Middle School further west across
Wedgewood Avenue, and Little Corn Family Child Day Care to the east near Sultana Avenue and Broadway.
In addition to the offsite sensitive receptors, there are also existing sensitive receptors within the Specific Plan
Area, consisting of single- and multi-family residences in addition to the students at Angela Preschool and
Kindergarten in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Las Tunas Drive and Muscatel Avenue and the
students at the daycare center at 5642 Rosemead Boulevard.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-17
5.2.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
AQ-1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
AQ-2 Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation.
AQ-3 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
AQ-4 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
AQ-5 Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
5.2.2.1 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT THRESHOLDS
The analysis of the Proposed Project’s air quality impacts follows the guidance and methodologies
recommended in SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook and the significance thresholds on SCAQMD’s
website.6 CEQA allows the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district to be used to assess impacts of a project on air quality. SCAQMD has established
thresholds of significance for regional air quality emissions for construction activities and project operation.
In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, projects are also subject to the AAQS. These are addressed
through an analysis of localized CO impacts and localized significance thresholds (LSTs).
Regional Significance Thresholds
SCAQMD has adopted regional construction and operational emissions thresholds to determine a project’s
cumulative impact on air quality in the SoCAB, shown in Table 5.2-6. The table lists thresholds that are
applicable for all projects uniformly, regardless of size or scope. There is growing evidence that although
UFPs contribute a very small portion of the overall atmospheric mass concentration, they represent a greater
proportion of the health risk from PM. However, the EPA and CARB have not adopted AAQS to regulate
UFPs; therefore, SCAQMD has not developed thresholds for them.
6 SCAQMD’s Air Quality Significance Thresholds are current as of March 2011 and can be found at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-18 PlaceWorks
Table 5.2-6 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds
Air Pollutant Construction Phase Operational Phase
Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs)/Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs) 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
Particulates (PM10) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
Particulates (PM2.5) 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
Source: SCAQMD 2015b.
Projects that exceed the regional significance threshold contribute to the nonattainment designation of the
SoCAB. The attainment designations are based on the AAQS, which are set at levels of exposure that are
determined to not result in adverse health effects. Exposure to fine particulate pollution and ozone causes
myriad health impacts, particularly to the respiratory and cardiovascular systems:
Increases cancer risk (PM2.5, TACs)
Aggravates respiratory disease (O3, PM2.5)
Increases bronchitis (O3, PM2.5)
Causes chest discomfort, throat irritation, and increased effort to take a deep breath (O3)
Reduces resistance to infections and increases fatigue (O3)
Reduces lung growth in children (PM2.5)
Contributes to heart disease and heart attacks (PM2.5)
Contributes to premature death (O3, PM2.5)
Contributes to lower birth weight in newborns (PM2.5) (SCAQMD 2015c)
Exposure to fine particulates and ozone aggravates asthma attacks and can amplify other lung ailments such
as emphysema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Exposure to current levels of PM2.5 is responsible
for an estimated 4,300 cardiopulmonary-related deaths per year in the SoCAB. In addition, University of
Southern California scientists, in a landmark children’s health study, found that lung growth improved as air
pollution declined for children aged 11 to 15 in five communities in the SoCAB (SCAQMD 2015d).
Mass emissions in Table 5.2-5, Existing Specific Plan Area Daily Emissions Inventory, are not correlated with
concentrations of air pollutants but contribute to the cumulative air quality impacts in the SoCAB. Therefore,
regional emissions from a single project do not single-handedly trigger a regional health impact, and it is
speculative to identify how many more individuals in the air basin would be affected by the health effects
listed above. In addition, the analysis to determine how exceeding the regional thresholds would affect the
number of days the region is in nonattainment is within the scope of the AQMP. SCAQMD is the primary
agency responsible for ensuring the health and welfare of sensitive individuals exposed to elevated
concentrations of air pollutants in the SoCAB. To achieve the health-based standards established by the EPA,
SCAQMD prepares an AQMP that details regional programs to attain the AAQS.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-19
Localized Significance Thresholds
SCAQMD developed LSTs to determine if emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, or PM2.5 generated at a project site
(offsite mobile-source emissions are not included the LST analysis) would expose sensitive receptors to
substantial concentrations of criteria air pollutants. LSTs are the maximum emissions at a project site that are
not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent federal or state AAQS. LSTs are
based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project source receptor area and the
distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LST analysis for construction is applicable to all projects of five
acres or less; however, it can be used to screen larger projects to determine whether or not dispersion
modeling may be required. Table 5.2-7 shows the localized significance thresholds for projects in the SoCAB.
Table 5.2-7 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds
Air Pollutant (Relevant AAQS) Concentration
1-Hour CO Standard (CAAQS) 20 ppm
8-Hour CO Standard (CAAQS) 9.0 ppm
1-Hour NO2 Standard (CAAQS) 0.18 ppm
Annual NO2 Standard (CAAQS) 0.03 ppm
24-Hour PM10 Standard – Construction (SCAQMD)1 10.4 µg/m3
24-Hour PM2.5 Standard – Construction (SCAQMD)1 10.4 µg/m3
24-Hour PM10 Standard – Operation (SCAQMD)1 2.5 µg/m3
24-Hour PM2.5 Standard – Operation (SCAQMD)1 2.5 µg/m3
Annual Average PM10 Standard (SCAQMD)1 1.0 µg/m3
Source: SCAQMD 2015b. ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
1 Threshold is based on SCAQMD Rule 403. Since the SoCAB is in nonattainment for PM10 and PM2.5, the threshold is established as an allowable change in
concentration. Therefore, background concentration is irrelevant.
CO Hotspots
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. These pockets have
the potential to exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm. Because
CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the
atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of
localized CO concentrations. Hotspots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is
highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds. With the turnover of
older vehicles and introduction of cleaner fuels as well as implementation of control technology on industrial
facilities, CO concentrations in the SoCAB and the state have steadily declined.
Health Risk Analysis
Whenever a project would require use of chemical compounds that have been identified in SCAQMD Rule
1401, placed on CARB’s air toxics list pursuant to AB 1807, or placed on the EPA’s National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, a health risk assessment is required by the SCAQMD. Table 5.2-8
lists the SCAQMD’s TAC incremental risk thresholds for operation of a project. Residential, commercial, and
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-20 PlaceWorks
office uses do not use substantial quantities of TACs, and these thresholds typically apply to new industrial
projects.
Table 5.2-8 SCAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds
Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) > 0.5 excess cancer cases
Hazard Index (project increment) ≥ 1.0
Source: SCAQMD 2015b.
Although the Proposed Project would introduce major sources of toxic air contaminants, vehicle traffic and
other project emissions will contribute to existing sources of TACs. Under the California Supreme Court’s
decision in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District [2015] 62 Cal.4th
369 [Case No. S213478]), where a project will exacerbate an existing environmental hazard, CEQA requires an
analysis of the worsened condition on future project residents and the public at large. Projects that do not
generate emissions that exceed the values in Table 5.2-9 would not substantially contribute to cumulative air
quality hazards or exacerbate an existing environmental hazard. Residential, commercial, office, and
institutional uses (such as the hospital land uses) do not use substantial quantities of TACs and typically do
not exacerbate existing hazards, so these thresholds are typically applied to new industrial projects and are not
applicable to the proposed project.
5.2.3 Relevant General Plan Policies
The following are relevant policies of the Mid-Century Plan Land Use, Mobility, Community Services,
Economic Development, and Natural Resources Elements, which may contribute to reduce potential air
quality impacts as a result of implementation of the Proposed Project.
Land Use Element
LU 2.1 Complete Community. Allow for the development of uses contributing a complete and self-
sustaining community, containing a mix of uses that minimize the need for residents to travel outside of
the City for retail goods and services, employment, entertainment, and recreation.
LU 2.3 Places to Shop. Provide for and encourage the development of a diversity of uses in Temple
City’s downtown core, commercial centers, and corridors to enable residents and business persons to
shop locally and reduce the need to travel to adjoining communities.
LU 2.4 Places to Work. Provide opportunities for the development of a broad range of land uses that
offer job opportunities, including knowledge-based and local serving jobs that are commensurate with
the education, skills, and occupations of Temple City residents.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-21
LU 2.5 Places to Live and Work. Provide for the development of projects integrating housing with
commercial uses enabling residents to reduce automobile travel, air pollution, and greenhouse gas
emissions.
LU 3.1 Development Pattern and Urban Form. Maintain and enhance Temple City’s urban form with
distinct, compact, and walkable residential neighborhoods and business districts containing a diversity of
uses, densities, and physical characteristics.
LU 3.2 Complete and Livable Neighborhoods. Maintain the pattern of distinct residential
neighborhoods oriented around parks, schools, and community facilities that are connected to and
walkable from neighborhood-serving businesses.
LU 3.3 Vibrant Downtown. Provide for the development of a mix of uses and activities that enhance
and build upon downtown as the pedestrian-oriented, economic, cultural, and social heart of Temple
City.
LU 3.4 Arterial Nodes. Cluster higher density, pedestrian-oriented mixed uses at key intersections, such
as Las Tunas Drive and Rosemead Boulevard, and Las Tunas Drive and Temple City Boulevard, to create
an active, vibrant, and prosperous commercial environment.
LU 3.6 Pedestrian-Active Districts. Maintain a robust network of streetscape and pedestrian amenities
within the downtown core and mixed-use and commercial centers supporting pedestrian activity and
enhancing walkability.
LU 3.8 A Connected Community. Maintain an interconnected network of pedestrian and bicycle
pathways facilitating access among residential, retail, and industrial districts, schools, open spaces, and
recreation areas.
LU 4.5 Hazardous Uses. Prohibit or control land uses that pose potential health and environmental
hazards to Temple City’s neighborhoods and districts.
LU 4.11 Hazardous Uses. Prohibit or effectively control land uses which pose potential environmental
hazards to Temple City’s neighborhoods.
LU 7.1 Sustainable Land Development. Promote land use and urban design development practices
that reduce energy and water consumption, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste and noise
generation. These should include practices described in the United States Green Building Council’s
LEED-ND rating program such as concentrating development to promote walking in lieu of the
automobile, capturing and re-using stormwater onsite, managing and reusing wastewater, orienting
buildings to maximize opportunities for solar energy use, use of drought tolerant and native landscapes,
shading of exterior public spaces, and recycling and salvage for reuse of construction and demolition
debris.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-22 PlaceWorks
LU 7.2 Sustainable Design and Construction. Require new development and substantial renovations
to comply with the Cal Green Code’s sustainable building practices incorporating a “whole system”
approach to designing and constructing buildings that consume comparatively less energy, water, and
other natural resources, reduce wastes, facilitate natural ventilation, use daylight effectively, and are
healthy, safe, comfortable, and durable.
LU 7.3 Existing Structure Reuse. Encourage the retention, adaptive reuse, and renovation of existing
buildings with “green” building technologies to retain the structure’s embodied energy, increase energy
efficiency, and limit the generation of construction waste.
LU 7.5 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans. Require major development projects to prepare greenhouse
gas reduction plans consistent with the targets defined in state statutory requirements.
LU 7.7 Alternative Fuels. Provide locations for alternative fuel facilities such as electrical re-charging
stations and hydrogen fuel supplies.
LU 7.8 Green Infrastructure. Utilize best practices that reduce natural resource consumption and
impacts, as defined by the Utilities section of this Plan.
LU 9.6 Walkable Neighborhoods. Maintain sidewalks, parkways, the urban forest, and landscaping
throughout residential neighborhoods to promote a safe and pleasant pedestrian environment.
LU 9.7 Connected Neighborhoods. Ensure safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connectivity
between residential neighborhoods and commercial centers, recreation and open spaces, schools, work
places, and other community activity centers.
LU 14.1 Mix of Uses. Accommodate development integrating commercial and residential land uses in
mixed -use designated areas that establish places that are economically vital and pedestrian-active
contributing to resident health and community sustainability.
LU 16.2 Land Use Mix. Provide for the development of retail, office, restaurant, and other commercial
uses along the street frontages, integrated with multi-family housing on abutting properties or on upper
level at key intersections designated on the Land Use Diagram, which expand the customer base for local
businesses, enable residents to live close to jobs, and create an active, walkable environment.
LU 16.3 Pedestrian Activity. Require that the ground floor of buildings facing Las Tunas Drive be
located directly along and oriented to the sidewalk frontages and designed to foster an active pedestrian
environment.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-23
Mobility Element
M 1.1 Complete Streets. Require that the planning, design, and construction of all transportation
projects consider the needs of all modes of travel to create safe, livable, and inviting environments for
pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and public transit users of all ages and abilities.
M 1.4 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety. Balance the safety concerns of pedestrians and cyclists with
motor vehicles to ensure that the safety of all users of the transportation system is considered.
M 1.8 Wayfinding. Develop a comprehensive and visible pedestrian and cyclist friendly way-finding
signage system in the city to direct pedestrians and cyclists to transit facilities, local and regional trails and
routes, civic and cultural amenities, and visitor and recreation destinations. The way-finding system
should make an effort to connect with the region and surrounding cities.
M 3.1 Pedestrian Network. Create a safe and convenient circulation system for pedestrians that
addresses crosswalks; improves the connections between neighborhoods and commercial areas; provides
places to sit or gather, pedestrian-scaled street lighting, buffers from moving vehicle traffic; and includes
amenities that attract people of all ages and abilities.
M 3.2 Pedestrian Improvement Prioritizations. Prioritize pedestrian improvements in areas of the
City with community facilities, supportive land use patterns, and facilities that provide connectivity to
other modes of travel such as bicycling and transit.
M 3.3 Sidewalks for Roadways. Require adequate and well maintained sidewalks along all City roadways
to allow residents of all ages and abilities to walk in a safe and accessible manner.
M 3.4 Pedestrian Connections for Development. Require that all development or redevelopment
projects provide pedestrian connections to the external pedestrian network.
M 3.5 Pedestrian Education and Awareness. Support pedestrian education, encouragement,
awareness and enforcement activities for pedestrian and automobile users.
M 4.1 Bicycle Networks. Require that the City provide additional bicycle facilities along roadways in the
City, where appropriate and feasible, in support of the City’s Bicycle Master Plan and other planning
documents.
M 4.2 Priority Bike Improvements. Prioritize improvements that address bicycling in existing areas of
the City with community facilities, complementary land use patterns, and connections to other modes of
travel including walking and transit.
M 4.3 Bicycle Parking. Require that public and private development in the City provide sufficient
bicycle parking.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-24 PlaceWorks
M 4.4 Bicycle Share Program. Explore the feasibility of developing a citywide bike share program.
Work with the local business community to identify and coordinate with possible corporate sponsors.
M 4.5 Bicycle Education and Awareness. Encourage bicyclists and automobile users to be aware of
bicycling issues, and lawful/responsible riding. Work with TCUSD, bicycle-related organizations, public-
safety agencies, and other groups to support bicycle education events and classes that help new and
experienced bike riders become more knowledgeable and effective at bike riding and bike maintenance.
M 5.1 Transit Improvements. Promote transit service in areas of the City with sufficient density and
intensity of uses, mix of appropriate uses, and supportive bicycle/pedestrian networks.
M 5.2 Local Transit Alternatives. Work with Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Metro) and other transit providers to investigate the feasibility of local transit alternatives
including a local shuttle or trolley system and enhanced transit options for local students.
M 5.3 Bus Stops. Review existing bus stop locations to determine their accessibility to key destinations
such as schools, residential areas, retail centers, and civic facilities. Work with Metro and other transit
providers to relocate bus stop locations as needed to provide greater access to these key destinations.
Prioritize those bus stop locations which are connected to bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
M 5.4 Transit Supportive Development. Encourage mixed-use development in areas with high levels
of transit accessibility.
M 5.5 Senior Transit. Maintain existing paratransit service in the City to provide affordable and reliable
transportation options for older adults and persons with disabilities.
M 5.6 Safe Routes to Transit. Regularly review and improve pedestrian and cyclist access to transit.
M 6.6 Alternative Fueled City Vehicles. Prioritize the purchase of alternative fueled vehicles for City
use as appropriate within the limitations of existing City resources, the availability of support services,
and anticipated O&M costs.
M 6.7 Alternative Fueled Resident Vehicles. Promote the purchase and use of alternative fueled
vehicles by City residents through informational strategies such as fact sheets and materials regarding
alternative fuel benefits and state and federal incentives.
M 6.8 Travel Demand Management. Encourage and promote travel demand management strategies
that are aimed at reducing vehicle trips by providing greater travel options for residents, employees and
visitors of Temple City.
M 8.3 Regional Non-Motorized Connections. Collaborate with SCAG, Metro, and other agencies to
provide connections between the City’s bicycle and pedestrian network to regional facilities and
destinations.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-25
M 8.5 Truck Routes. Identify and designate routes for efficient truck movement that protect and reduce
impacts to residential neighborhoods.
Economic Development Element
ED 4.1 Targeted Job Opportunity. Explore and identify industries with well-paying jobs that match or
that can enhance the skill base and training capacity of resident workforce.
ED 4.2 Targeted Job Promotion. Promote local workforce as marketable resource for job placement
companies serving the area and targeted industries.
ED 4.3 Targeted Job Growth. Encourage cooperative partnerships with industry businesses that plan to
increase on-site staffing upon location or expansion within Temple City.
ED 4.4 Targeted Job Hiring. Encourage and assist businesses seeking to obtain tax credits for qualified
hiring of City residents.
Community Services Element
CS 14.1 Adequate Service and Facilities. Coordinate with Southern California Edison (SCE) and
Southern California Gas (SoCal Gas) to continue to supply adequate electricity and natural gas services
and facilities, while also developing strategies to increase the use of renewable energy sources.
CS 14.3 Energy Efficient Design. Encourage site, building, and landscape designs that reduce energy
demands and utilize renewable energy sources.
CS 14.4 Energy Efficiency Audits. Encourage residents, business and property owners, and energy
service providers to perform energy efficiency audits of existing buildings by evaluating, repairing, and
readjusting heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and lighting systems in public facilities, new
development, and redevelopment.
CS 14.5 City Operations. Promote city operations as a model for energy efficiency and green building
and install, as feasible, energy-efficient lighting, appliances, and alternative-energy infrastructure within
City facilities.
CS 14.6 Public Awareness. Cooperate with SCE and SoCal Gas to increase public awareness of
available energy conservation programs (e.g., best practices, energy rebates) to increase energy efficiency
in older neighborhoods and developments.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-26 PlaceWorks
Natural Resources Element
NR 1.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) Targets. Develop a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that
defines transportation, land use, energy, area source, water, and solid waste reduction measures for
Temple City, and establishes a target for GHG emission reductions.
NR 1.2 Air Quality Assessment and Monitoring. Cooperate with the California Air Resource Board
(CARB) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to measure air quality at emission
sources and enforce the standards of the Clean Air Act for air quality and GHG emissions.
NR 1.3 Development Dust and Particulate Emission Control. Develop regulations to reduce
particulate matter (PM) emissions from public and private construction, demolition, and debris hauling to
achieve compliance with federal standards.
NR 2.1 Land Use and Urban Form. Encourage a compact, mixed-use, pedestrian and bike friendly
environment that reduces automobile use, improves air quality, and reduces the impacts of climate
change, as defined by the Land Use Element.
NR 2.2 Infill and Mixed-Use Development. Promote infill and mixed-use development in the
downtown core, along Las Tunas Drive, Temple City Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard, and south of
Lower Azusa Road along Gidley Street.
NR 2.3 Buffer Emission Sources and Sensitive Land Uses. Prohibit land uses that emit pollution
and/or odors from locating near sensitive receptors, such as schools, nursing homes and convalescent
facilities, hospitals, and daycare facilities.
NR 2.4 Equity. Ensure that all land use decisions are made in an equitable fashion in order to protect all
residents from the health effects of air pollution.
NR 3.1 Low Impact Infrastructure. Encourage utility service providers to adopt practices and
implement improvements that reduce air pollution and GHG emissions.
NR 3.2 Private Development Infrastructure. Facilitate the use of renewable energy and water-efficient
systems in residential, commercial, industrial, and other private development projects, provided that they
are designed consistent with the quality and character of Temple City.
NR 3.3 Public Facilities. Reduce air pollution and GHG emissions through continued reduction of
overall energy and water use of local public infrastructure, facilities, and programs for maintenance and
efficiency.
NR 3.4 Fleet Operations. Continue to purchase low-emission vehicles for the City’s fleet and use
available clean fuel sources for trucks and heavy equipment.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-27
NR 3.5 Preference for Reduced-Emission Equipment. Give preference to contractors using
reduced-emission equipment for City construction projects and contracts for services (e.g. garbage
collection), as well as businesses that practice sustainable operations.
NR 4.1 Air Quality and Climate Change Education. Promote and disseminate information about
state, federal, and regional standards; health effects; and efforts that Temple City’s residents and
businesses can take to improve air quality and reduce GHG emissions.
NR 4.2 Employer Education Programs. Encourage employers to participate in the Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) public education programs to improve air quality and reduce GHG emissions.
NR 4.3 Involvement of Schools and Organizations. Work with local schools, businesses, and
organizations to increase citizen’s awareness and participation in efforts to reduce air pollution and GHG
emissions.
5.2.4 Relevant Specific Plan Policies
The following are relevant policies of the Crossroads Specific Plan, which may contribute to reduce potential
air quality impacts as a result of implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan.
Crossroads Policy 1: Accommodate the transition of the Specific Plan area from an auto-oriented
commercial corridor to a mixed-use, multi-modal area with housing, retail and services, restaurants, and
recreation and open space.
Crossroads Policy 4: Require new development to employ sustainable building and site design practices
that support pedestrian activity and minimize water use and energy consumption.
Crossroads Policy 5: Create a network of streets through the area appropriate for the mix of land uses
and encourages walking, biking, and transit use.
Crossroads Policy 6: Create new connections, especially pedestrian and bicycle connections, and
recreation and open space in concert with new development and public improvements.
5.2.5 Environmental Impacts
Methodology
The air quality evaluation was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA to determine if
significant air quality impacts are likely to occur in conjunction with future development that would be
accommodated by each of the Proposed Project’s components, the Mid-Century Plan and the Crossroads
Specific Plan. SCAQMD has published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Handbook) and updates on its
website that are intended to provide local governments with guidance for analyzing and mitigating project-
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-28 PlaceWorks
specific air quality impacts. The Handbook provides standards, methodologies, and procedures for
conducting air quality analyses in EIRs, and they were used in this analysis. SCAQMD has published
additional guidance for LSTs—Localized Significance Threshold Methodology for CEQA Evaluations (SCAQMD
2008c)—that are intended to provide guidance in evaluating localized effects from emissions generated by a
project. The following provides a summary of the assumptions utilized for the Mid-Century Plan and
Crossroads Specific Plan analyses.
Mid-Century Plan
The City’s criteria air pollutant emissions inventory includes the following sectors:
Transportation: Transportation emissions forecasts were modeled using CARB’s EMFAC2014, version
1.0.7. Model runs were based on daily per-capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data provided by Fehr &
Peers (see Appendix H) and 2016 (existing) and 2035 emission rates. The VMT provided includes the full
trip length for land uses in the City (origin-destination approach) and a 50 percent reduction in the trip
length for external-internal/internal-external trips.
Energy: Natural gas use for residential, nonresidential, and municipal land uses in the Plan Area was
modeled using data provided by SoCal Gas for years 2012 to 2014. Forecasts are adjusted for increases in
population and employment in the Plan Area.
Area Sources: OFFROAD2007 was used to estimate criteria air pollutant emissions from landscaping
equipment, light commercial equipment, and construction equipment in the Plan Area. OFFROAD2007
is a database of equipment use and associated emissions for each county compiled by CARB. Annual
emissions were compiled using OFFROAD2007 for the County of Los Angeles for year 2016. In order
to determine the percentage of emissions attributable to the Plan Area, landscaping and light commercial
equipment are estimated based on population (landscaping) and employment (light commercial
equipment) for the Plan Area as a percentage of Los Angeles County. Construction equipment use is
estimated based on building permit data for the City of Temple City and County of Los Angeles from
data compiled by the US Census. Daily off-road construction emissions are multiplied by 347 days per
year to account for reduced/limited construction activity on weekends and holidays. Forecasts are
adjusted for increases in population and employment in the Plan Area, with the exception of
construction activities, which assumes that construction emissions for the forecast year would be similar
to historical levels. Area sources exclude emissions from fireplaces and consumer products in the Plan
Area.
Crossroads Specific Plan
The analysis makes use of the CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.1, for determination of daily construction and
operational emissions and are based on the following:
Transportation: Based on the annual average trip generation and vehicle miles traveled data provided by
Fehr & Peers (see Appendix H). An average trip distance of 10 and 9.1 miles per trip are utilized for the
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-29
existing and project buildout scenarios, respectively. Based on the estimated 6,500 average daily trips
(ADT) generated under existing conditions and the 16,400 ADTs generated under full buildout
conditions, approximately 65,000 vehicle miles per day are generated currently and 150,000 vehicle miles
per day would be generated under full buildout conditions.
Area Sources: Area and stationary sources are based on the CalEEMod defaults for emissions generated
from use of consumer products and cleaning supplies.
Energy: Criteria air pollutant emissions from energy use (natural gas used for cooking, heating, etc.) are
based on the CalEEMod defaults for natural gas usage by nonresidential land uses. New buildings are
assumed to comply with the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which are 28 percent more
energy efficient for residential buildings and 5 percent more energy efficient for nonresidential buildings
than the 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards while existing buildings are assumed to comply with
the 2005 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
Construction: It is assumed that development of the Specific Plan Area would generally commence
early 2018 with a buildout year of 2035. In addition, while the specific timeline in how the land uses
accommodated under the Crossroads Specific Plan would be developed is unknown, this analysis assumes
that the various construction activities (e.g., site preparation, demolition, building construction) would
overlap. Furthermore, it is assumed that all of the existing land uses within the Specific Plan Area would
be demolished except for the single-family residences. Construction assumptions were based on
CalEEMod defaults such as construction equipment mix and worker, vendor, and haul trips. Table 5.2-9
shows the assumed construction activities and the start and end dates (based on a 17-year buildout) and
equipment mix for each of the activities.
Table 5.2-9 Construction Activities, Phasing and Equipment
Activities1 Start/End Dates1 Equipment2
Demolition 1/1/2018-10/23/2018 1 concrete/industrial saw; 3 excavators; 2 rubber tired dozers; 1 water
truck
Site Preparation 1/1/2018-6/18/2018 3 rubber tired dozers; 4 tractors/loaders/backhoes; 1 water truck
Grading 1/1/2018-4/11/2019 2 excavators; 1 grader; 1 rubber tired dozer; 2 scrapers; 2
tractors/loaders/backhoes; 1 water truck
Building Construction 1/1/2018-11/25/2030 1 crane; 3 forklifts; 1 generator set; 3 tractors/loaders/backhoes; 1 welder
Asphalt Paving 1/1/2018-11/13/2018 2 pavers; 2 paving equipment; 2 rollers
Architectural Coating 1/1/2018-4/4/2022 1 air compressor
Notes: n/a = not applicable
1 Based on CalEEMod defaults and 17-year buildout duration.
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study, included as
Appendix A, disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets
after the impact statement.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-30 PlaceWorks
Impact 5.2-1: The Proposed Project would be inconsistent with the SCAQMD Air Quality Management
Plan (AQMP) as its buildout would exceed the growth projections assumed in the AQMP and would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. [Threshold
AQ-1]
Impact Analysis: The following describes potential air quality impacts of consistency with the AQMP from
the implementation of the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan.
SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources in the
SoCAB to achieve the National and California AAQS. SCAQMD has responded to this requirement by
preparing an AQMP. On December 7, 2012, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the 2012 AQMP,
which is a regional and multiagency effort (SCAQMD, CARB, SCAG, and EPA). SCAQMD also recently
released the draft 2016 AQMP. A consistency determination with the AQMP plays an important role in local
agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the AQMP. It fulfills the CEQA
goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under consideration early
enough to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing
information as to whether they are contributing to the clean air goals in the AQMP.
The two principal criteria for conformance with an AQMP are:
1. Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP.
2. Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality
violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timeline attainment of air quality standards.
SCAG is SCAQMD’s partner in the preparation of the AQMP, providing the latest economic and
demographic forecasts and developing transportation measures. Regional population, housing, and
employment projects developed by SCAG are based, in part, on a city’s general plan land use designations.
These projections form the foundation for the emissions inventory of the AQMP and are incorporated into
the 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) prepared by
SCAG to determine priority transportation projects and vehicle miles traveled in the SCAG region. Because
the AQMP strategy is based on projections from local general plans, projects that are consistent with the local
general plan are considered consistent with the air quality-related regional plan. Additionally, only large
projects have the potential to substantially affect the demographic forecasts in the AQMP.
Mid-Century Plan
Criterion 1
Table 5.2-10 compares the population and employment growth forecasted under the Mid-Century Plan to the
existing conditions and projections based on SCAG forecasts. For purposes of this analysis, the table only
shows the population and employment within the City boundaries and does not include estimates for the
SOI. Population and employment estimates within the SOI are excluded to in order to provide a direct
comparison to SCAG projections, which only includes estimates for Temple City.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-31
Table 5.2-10 Comparison of Population and Employment Forecast
Scenario Existing Land Uses SCAG 2035 Forecast
Proposed General Plan 2035 Change from Existing
Increase Compared to the SCAG Forecast
Population 36,019 39,500 45,960 9,941 6,460
Employment 5,965 8,100 9,217 3,252 1,117
SCAG projections for the City are partially based on the current Temple City General Plan. As shown in
Table 5.2-10, the Mid-Century Plan would result in a higher population and generate more employment for
the City compared to SCAG forecasts. It should be noted that the growth projected by SCAG is based on
demographic trends in the region. These demographic trends are incorporated into the RTP/SCS compiled
by SCAG to determine priority transportation projects and VMT in the SCAG region. Growth projections of
the Mid-Century Plan assume full buildout of the City by the year 2035, since there is no schedule for when
this development would occur. As a result, the growth projections that are based on SCAG’s RTP/SCS and
the associated emissions inventory in SCAQMD’s AQMP do not include the additional growth forecast in the
Mid-Century Plan. Therefore, the 2016 AQMP does not consider emissions associated with the Mid-Century
Plan. Once the Mid-Century Plan is adopted and the AQMP is revised, SCAG and SCAQMD will
incorporate the growth projections associated with buildout of the Mid-Century Plan in their regional
planning projections, and the Mid-Century Plan would become consistent with the AQMP. However, since
full buildout associated with the Mid-Century Plan is not currently included in the emissions inventory for the
SoCAB, it would not be consistent with the AQMP under the first criterion.
Criterion 2
The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 under the California and National AAQS,
nonattainment for lead (Los Angeles County only) under the National AAQS, and nonattainment for PM10
under the California AAQS (CARB 2015). Because the Mid-Century Plan involves long-term growth
associated with buildout of the Plan Area, cumulative emissions generated by construction and operation of
individual development projects would exceed the SCAQMD regional and localized thresholds (see Impact
5.2-2 and Impact 5.2-3). Consequently, emissions generated by development projects in addition to existing
sources within the City and SOI are considered to cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations
of the SoCAB. Buildout of the Mid-Century Plan could contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of
air quality violations and delay attainment of the AAQS or interim emission reductions in the AQMP, and
emissions generated from buildout would result in a significant air quality impact. Therefore, the Mid-Century
Plan would not be consistent with the AQMP under the second criterion.
Summary
Based on the preceding, the Mid-Century Plan would not be consistent with the AQMP because air pollutant
emissions associated with buildout of the Mid-Century Plan would cumulatively contribute to the
nonattainment designations in the SoCAB. Furthermore, buildout of the Mid-Century Plan would exceed
current population and employment estimates for the City and therefore these emissions are not included in
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-32 PlaceWorks
the current regional emissions inventory for the SoCAB. The proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram (see
Figure 3-4, Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram) would increase density and mixed-use development and
would therefore be consistent with regional goals of improving transportation and land-use planning. In
addition, several policies of the Mid-Century Plan would help minimize air pollutant emissions, including:
LU 2.1 Complete Community. Allow for the development of uses contributing a complete and self-
sustaining community, containing a mix of uses that minimize the need for residents to travel outside of
the City for retail goods and services, employment, entertainment, and recreation.
LU 3.6 Pedestrian-Active Districts. Maintain a robust network of streetscape and pedestrian amenities
within the downtown core and mixed-use and commercial centers supporting pedestrian activity and
enhancing walkability.
LU 7.5 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans. Require major development projects to prepare greenhouse
gas reduction plans consistent with the targets defined in state statutory requirements.
LU 7.7 Alternative Fuels. Provide locations for alternative fuel facilities such as electrical re-charging
stations and hydrogen fuel supplies.
LU 7.8 Green Infrastructure. Utilize best practices that reduce natural resource consumption and
impacts, as defined by the Utilities section of this Plan.
Policy LU 14.1: Mix of Uses. Accommodate development integrating commercial and residential land
uses in mixed-use designated areas that establish places that are economically vital and pedestrian-active
contributing to resident health and community sustainability.
However, because additional growth would generate emissions that would cumulatively contribute to the
nonattainment designations, the Mid-Century Plan would be considered inconsistent with the AQMP,
resulting in a significant impact in this regard.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Criterion 1
CEQA Guidelines Section 15206(b) states that a Crossroads Specific Plan is of statewide, regional, or area-
wide significance if the project is a residential development or more than 500 dwelling units or a commercial
office building of 250,000 square feet or more or that employs 1,000 or more employees. Specifically, the
Crossroads Specific Plan would introduce up to 454,713 square feet of non-residential building space and
1,837 new dwelling units in addition to 1,196 new jobs over existing conditions in the Specific Plan Area, and
is therefore a project of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance. Additionally, as shown in Table 5.2-10,
Comparison of Population and Employment Forecast, buildout of the proposed Mid-Century Plan, which includes
the Crossroads Specific Plan, would exceed SCAG’s forecast for the City. Thus, implementation of the
Crossroads Specific Plan would have the potential to substantially affect SCAG’s demographic projections
beyond what is already anticipated for the Specific Plan Area.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-33
Criterion 2
With respect to the second criterion, the analyses in the response to Impact 5.2-3 demonstrate that the
Crossroads Specific Plan would generate long-term emissions of criteria air pollutants that would exceed
SCAQMD’s regional operation-phase significance thresholds, which were established to determine whether a
project has the potential to cumulatively contribute to the SoCAB’s nonattainment designations. Thus,
implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of
existing air quality violations; cause or contribute to new violations; or delay timely attainment of the AAQS.
Overall, the Crossroads Specific Plan would be considered inconsistent with the AQMP under the second
criterion.
Summary
Similar to the proposed Mid-Century Plan, buildout of the Crossroads Specific Plan would cumulatively
contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SoCAB. It would also contribute in exceedance of the
current population and employment estimates for the City. Various policies and design guidelines of the
Crossroads Specific Plan would promote increased capacity for alternative transportation modes,
implementation of transportation demand management strategies, and energy efficiency and thereby, help
reduce air pollutant emissions. For example, policies include:
Crossroads Policy 5: Create a network of streets through the area appropriate for the mix of land uses
and encourages walking, biking, and transit use.
Crossroads Policy 6: Create new connections, especially pedestrian and bicycle connections, and
recreation and open space in concert with new development and public improvements.
Design guidelines include:
Buildings and development projects within the Specific Plan area should be designed and constructed
using the sustainable, energy efficient materials and should incorporate strategies for the conservation of
water, energy, and other natural resources.
The streetscape should be designed to enhance the pedestrian experience and encourage walking as a
form of transportation and leisure.
Sidewalks or pedestrian walkways should be included within surface parking lots providing safe
pedestrian travel from parking spaces to uses served by the parking.
A variety of special colored, textured, and/or permeable paving or surface treatments should be used to
delineate areas for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-motorists within the street-scape, including the
use of raised or textured crosswalks.
However, as with the Mid-Century Plan, the Crossroads Specific Plan would be considered inconsistent with
the AQMP, resulting in a significant impact in this regard.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-34 PlaceWorks
Impact 5.2-2: Construction activities associated with future development that would be accommodated by
the Proposed Project could generate short-term emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD’S threshold criteria. [Thresholds AQ-2 and AQ-3]
Impact Analysis: Construction activities would temporarily increase PM10, PM2.5, VOC, NOX, SOX, and CO
regional emissions within the SoCAB. The primary source of NOx, CO, and SOx emissions is the operation
of construction equipment. The primary sources of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions are
activities that disturb the soil, such as grading and excavation, road construction, and building demolition and
construction. The primary source of VOC emissions is the application of architectural coating and off-gas
emissions associated with asphalt paving. A discussion of health impacts associated with air pollutant
emissions generated by construction activities is included in section 5.2.1, Environmental Setting, Air Pollutants
of Concern.
Mid-Century Plan
Construction activities associated with the Mid-Century Plan would occur over the buildout horizon of the
Mid-Century Plan, causing short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. However, information regarding
specific development projects, soil types, and the locations of receptors would be needed in order to quantify
the level of impact associated with construction activity. Due to the scale of development activity associated
with buildout of Mid-Century Plan, emissions would likely exceed the SCAQMD regional significance
thresholds. In accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, emissions that exceed the regional significance
thresholds would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. The SoCAB is
designated nonattainment for O3 and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Emissions of VOC and NOx are
precursors to the formation of O3. In addition, NOX is a precursor to the formation of particulate matter
(PM10 and PM2.5). Therefore, the Mid-Century Plan would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment
designations of the SoCAB for O3 and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Air quality emissions related to
construction must be addressed on a project-by-project basis.
For the Mid-Century Plan, which is a broad-based policy plan, it is not possible to determine whether the
scale and phasing of individual projects would exceed the SCAQMD's short-term regional or localized
construction emissions thresholds. In addition to regulatory measures (e.g., SCAQMD Rule 201 for a permit
to operate, Rule 403 for fugitive dust control, Rule 1113 for architectural coatings, Rule 1403 for new source
review, and CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measures), mitigation imposed at the project level may include
extension of construction schedules and/or use of special equipment. Furthermore, the Mid-Century Plan
includes Policy NR 1.3, Development Dust and Particulate Emission Control, which calls for the development of
City regulations to control for fugitive dust emissions associated with construction-related activities. However,
at present time, no current City regulations exist and it is unknown when such regulation would be adopted.
Overall, the likely scale and extent of construction activities associated with the Mid-Century Plan would
likely continue to exceed the relevant SCAQMD thresholds for some projects. Therefore, construction-
related air quality impacts of developments that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan would be
significant.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-35
It should be noted that the amount of emissions from a project does not necessarily correspond to the
concentrations of air pollutants. The concentration is required to calculate health risk from project
implementation. Projects that exceed the regional significance thresholds will contribute to the current
nonattainment designation for ozone and particulate matter. Because the nonattainment designation is based
on the AAQS, which are set at levels of exposure that are determined to result in adverse health, the Mid-
Century Plan would cumulatively contribute to health impacts within the SoCAB. However, since it is not
possible to translate the amount of emissions to a particular concentration, it is not possible to calculate the
risk factor for a particular health effect. Known health effects related to ozone include worsening of
bronchitis, asthma, and emphysema and a decrease in lung function. Particulate matter can also lead to a
variety of health effects in people. These include premature death of people with heart or lung disease, heart
attacks, irregular heartbeat, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms.
Regional emissions contribute to these known health effects. SCAQMD is the primary agency responsible for
ensuring the health and welfare of sensitive individuals to elevated concentrations of air quality in the
SoCAB. To achieve the health-based standards established by EPA, SCAQMD prepares an AQMP that details
regional programs to attain the AAQS. However, because cumulative development within the Plan Area
would exceed the regional significance thresholds, the Mid-Century Plan could contribute to an increase in
health effects in the basin until the attainment standards are met in the SoCAB. In addition to the AQMPs,
the SCAQMD has also developed and released the LSTs to address impacts from criteria air pollutants at a
more localized level (discussed in Impact 5.2-5).
Crossroads Specific Plan
Construction activities associated with buildout of the Crossroads Specific Plan are anticipated to occur
sporadically over an approximately 17 to 18-year period or longer. Buildout would be comprised of multiple
smaller projects, each having its own construction timeline and activities. Development of multiple properties
could occur at the same time. However, there is no defined development schedule for these future projects at
this time. For this analysis, the maximum daily emissions are based on a very conservative scenario, where
several construction projects are occurring at one time and overlap of all construction phases occur at the
same time. The amount of construction assumed is consistent with the 17 to 18-year anticipated buildout of
the proposed Specific Plan. An estimate of maximum daily construction emissions is provided in Table 5.2-
11. The table shows the highest daily emissions that would be generated over the anticipated development
period.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-36 PlaceWorks
Table 5.2-11 Crossroads Specific Plan Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions
Construction Phase(s)
Criteria Air Pollutants (pounds per day)1, 2
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Demolition3 4 47 25 <1 5 2
Site Preparation 5 49 24 <1 11 7
Grading 5 60 36 <1 7 4
Building Construction 15 78 122 <1 22 7
Paving 2 18 15 <1 1 1
Architectural Coating 22 4 20 <1 4 1
Worst-Case Day4 53 254 242 1 49 22
SCAQMD Standard 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant? No Yes No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1. Highest winter or summer emissions are reported.
1 Based on information provided by the applicant. Where specific information regarding project-related construction activities was not available, construction
assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults.
2 Includes implementation of fugitive dust control measures required by SCAQMD under Rule 403, including watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, replacing ground cover quickly, and street sweeping with Rule 1186–compliant sweepers.
3 For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that except for the existing single-family residences, all existing land uses would be demolished.
4 Based on overlap of all the construction phases for year 2018.
As shown in the table, construction activities associated with development that would be accommodated by
the Crossroads Specific Plan could potentially exceed the SCAQMD regional threshold for NOX. The
primary source of NOX emissions is vehicle and construction equipment exhaust. NOX is a precursor to the
formation of both O3 and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Project-related emission of NOX would
contribute to the O3, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Therefore, project-
related construction activities would result in potential significant regional air quality impacts.
Impact 5.2-3: Buildout in accordance with the Proposed Project would generate long-term emissions that would exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. [Thresholds AQ-2 and AQ-3]
Impact Analysis: The following discusses the operational-phase air quality impacts of the Mid-Century Plan
and Crossroads Specific Plan.
Mid-Century Plan
For the purpose of the following analysis, it is important to note that, per the requirements of CEQA, this
analysis is based on a comparison of the Mid-Century Plan’s proposed land-use diagram to existing, on-the-
ground land uses and not to the current Temple City General Plan land-use diagram.
It is also important to note that the Mid-Century Plan is a regulatory document that sets up the framework
for growth and development and does not directly result in development. Before development can occur, it is
required to be analyzed for conformance with the General Plan, zoning requirements, and other applicable
local and state requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA; and obtain all necessary clearances and
permits.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-37
The Mid-Century Plan guides growth and development within the Plan Area by designating land uses in the
proposed land use diagram and through implementation of its goals and policies. New development would
increase air pollutant emissions in the City and contribute to the overall emissions inventory in the SoCAB. A
discussion of health impacts associated with air pollutant emissions generated by operational activities is
included in the Air Pollutants of Concern discussion in section 5.2-1, Environmental Setting.
Plan Area Emissions Inventory
The emissions inventory for the Plan Area under the Mid-Century Plan is shown in Table 5.2-12. As shown
in the table, implementation of the Mid-Century Plan would result in an increase in criteria air pollutant
emissions from existing conditions. This increase is based on the difference between existing land uses and
land uses associated with buildout of the Mid-Century Plan as well as an estimate of population and
employment in the Plan Area in year 2035.
Table 5.2-12 Buildout Year 2035 Plan Area Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Inventory
Sector
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Existing Land Uses – Year 2035
Transportation1 33 143 855 5 101 41
Energy 15 126 65 1 10 10
Area – Landscaping/Light Commercial Equipment2 106 43 1,515 <1 6 5
Area – Consumer Products3 559 0 0 0 0 0
Area – Construction2 210 1,387 1,470 2 78 77
Existing Land Uses Total 922 1,700 3,904 8 195 134
Proposed Land Use Plan – Forecast Year 2035
Transportation1 36 158 940 5 111 45
Energy 20 173 90 1 14 14
Area – Landscaping/Light Commercial Equipment2 137 48 1,988 0 7 7
Area – Consumer Products3 822 0 0 0 0 0
Area – Construction2 210 1,387 1,470 2 78 77
Proposed Land Use Plan Total 1,225 1,777 4,488 9 211 144
Increase in Emissions 303 77 584 1 16 10
SCAQMD Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant? Yes Yes Yes No No No
Note: Emissions forecasts estimated based on changes in population (residential energy, area), employment (nonresidential energy, area), or service population
(transportation).
1 EMFAC2014, Version 1.0.7, based on daily VMT provided by Fehr & Peers. Transportation sector includes the full trip length for internal-internal trips and 50 percent trip length for external-internal/internal-external trips. VMT per year based on a conversion of VMT x 347 days per year to account for less travel on weekend, consistent with CARB statewide GHG emissions inventory methodology (CARB 2008).
2 OFFROAD2007. Estimated based on population (Landscaping) and employment (Light Commercial Equipment) for Temple City as a percentage of Los Angeles
County. Construction emissions estimated based on housing permit data for Los Angeles County and Temple City from the US Census. Excludes fugitive emissions
from construction sites and wood-burning fireplaces. Various industrial and commercial processes (e.g., manufacturing and dry cleaning) allowed under the Land
Use Plan of the proposed Mid-Century Plan would require permitting and would be subject to further study pursuant to SCAQMD Regulation XIII, New Source Review. Because the nature of those emissions cannot be determined at this time and they are subject to further regulation and permitting, they are not included in the table.
3 Based on CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.1, methodology utilized to calculate VOC emissions from use of household consumer cleaning products.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-38 PlaceWorks
Buildout of the Mid-Century Plan would generate long-term emissions that exceed the daily SCAQMD
thresholds for VOC, NOX, and CO. Emissions of VOC and NOX are precursors to the formation of O3. In
addition, NOX is a precursor to the formation of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Therefore, emissions
of VOC and NOX that exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds would contribute to the O3 and
particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) nonattainment designation of the SoCAB.
Implementation of the Mid-Century Plan policies could contribute in reducing criteria air pollutant emissions.
Many of these policies promote an increase in concepts and designs that would increase walking, bicycling,
and use of public transit, which would contribute to reduced VMT (e.g., Policies LU 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.6, 3.8,
9.6, and 14.1). In addition, goals and policies within the Mobility Element such as Goal M-1, Livable Streets,
and Goal M-3, Pedestrian Network, would also contribute to reducing overall criteria air pollutant emissions
from mobile sources. Furthermore, Policies LU 7.1, Sustainable Land Development, and LU 7.2, Sustainable Design
and Construction, focus on sustainable design to promote energy efficiency. However, future development
projects that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan could exceed the SCAQMD regional
emissions thresholds. Therefore, operational air quality impacts associated with future development of the
Mid-Century Plan would be significant.
The amount of emissions from a project does not necessarily correspond to the concentrations of air
pollutants. Projects that exceed the regional significance threshold contribute to the nonattainment
designation. Because the attainment designation is based on the AAQS, which are set at levels of exposure
that are determined to not result in adverse health, the Mid-Century Plan would cumulatively contribute to
health impacts within the SoCAB. Known health effects related to ozone include worsening of bronchitis,
asthma, and emphysema and decreases in lung function. Particulate matter can also lead to a variety of health
effects. These include premature death of people with heart or lung disease, heart attacks, irregular heartbeat,
decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms.
SCAQMD is the primary agency responsible for ensuring the health and welfare of sensitive individuals to
elevated concentrations of air quality in the SoCAB. To achieve the health-based standards established by the
EPA, the SCAQMD prepares an AQMP that details regional programs to attain the AAQS. However,
because cumulative development within the Plan Area would exceed the regional significance thresholds, the
project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin until the attainment standards are met in
the SoCAB. In addition to the AQMP, the SCAQMD has also developed and released LSTs to address
impacts from criteria air pollutants at a more localized level (discussed in Impact 5.2-5).
Crossroads Specific Plan
Buildout of the Crossroads Specific Plan would result in direct and indirect criteria air pollutant emissions
from transportation, energy (e.g., natural gas use), and area sources (e.g., aerosols and landscaping equipment).
Mobile-source criteria air pollutant emissions are based on the traffic analysis conducted by Fehr & Peers (see
Appendix I). Per the traffic analysis, implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan would generate a net
increase of 9,900 average daily trips (ADT) and 85,130 daily VMT. The results of the CalEEMod modeling
are shown in Table 5.2-13. The net change in emissions is based on the new emissions associated with the
new land uses subtracted by the emissions associated with the existing land uses assumed for demolition.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-39
Table 5.2-13 Net Maximum Daily Operational Phase Regional Emissions
Phase
Operation-Related Regional Emissions (pounds/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Existing (Year 2035)
Area1 17 1 17 <1 2 2
Energy <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Transportation 6 8 84 <1 50 13
Total 23 9 101 <1 52 15
Project2
Area1 121 10 618 2 76 76
Energy 1 8 4 <1 1 1
Transportation 15 19 196 1 115 31
Total 136 37 818 2 192 108
Net Change (Project – Existing)
Net Change 113 27 717 2 140 92
SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant? Yes No Yes No No Yes
Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1. Based on highest winter or summer emissions using 2035 transportation emission rates. Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. Excludes permitted sources of emissions that are covered under SCAQMD regulations.
1 Includes emissions generated from reapplication of paint to buildings as calculated in the CalEEMod software program. These emissions are included in the Mid-
Century Plan emissions inventory as shown in Table 5.2-12. Additionally, for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that new residential land uses would not include
fireplaces.
2 It is assumed that approximately 13,953,078 building square feet (50 percent) of the existing nonresidential structures would be demolished.
The analysis for the Crossroads Specific Plan focuses on changes in land use within the Specific Plan Area,
which currently accommodates approximately six percent of the Plan Area’s employment and population (i.e.,
service population). At buildout, the Crossroads Specific Plan would accommodate approximately 12 percent
of the Plan Area’s service population, including over 42 percent of the City’s employment. Consequently,
while some areas of the Plan Area are likely to see relatively little change over the General Plan horizon, the
Crossroads Specific Plan accommodates a substantial amount of the Plan Area’s commercial and residential
growth. Therefore, a large percentage of the increases in vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, additional water
demand, and wastewater and solid waste generation would be linked to the Crossroads Specific Plan as
opposed to the remainder of the Plan Area.
As shown in Table 5.2-13, operation of the land uses accommodated under the Crossroads Specific Plan at
buildout would generate air pollutant emissions that exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds for
VOC, CO, and PM2.5 at buildout. Emissions of VOC that exceed the SCAQMD regional threshold would
cumulatively contribute to the O3 nonattainment designation of the SoCAB. Emissions of PM2.5 would
contribute to the PM2.5 nonattainment designations. Therefore, the Crossroads Specific Plan would result in a
potentially significant impact because it would significantly contribute to the nonattainment designations of
the SoCAB.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-40 PlaceWorks
Impact 5.2-4: Operation of land uses associated with buildout of the Proposed Project could expose
sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants. [Threshold AQ-4]
Impact Analysis: Development and operation of new land uses consistent with the land use diagram of the
Mid-Century Plan and those that would be accommodated under the Crossroads Specific Plan could generate
new sources of TACs in the City and SOI from area/stationary sources and mobile sources.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Mid-Century Plan
Permitted Stationary Sources
Various industrial and commercial processes (e.g., manufacturing, dry cleaning) allowed under the Mid-
Century Plan would be expected to release TACs. Industrial land uses, such as chemical processing facilities,
chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline-dispensing facilities, have the potential to be substantial
stationary sources that would require a permit from SCAQMD. Emissions of TACs would be controlled by
SCAQMD through permitting and would be subject to further study and health risk assessment prior to the
issuance of any necessary air quality permits under SCAQMD Rule 1401. While the Mid-Century Plan
includes Policies LU 4.5 and 4.11, Hazardous Uses, which focus on controlling land uses that would pose an
environmental health hazards to the Plan Area’s residents, until specific future development projects are
proposed, the associated emissions cannot be determined or modeled at this time. Implementation of the
Mid-Century Plan may result in projects that emit TACs throughout the City and SOI, which is a significant
impact.
Non-permitted Sources
In addition, mobile sources of TACs are not regulated by SCAQMD. New warehousing operations permitted
within the proposed areas designated Industrial could generate substantial diesel particulate matter emissions
from off-road equipment use and truck idling. Some warehousing and industrial facilities may also use
transport refrigeration units (TRUs) for cold storage. New land uses in the Plan Area that are permitted under
the Mid-Century Plan that use trucks, including trucks with TRUs, could generate an increase in diesel
particulate matter that would contribute to cancer and noncancer health risk in the SoCAB. These types of
facilities could also generate particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) that could cause an exceedance or contribute
to the continuing exceedance of the federal and state AAQS. These new land uses could be near existing
sensitive receptors within and outside the Plan Area. As shown in Figure 3-4, Proposed General Plan Land Use
Diagram, the areas designated Industrial within the Plan Area are in close proximity or adjacent to areas
designated for residential use. In addition, trucks would travel on regional transportation routes through the
SoCAB, contributing to near-roadway diesel particulate matter concentrations. Therefore, health risk impacts
from development of industrial and commercial land uses are considered significant.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-41
Crossroads Specific Plan
As the Crossroads Specific Plan is a program-level document, it is currently unknown which types of
stationary sources may be installed, if any. However, as stated, the Crossroads Specific Plan would generally
prohibit the development of industrial-type land uses (e.g., manufacturing, warehousing, etc.). Furthermore,
development of land uses that may result in stationary source emissions such as dry cleaners and restaurants
with charbroilers or buildings with emergency generators would not be large emitters. Additionally, these
types of land uses would be controlled by SCAQMD through permitting and would be subject to further
study and health risk assessment prior to the issuance of any necessary air quality permits under SCAQMD
Rule 1401. The permitting process ensures that stationary source emissions would be below the SCAQMD
significance thresholds of 10 in a million cancer risk and 1 for acute risk at the maximally exposed individual.
Therefore, overall, impacts related to TACs are considered less than significant.
Construction Health Risks
Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan
SCAQMD does not currently require health risk assessments to be conducted for short-term emissions from
construction equipment. Emissions from construction equipment primarily consist of diesel particulate
matter (DPM). OEHHA has recently adopted new guidance for the preparation of health risk assessments
issued in March 2015 (OEHHA 2015). OEHHA has developed a cancer risk factor and non-cancer chronic
reference exposure level for DPM, but these factors are based on continuous exposure over a 30-year time
frame. No short-term acute exposure levels have been developed for DPM.
The Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan would be implemented over a period of 17 to 18 years.
In addition, it is anticipated that construction of individual developments accommodated under the plans
would likely be spread out incrementally over this period of time, which would limit the exposure to on- and
offsite receptors. For these reasons, it is anticipated that construction emissions would not pose a threat to on
and offsite receptors at or near the Plan Area. Therefore, project-related construction health impacts would
be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Impact 5.2-5: Operation of land uses in addition to construction activities associated with buildout of the
Mid-Century Plan and construction activities associated with buildout of the Crossroads Specific Plan could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria air
pollutants. [Threshold AQ-4]
Impact Analysis: Development and operation of new land uses consistent with the land use diagram of the
proposed Mid-Century Plan and those that would be accommodated under the Crossroads Specific Plan
could generate new sources of criteria air pollutants in the Plan Area from area/stationary sources and
mobile sources.
Localized Significance Thresholds
Implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan and Mid-Century Plan could expose sensitive receptors to
elevated pollutant concentrations during construction activities if it would cause or contribute significantly to
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-42 PlaceWorks
elevating those levels. Unlike the mass of construction emissions shown in Tables 5.2-11 through 5.2-13,
described in pounds per day, localized concentrations refer to an amount of pollutant in a volume of air
(ppm or µg/m3) and can be correlated to potential health effects. LSTs are the amount of project-related
emissions at which localized concentrations (ppm or µg/m3) would exceed the ambient air quality standards
for criteria air pollutants for which the SoCAB is designated a nonattainment area.
Mid-Century Plan
Operation LSTs
Per the LST methodology, information regarding specific development projects and the locations of
receptors would be needed in order to quantify the levels of localized operation and construction-related
impacts associated with future development projects. Thus, because the proposed Mid-Century Plan is a
broad-based policy plan and does not in and of itself contain specific development project proposals, it is not
possible to calculate individual project-related operation emissions at this time. In addition, the types of land
uses that could generate substantial amounts of stationary source emissions include industrial land uses,
which is an accommodated land use under the Mid-Century Plan (see Figure 3-4, Proposed General Plan Land
Use Diagram). Overall, because of the likely scale of future development and the inclusion of industrial uses
that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan, some development projects could likely exceed the
AAQS. Therefore, localized operation-related air quality impacts associated with implementation of the Mid-
Century Plan are considered potentially significant impacts.
Construction LSTs
Buildout of the Mid-Century Plan would occur over a period of approximately 17 to 18 years or longer and
would comprise several smaller projects with their own construction timeframe and construction equipment.
As stated above, an LST analysis can only be conducted at a project-level, and quantification of LSTs is not
applicable for the program-level environmental analysis of the Mid-Century Plan. Because potential
development and redevelopment could occur close to existing sensitive receptors, future development
projects that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan have the potential to expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Construction equipment exhaust combined with fugitive
particulate matter emissions has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of
criteria air pollutant emissions and result in a significant impact.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Operation LSTs
As stated above, the types of land uses that could generate substantial amounts of stationary source
emissions include industrial land uses. However, the Crossroads Specific Plan does not propose or permit
industrial-type land uses (e.g., warehousing, auto body, gas stations) within the Specific Plan Area. While the
Crossroads Specific Plan would permit residential, office, and commercial land uses, emissions from onsite
energy use (natural gas used for cooking and water heating) and other onsite sources (e.g., landscaping fuel,
aerosols) associated with these land uses are not anticipated to generate substantial concentrations of
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-43
emissions or exacerbate existing health risk in the area. Therefore, localized operation-related air quality
impacts are considered to be less than significant.
Construction LSTs
The impact analysis provided above for the Mid-Century Plan also applies to the Crossroads Specific Plan.
CO Hotspots
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. These pockets have
the potential to exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard
of 9.0 ppm. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily
disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an
analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hotspots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic
congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds. Typically,
for an intersection to exhibit a significant CO concentration, it would need operate at level of service (LOS)
E or worse without improvements (Caltrans 1997). However, at the time of the 1993 Handbook, the SoCAB
was designated nonattainment under the California AAQS and National AAQS for CO. With the turnover of
older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities,
CO concentrations in the SoCAB and in the state have steadily declined.
In 2007, the SoCAB was designated in attainment for CO under both the California AAQS and National
AAQS. The CO hotspot analysis conducted for the attainment by SCAQMD did not predict a violation of
CO standards at the busiest intersections in Los Angeles during the peak morning and afternoon periods.7 As
identified in SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992
CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SoCAB in previous years, prior to redesignation, were
a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not of congestion at a particular
intersection. Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes
at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical
and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact (BAAQMD 2011).
Mid-Century Plan
Full buildout of the Mid-Century Plan would result in approximately 100,000 average daily trips, which would
be an increase of approximately 13,000 total daily vehicle trips over existing conditions. Distributing the total
daily vehicle trips throughout the Plan Area and only during peak hours would result in smaller traffic
volumes at the various intersections. Thus, implementation of the Mid-Century Plan would not produce the
volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot. Therefore, CO hotspots are not an environmental
impact of concern for the Mid-Century Plan.
7 The four intersections were: Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway; Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue; Sunset
Boulevard and Highland Avenue; and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard. The busiest intersection evaluated (Wilshire
and Veteran) had a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day with LOS E in the morning peak hour and LOS
F in the evening peak hour.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-44 PlaceWorks
Crossroads Specific Plan
Buildout of the Crossroads Specific Plan would result in approximately 16,400 average daily trips, which
would be an increase of approximately 9,900 total daily vehicle trips over existing conditions. Distributing the
total daily vehicle trips within the Specific Plan Area and only during peak hours would result in smaller traffic
volumes at the various intersections. Thus, implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan would not
produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot. Therefore, implementation of the
Crossroad Specific Plan would not have the potential to substantially increase CO hotspots at intersections in
the vicinity of the planning area, and impacts would be less than significant.
Impact 5.2-6: Industrial and SCAQMD-permitted land uses associated with buildout of the Proposed Project would have the potential to create objectionable odors that could affect a substantial number of people. [Threshold AQ-5]
Impact Analysis: Growth within the Plan Area under the Mid-Century Plan and Specific Plan Area under
the Crossroads Specific Plan, respectively, could generate new sources of odors. Nuisance odors from land
uses in the SoCAB are regulated under SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states:
A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantifies of air contaminants or
other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number
of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such
persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to
business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from
agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
Industrial and SCAQMD Permitted Land Uses
Industrial land uses have the potential to generate objectionable odors. Examples of industrial projects are
wastewater treatment plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid-waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing
facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch
manufacturing plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities.
Mid-Century Plan
Areas where the aforementioned types of uses could be developed under the Mid-Century Plan would be
generally limited to the areas designated Industrial, which are generally in the southern boundary of the Plan
Area between Rosemead Boulevard and Temple City Boulevard (see Figure 3-4, Proposed General Plan Land Use
Diagram). While industrial land uses associated with the Mid-Century Plan would be required to comply with
SCAQMD Rule 402, additional measures may be necessary to prevent an odor nuisance. Therefore, industrial
land uses associated with the Mid-Century Plan may generate potentially significant odor impacts to a
substantial number of people.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-45
Crossroads Specific Plan
Industrial-type land uses under the Crossroads Specific Plan would generally be prohibited within the Specific
Plan Area. Therefore, impacts related to objectionable odors as it relates to industrial-type land uses would be
less than significant.
Residential and Other Non-Residential Land Uses
Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan
Residential and other non-residential (excluding industrial) land uses that would be accommodated by the
Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan could result in the generation of odors such as exhaust from
landscaping equipment. However, unlike industrial land uses, these are not considered potential generators of
odor that could affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, impacts from potential odors generated
from residential and other non-residential land uses associated with the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads
Specific Plan are considered less than significant.
Construction
Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan
During construction activities of development projects that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century
Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt and
architectural coatings would temporarily generate odors. However, any construction-related odor emissions
would be temporary and intermittent. Additionally, noxious odors would be confined to the immediate
vicinity of the construction equipment in use. By the time such emissions reached any sensitive receptor sites,
they would be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. Furthermore, short-term construction-
related odors are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of odor-producing materials. Therefore,
impacts associated with construction-generated odors are considered less than significant.
5.2.6 Existing Regulations
State
Clean Car Standards – Pavley (AB 1493)
California Advanced Clean Cars CARB (Title 13 CCR)
Low-Emission Vehicle Program – LEV III (Title 13 CCR)
Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368).
Airborne Toxics Control Measure to Limit School Bus Idling and Idling at Schools (13 CCR 2480)
Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fuel Commercial Vehicle Idling (13 CCR 2485)
In-Use Off-Road Diesel Idling Restriction (13 CCR 2449)
Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6)
California Green Building Code (Title 24, Part 11)
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-46 PlaceWorks
Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 20)
Regional
SCAQMD Rule 201: Permit to Construct
SCAQMD Rule 402: Nuisance Odors
SCAQMD Rule 403: Fugitive Dust
SCAQMD Rule 1113: Architectural Coatings
SCAQMD Rule 1186: Street Sweeping
SCAQMD Rule 1403: Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities
5.2.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant:
Impact 5.2-1 The Proposed Project would be inconsistent with the SCAQMD Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP) as their buildout would exceed the growth projections
assumed in the AQMP and would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment
designations of the SoCAB.
Impact 5.2-2 Construction activities associated with development projects that would be
accommodated by the Proposed Project could generate short-term emissions in
exceedance of SCAQMD’S threshold criteria.
Impact 5.2-3 Buildout in accordance with the Proposed Project would generate long-term
emissions that would exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds and
cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB.
Impact 5.2-4 Operation of land uses associated with buildout of the Mid-Century Plan could
expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants.
Impact 5.2-5 Operation of land uses in addition to construction activities associated with
buildout of the Mid-Century Plan and construction activities associated with
buildout of the Crossroads Specific Plan could expose sensitive receptors to
substantial concentrations of criteria air pollutants.
Impact 5.2-6 Industrial and SCAQMD-permitted land uses associated with buildout of the Mid-
Century Plan would have the potential to create objectionable odors that could
affect a substantial number of people.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-47
5.2.8 Mitigation Measures
The following outlines mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant air quality impacts associated with
the Proposed Project, which includes the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan. In certain
instances, separate mitigation measures are provided for the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan
to address the potential significant impacts of each project component based on the level of environmental
analysis undertaken for each—specifically, the Mid-Century Plan was analyzed at a broader programmatic
level while the Crossroads Specific Plan was analyzed at a greater level of detail. For this reason and because
future development projects under the Crossroads Specific Plan would cumulatively exceed the applicable
significance thresholds (as demonstrated above), some mitigation measures are only applicable to
development projects that would be accommodated by the Crossroads Specific Plan.
Impact 5.2-1
Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan
When incorporated into future development projects for operation and construction phases, the mitigation
measures outlined for Impacts 5.2-2 and 5.2-3, described below, would contribute to reduced criteria air
pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan.
Additionally, goals and policies included in the Mid-Century Plan in addition to policies and design guidelines
of the Crossroads Specific Plan would promote increased capacity for alternative transportation modes,
implementation of transportation demand management strategies, and energy efficiency. However, no further
mitigation measures are available that would reduce impacts to below SCAQMD significance thresholds due
to the magnitude of growth and associated emissions that would be generated by the buildout of the Mid-
Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan.
Impact 5.2-2
Mid-Century Plan
AQ-1 Prior to discretionar y approval by the City of Temple City for development projects subject
to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project
applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project
construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Temple City Community
Development Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in
conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) methodology
for assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined
to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD-adopted thresholds of significance, the City
of Temple City shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate
mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities. These
identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g.,
construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s
Community Development Department. Mitigation measures to reduce construction-related
emissions include, but are not limited to:
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-48 PlaceWorks
Requiring fugitive-dust control measures that exceed SCAQMD’s Rule 403, such as:
• Use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion.
• Applying water every four hours to active soil-disturbing activities.
• Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks
hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency as having Tier 3 (model year 2006 or newer) or Tier 4 (model year 2008 or
newer) emission limits, applicable for engines between 50 and 750 horsepower.
Ensuring that construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the
manufacturer’s standards.
Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five
consecutive minutes.
Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever
possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on
the SCAQMD’s website at http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/Super-
Compliant_AIM.pdf.
Crossroads Specific Plan
AQ-2 Project applicants/construction contractors for new development projects within the
Specific Plan Area shall be required to use construction equipment that meets the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 emissions standards for off-road diesel-
powered construction equipment with more than 50 horsepower, unless it can be
demonstrated to the City of Temple City Community Development Department that such
equipment is not available. Any emissions-control device used by the construction
contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by
a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by the
California Air Resources Board’s regulations.
Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the construction contractor shall
ensure that all demolition and grading plans clearly show the requirement for EPA Tier 4 or
higher emissions standards for construction equipment over 50 horsepower. During
construction, the construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in
use on the construction site for verification by the City of Temple City Community
Development Department. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models,
and numbers of construction equipment onsite. Equipment shall be properly serviced and
maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Construction
contractors shall also ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-49
restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources Board’s Rule
2449.
AQ-3 Project applicants/construction contractors for new development projects within the
Specific Plan Area shall be required to prepare a dust control plan and implement the
following measures during ground-disturbing activities—in addition to the existing
requirements for fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) Rule 403—to further reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. The City of Temple
City Community Development Department shall verify that these measures have been
implemented during normal construction site inspections.
Following all grading activities, the construction contractor shall reestablish ground
cover on the construction site through seeding and watering within 21 days after active
operations have ceased.
During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall sweep streets with
SCAQMD Rule 1186–compliant, PM10-efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is
carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling.
During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall maintain a minimum
24-inch freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials and shall
tarp materials with a fabric cover or other cover that achieves the same amount of
protection.
During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall water exposed
ground surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum of every three hours on the
construction site and a minimum of three times per day.
During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall limit onsite vehicle
speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour.
Impact 5.2-3
Mid-Century Plan
AQ-4 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Temple City for development projects subject
to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project
applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project
operation phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Temple City Community
Development Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in
conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) methodology
in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the
potential to exceed the SCAQMD-adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Temple
City Community Development Department shall require that applicants for new
development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-50 PlaceWorks
during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the
conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions can
include, but are not limited to the following:
For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction
documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at
loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce
idling time and emissions.
Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and
combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy
generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking
spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for
loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845
(13 CCR Chapter 10 § 2485).
Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of the CALGreen
Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures)
of the CALGreen Code.
Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van
vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary
Measures).
Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3
(Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) and Section A5.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary
Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
Applicant-provided appliances shall be Energy Star-certified appliances or appliances of
equivalent energy efficiency (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers).
Installation of Energy Star-certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by Building
& Safety during plan check.
Applicants for future development projects along existing and planned transit routes
shall coordinate with the City of Temple City, Los Angeles County Metro, and Foothill
Transit to ensure that bus pad and shelter improvements are incorporated, as
appropriate.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-51
Crossroads Specific Plan
Stationary Source
AQ-5 Prior to the issuance of building permits for new development projects within the Specific
Plan Area, the project applicant shall show on the building plans that all major appliances
(dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) to be provided/installed are Energy
Star-certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy
Star-certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City of Temple City
Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Transportation and Motor Vehicles
AQ-6 For development projects within the Specific Plan Area that generate 50 or more peak hour
trips, the project applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan
to the City of Temple City Community Development Director for review and approval.
TDM strategies that could be implemented include but are not limited to:
Car sharing
Carpool/vanpool
Unbundled parking (parking spaces are rented or sold separately, rather than
automatically included with the rent or purchase price of a residential or commercial
unit)
Joint use (shared parking)
Transit, bicycle, and pedestrian system improvements
Trip reduction incentives to employees, such as free transit passes
AQ-7 Prior to issuance of building permits for non-single-family residential and mixed-use
residential development projects within the Specific Plan Area, the project applicant shall
indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the
design of the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the City of
Temple City Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
Electric vehicle charging shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.8.2 (Residential
Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
Bicycle parking shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary
Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
AQ-8 Prior to the issuance of building permits for nonresidential development projects within the
Specific Plan Area, project applicants shall indicate on the building plans that the following
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-52 PlaceWorks
features have been incorporated into the design of the building(s). Proper installation of
these features shall be verified by the City of Temple City Community Development
Department prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
For buildings with more than ten tenant-occupants, changing/shower facilities shall be
provided as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the
CALGreen Code.
Preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles shall be
provided as specified in Section A5.106.5.1 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the
CALGreen Code.
Facilities shall be installed to support future electric vehicle charging at each
nonresidential building with 30 or more parking spaces. Installation shall be consistent
with Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code
and the Temple City Municipal Code.
Impact 5.2-4
Mid-Century Plan
Review of development projects by SCAQMD for permitted sources of air toxics would ensure health risks
are minimized. The following mitigation measure would ensure that mobile sources of TACs not covered
under SCAQMD permits are considered during subsequent project-level environmental review.
AQ-9 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Temple City, project applicants for new
industrial or warehousing development projects that 1) have the potential to generate 100 or
more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered
transport refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g.,
residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the
project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment
(HRA) to the City of Temple City Community Development Department for review and
approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the
state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the South Coast Air Quality
Management District. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk and/or noncancer
hazard index exceeds the respective thresholds, as established by the SCAQMD at the time a
project is considered, the project applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that
best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs), including appropriate enforcement
mechanisms, are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable
level. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to, restricting idling onsite or electrifying
warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter, or requiring use of newer equipment
and/or vehicles. T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in
the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-53
Crossroads Specific Plan
No significant impacts were identified for the Crossroads Specific Plan and no mitigation measures are
needed.
Impact 5.2-5
Mid-Century Plan
Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-4 would also be applicable in reducing construction and operation-related
LST impacts.
Crossroads Specific Plan
AQ-10 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Temple City for development projects within
the Specific Plan Area that are subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act)
review (i.e., non-exempt projects) review and are within 25 meters (82 feet) of a sensitive
land use, the project applicant shall submit a construction-related air quality study that
evaluates potential localized project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of
Temple City Community Development Department for review and approval. The evaluation
shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) methodology for assessing localized significance thresholds (LST) air quality
impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to
exceed the SCAQMD-adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Temple City shall
require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to
reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities. These identified measures shall
be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management
plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Community Development
Department.
Impact 5.2-6
Mid-Century Plan
AQ-11 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Temple City, if it is determined that a
development project has the potential to emit nuisance odors beyond the property line, an
odor management plan shall be prepared by the project applicant and submitted to the City
of Temple City Community Development Department for review and approval. Facilities
that have the potential to generate nuisance odors include but are not limited to:
Wastewater treatment plants
Composting, green waste, or recycling facilities
Fiberglass manufacturing facilities
Painting/coating operations
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-54 PlaceWorks
Large-capacity coffee roasters
Food-processing facilities
The odor management plan shall demonstrate compliance with the South Coast Air Quality
Management District’s Rule 402 for nuisance odors. The Odor Management Plan shall
identify the best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) that will be utilized to
reduce potential odors to acceptable levels, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms.
T-BACTs may include but are not limited to scrubbers (i.e., air pollution control devices) at
the industrial facility. T-BACTs identified in the odor management plan shall be identified as
mitigation measures in the environmental document prepared for the development project
and/or incorporated into the project’s site plan.
Crossroads Specific Plan
No significant impacts were identified for the Crossroads Specific Plan and no mitigation measures are
warranted.
5.2.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impact 5.2-1
Mid-Century Plan
The Mid-Century Plan would be inconsistent with the SCAQMD AQMP because buildout under the plan
would exceed the population and employment estimates assumed for the AQMP and would cumulatively
contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Incorporation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1
and AQ-4 into future development projects for operation and construction phases described in Impacts 5.2-2
and 5.2-3, below, would contribute to reduced criteria air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the
Mid-Century Plan. Additionally, goals and policies included in the Mid-Century Plan would promote
increased capacity for alternative transportation modes and implementation of transportation demand
management strategies. However, due to the magnitude and scale of the land uses that would be developed,
no mitigation measures are available that would reduce operation and construction impacts below SCAQMD
thresholds. In addition, the population and employment assumptions of the AQMP would continue to be
exceeded until the AQMP is revised and incorporates the projections of the Mid-Century Plan. Therefore, in
regard to the Mid-Century Plan, Impact 5.2-1 would remain significant and unavoidable.
Crossroads Specific Plan
The policies and design guidelines of the Crossroads Specific Plan would help minimize criteria air pollutant
emissions from transportation and energy use. Additionally, Mitigation Measures AQ-2, AQ-3, and AQ-5
through AQ-8 applied for Impact 5.2-2 and Impact 5.2-3, would reduce the specific plan’s regional
construction-related and operational phase criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However,
given the potential increase in growth and associated increase in criteria air pollutant emissions, the
Crossroads Specific Plan would continue to be potentially inconsistent with the assumptions in the AQMP.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-55
Therefore, in regard to the Crossroads Specific Plan, Impact 5.2-1 would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Impact 5.2-2
Mid-Century Plan
Buildout of the Mid-Century Plan would occur over a period of approximately 17 to 18 years or longer.
Construction activities associated with buildout of the Mid-Century Plan could generate short-term
emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’S significance thresholds during this time and cumulatively contribute to
the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce
criteria air pollutant emissions from construction-related activities to the extent feasible. However,
construction time frames and equipment for site-specific development projects are not available at this time
and there is a potential for multiple development projects to be constructed at any one time, resulting in
significant construction-related emissions. Therefore, despite adherence to Mitigation Measure AQ-1, Impact
5.2-2 as it pertains to the Mid-Century Plan would remain significant and unavoidable.
Crossroads Specific Plan
As with the Mid-Century Plan, buildout under the Crossroads Specific Plan would also likely occur over a
period of 17 years or longer. Incorporation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and AQ -3 would contribute in
minimizing construction-related emissions associated with the individual development projects
accommodated under the Crossroads Specific Plan. However, similar to the Mid-Century Plan, as
construction time frames and equipment for individual site-specific development projects are not available,
there is a potential for multiple developments to be constructed at any one time that could result in significant
construction-related emissions. Therefore, despite adherence to Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and AQ-3, Impact
5.2-2 as it pertains to the Crossroads Specific Plan would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 5.2-3
Mid-Century Plan
Buildout in accordance with the Mid-Century Plan would generate long-term emissions that would exceed
SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations
of the SoCAB. Mitigation Measure AQ-4, in addition to the goals and policies of the Mid-Century Plan,
would reduce air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. The measures and policies covering topics such as
expansion of the pedestrian and bicycle networks, promotion of public and active transit, and support to
increase building energy efficiency and energy conservation would also reduce criteria air pollutants within
the Plan Area. However, due to the magnitude of emissions generated by residential and nonresidential land
uses, no mitigation measures are available that would reduce impacts below SCAQMD’s thresholds.
Therefore, Impact 5.2-3 would remain significant and unavoidable.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-56 PlaceWorks
Crossroads Specific Plan
Implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan’s policies and design guidelines, in addition to Mitigation
Measures AQ-5 through AQ-8, would reduce operation-related criteria air pollutants generated from energy,
stationary, and mobile sources to the extent feasible. However, despite implementation of the policies and
design guidelines and adherence to these mitigation measures, Impact 5.2-3 would remain significant and
unavoidable due to the magnitude of land use development associated with the Crossroads Specific Plan.
Impact 5.2-4
Mid-Century Plan
Buildout of the Mid-Century Plan could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air
contaminants. Buildout could result in new sources of criteria air pollutant emissions and/or TACs near
existing or planned sensitive receptors. Review of development projects by SCAQMD for permitted sources
of air toxics (e.g., industrial facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities) would ensure that health
risks are minimized. Additionally, Mitigation Measure AQ -9 would ensure mobile sources of TACs not
covered under SCAQMD permits are considered during subsequent project-level environmental review by
the City of Temple City. Individual development projects would be required to achieve the incremental risk
thresholds established by SCAQMD, and TACs would be less than significant.
Impact 5.2-5
Mid-Century Plan
Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-4 (applied for Impacts 5.2-2 and 5.2-3, respectively) would reduce the
regional construction and operation emissions associated with buildout of the Mid-Century Plan and
therefore, also result in a reduction of localized construction- and operation-related criteria air pollutant
emissions to the extent feasible. However, because existing sensitive receptors may be close to project-related
construction activities and large emitters of onsite operation-related criteria air pollutant emissions,
construction and operation emissions generated by individual development projects have the potential to
exceed SCAQMD’s LSTs. Impact 5.2-5, in regard to the Mid-Century Plan, would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and AQ-3 (applied for Impact 5.2-2) would reduce the Crossroad Specific Plan’s
regional construction emissions and therefore, also result in a reduction of localized construction-related
criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However, because existing sensitive receptors may be
close to project-related construction activities, construction emissions generated by individual development
projects have the potential to exceed SCAQMD’s LSTs. Mitigation Measure AQ-10 requires preparation of a
construction air quality analysis for discretionary projects subject to CEQA if they are within 25 meters of a
sensitive use. However, because of the scale of development activity associated with buildout of the
Crossroads Specific Plan, it is not possible to determine whether the scale and phasing of individual
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.2-57
development projects would result in the exceedance of the localized emissions thresholds and contribute to
known health effects. Therefore, Impact 5.2-5, in regard to construction-related localized impacts associated
with buildout of the Crossroads Specific Plan would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 5.2-6
Mid-Century Plan
Mitigation Measure AQ-11 would ensure that odor impacts are minimized and facilities would comply with
SCAQMD Rule 402. Therefore, Impact 5.2-6 would be less than significant.
5.2.10 References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2011 (revised). California Environmental Quality
Act Air Quality Guidelines.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2016. California Emissions Estimator
Model (CalEEMod). Version 2016.3.1. Prepared by: Trinity Consultants and the California Air
Districts.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 1998, April 22. The Report on Diesel Exhaust.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/dieseltac/de-fnds.htm.
———. 1999. Final Staff Report: Update to the Toxic Air Contaminant List.
———. 2015, December. Area Designations Maps: State and National.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.
———. 2016a, May 4. Ambient Air Quality Standards. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.
———. 2016b. Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015). Accessed July 22,
2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1997, December. Transportation Project-Level Carbon
Monoxide Protocol. UCD-ITS-RR-97-21. Prepared by Institute of Transportation Studies, University
of California, Davis.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015, February. Air Toxics Hot Spots
Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessments. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. California Environmental Quality Act Air
Quality Handbook.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
AIR QUALITY
Page 5.2-58 PlaceWorks
———. 2005, May. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local
Planning. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/documents-support-material/planning-
guidance/guidance-document.
———. 2008a, September. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin (MATES III).
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/health-studies/mates-iii.
———. 2012, May 4. Final 2012 Lead State Implementation Plan: Los Angeles County.
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/lead-state-implementation-plan.
———. 2013, February. 2012 Final Air Quality Management Plan.
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan.
———. 2015a, October 3. Final Report Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin
(MATES IV). http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/health-studies/mates-iv.
———. 2015b, March (revised). SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-
thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
———. 2015c. Health Effects of Air Pollution. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/public-
information/publications.
———. 2015d, October. “Blueprint for Clean Air: 2016 AQMP White Paper.” 2016 AQMP White Papers
Web Page. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/about/groups-committees/aqmp-advisory-group/2016-
aqmp-white-papers.
———. 2016. Updates to CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Accessed July 2016.
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook.
———. 2017, March. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/final-2016-
aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=15.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016, May 5. Criteria Air Pollutants.
https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants.
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2016. Western U.S. Historical Summaries – San Gabriel Fire
Department Monitoring Station (Station ID No. 047785). http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-
bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7785 (Accessed December 8, 2016).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2017 Page 5.3-1
5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources comprise paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources. Paleontological
resources are the fossilized remains of plants and animals. Archaeology is the branch of paleontology that
studies human artifacts, such as places, objects, and settlements that reflect group or individual religious,
cultural, or everyday activities. Historical resources include sites, structures, objects, or places that are at least
50 years old and are significant for their engineering, architecture, cultural use or association, etc. In
California, historic resources cover human activities over the past 12,000 years. Cultural resources provide
information on scientific progress, environmental adaptations, group ideology, or other human advancements.
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for implementation
of the Proposed Project—which includes the Temple City 2050 Mid-Century General Plan (Mid-Century
Plan) and the proposed Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan (Crossroads Specific Plan)—to impact cultural
resources in the Plan Area and Specific Plan Area.
5.3.1 Environmental Setting
5.3.1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND
Federal, state and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are applicable to the Proposed Project are
summarized below.
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) coordinates public and private efforts to identify,
evaluate, and protect the nation’s historic and archaeological resources. The act authorized the National
Register of Historic Places, which lists districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in
American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture.
Section 106 (Protection of Historic Properties) of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account
the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Section 106 Review ensures that historic properties
are considered during federal project planning and implementation. The Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, an independent federal agency, administers the review process with assistance from state
historic preservation offices.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 regulates the protection of archaeological resources
and sites on federal and Indian lands.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Page 5.3-2 PlaceWorks
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
NAGPRA is a federal law passed in 1990 that mandates museums and federal agencies to return certain
Native American cultural items—such as human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of
cultural patrimony—to lineal descendants or culturally affiliated Indian tribes.
State
California Public Resources Code
Archaeological, paleontological, and historical sites are protected under a wide variety of state policies and
regulations in the California Public Resources Code (PRC). In addition, cultural and paleontological resources
are recognized as nonrenewable resources and receive protection under the PRC and CEQA.
PRC Sections 5020 to 5029.5 continued the former Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee as the State
Historical Resources Commission. The commission oversees the administration of the California Register of
Historic Resources and is responsible for designating State Historical Landmarks and Historical Points of
Interest.
PRC Sections 5079 to 5079.65 define the functions and duties of the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP),
which administers federal- and state-mandated historic preservation programs in California as well as the
California Heritage Fund.
PRC Sections 5097.9 to 5097.991 provide protection to Native American historical and cultural resources and
sacred sites; identify the powers and duties of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC); require
that descendants be notified when Native American human remains are discovered; and provide for treatment
and disposition of human remains and associated grave goods.
California Health and Safety Code
The discovery of human remains is regulated per California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5:
In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a
dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation…until the coroner…has
determined…that the remains are not subject to…provisions of law concerning
investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the
recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have
been made to the person responsible…. The coroner shall make his or her determination
within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or
her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the
human remains. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her
authority and…has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she
shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
June 2017 Page 5.3-3
California Register of Historic Resources
In 1992, Governor Wilson signed Assembly Bill 2881 into law establishing the California Register of Historic
Resources. The California Register of Historic Resources is an authoritative guide used by state and local
agencies, private groups and citizens to identify historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be
protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse impacts.
The California Register of Historic Resources consists of properties that are listed automatically, as well as
those that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process. The California Register of
Historic Resources automatically includes the following:
California properties listed in the National Register and those formally Determined Eligible for the
National Register;
California Registered Historical Landmarks from No. 0770 onward; and
Those California Points of Historical Interest that have been evaluated by OHP and have been
recommended to the State Historical Resources Commission for inclusion on the California Register of
Historic Resources.
The criteria for eligibility of listing in the California Register of Historic Resources are based on the National
Register criteria. To be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources, a property must be
at least 50 years of age and possess significance at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the
following four criteria:
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or
regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the
work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important in the prehistory or history of the local
area, California, or the nation.
Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources may include buildings,
sites, structures, objects, and historic districts. Resources less than 50 years of age may be eligible if it can be
demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance. While the enabling
legislation for the California Register of Historic Resources is less rigorous with regard to the issue of
integrity, there is the expectation that properties reflect their appearance during their period of significance, as
stipulated in Public Resources Code Section 4852.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Page 5.3-4 PlaceWorks
The California Register of Historic Resources may also include properties identified during historical resource
surveys. However, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the survey must meet all of the
following criteria:
The survey has been or will be included in the State Historical Resources Inventory.
The survey and the survey documentation were prepared in accordance with OHP procedures and
requirements.
The resource is evaluated and determined by OHP to have a significance rating of Category 1 to 5 on a
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Form 523.
If the survey is five or more years old at the time of its nomination for inclusion in the California
Register of Historic Resources, the survey is updated to identify historical resources which have become
eligible or ineligible due to changed circumstances or further documentation and those which have been
demolished or altered in a manner that substantially diminishes the significance of the resource.
2013 California Historic Building Code
The 2013 California Historic Building Code—California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 8—provides
regulations for the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, relocation, or reconstruction of buildings or
properties designated as qualified historical buildings or properties. The California Historic Building Code is
intended to provide solutions for the preservation of qualified historical buildings or properties, to promote
sustainability, to provide access for persons with disabilities, to provide a cost-effective approach to
preservation, and to provide for the reasonable safety of the occupants or users.
Mills Act
Under the Mills Act, California Government Code Sections 50280 et seq., a city or county may contract with
the owner of any qualified historical property to restrict the use of the property.
Local Ordinances
Downtown Specific Plan
The Temple City Downtown Specific Plan (Downtown Specific Plan), adopted December 17, 2002, is a long-
range planning document aimed at revitalizing the commercial districts along Las Tunas Drive. It includes
numerous provisions that address visual appearance and character, including detailed design guidelines for
development and redevelopment projects. Implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan is intended to
ensure that the most visually-prominent areas of the Plan Area (the downtown area covered under this
specific plan) are aesthetically pleasing and that new development and redevelopment projects are compatible
with the community’s existing and historic character.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
June 2017 Page 5.3-5
5.3.1.2 CULTURAL SETTING
Historical Resources
Plan Area
History of the San Gabriel Valley and Temple City
The San Gabriel Valley was settled by the Tongva tribe approximately 3,000 years ago. A hunter-gatherer
tribe, the Tongva traded goods extensively throughout present-day Southern California and Nevada. In 1771,
Franciscan monks from Spain established the San Gabriel Mission and the began referring to the Tongva as
the Gabrieleños. The San Gabriel Mission was one of 21 missions established by Spanish Catholics, who were
led by Junipero Serra. Monks occupied the mission and surrounding area until the early 1800s, when
dwindling numbers of priests caused the mission to be secularized and handed over to the Spanish
government. The government, in turn, subdivided the land and granted it to those wishing to establish
ranchos and homesteads. The region remained under Spanish rule until 1821, when Mexico won its
independence and acquired much of Alta California ranging from present day New Mexico to Southern
California. The California missions were secularized in 1834.
In 1841, a group of travelers from New Mexico, including an Englishman named William Workman and an
American named John A. Rowland, traversed the Old Spanish Trail to Southern California from New Mexico.
After their arrival, Workman and Rowland gained permission to settle portions of the San Gabriel Mission
lands. Rowland was granted Rancho La Puente, consisting of 18,000 acres in the eastern San Gabriel Valley.
Workman settled the western portion of the rancho and became a successful cattle rancher.
In 1848, the Mexican-American War ended and California became part of the United States in 1850. The
region saw additional investment in real estate and cattle ranching, including the efforts of Pliny Temple’s
tenth child, Walter P. Temple. In 1917, Walter Temple used wealth his family had gained from the Montebello
oil fields to repurchase 75 acres of his family’s original rancho at La Puente. In 1923, Temple purchased 300
acres for a new town. This land now includes downtown Temple City, the civic center, and adjacent
residential neighborhoods. Walter Temple had the existing rail line connecting Los Angeles to San Gabriel
extended to the community in 1924. The town was officially renamed from “Temple” to “Temple City” in
1928. From that point forward, the town grew from a small agricultural town featuring numerous Craftsman-
style bungalows to a small suburban city. In the 1940s, the proliferation of automobiles diminished the
importance of the existing streetcar network and the region increasingly became a commuter suburb to Los
Angeles. Following World War II, the City saw a substantial boom in population and the City was
incorporated in 1960. Temple City was largely built out by the 1970s (Historic Resources Group 2012).
Existing Historic Resources
There is currently no locally-, state-, or federally-designated historic resources in the Plan Area. However,
there are a number of buildings and structures (residential, commercial and institutional) throughout the Plan
Area that were constructed as far back as the early 1900s. Therefore, because these resources are over 50
years old, they may meet the criteria for historic listing, including listing on the National Register of Historic
Places.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Page 5.3-6 PlaceWorks
Specific Plan Area
The existing conditions information provided above applies to the Specific Plan Area.
Archaeological Resources
Plan Area
Archaeological sites include prehistoric and historic sites. An archaeological site is the location of a significant
event; a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity; or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or
vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archaeological value regardless of the value
of any existing structure (OHP 1995). There are no known archeological resources in the Plan Area or
Specific Plan Area.
Specific Plan Area
The existing conditions information provided above applies to the Specific Plan Area.
Paleontological Resources
Plan Area
Paleontological resources are fossils—recognizable remains or evidence of past life on earth—that include
bones, shells, leaves, tracks, burrows, and impressions. Certain geologic formations or deposits have higher
potential to contain fossils than others. There are no known paleontological resources in the Plan Area or
Specific Plan Area.
Specific Plan Area
The existing conditions information provided above applies to the Specific Plan Area.
5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
C-1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5.
C-2 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5.
C-3 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
C-4 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
June 2017 Page 5.3-7
Archeological and Historical Resources
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 provides direction on determining significance of impacts to
archaeological and historical resources. Generally, a resource shall be considered “historically significant” if
the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code
Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852), including the following:
Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s
history and cultural heritage;
Is associated the with lives of persons important in our past;
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or
represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The fact that a resource is not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or is not included in a local register of historical resources, does not preclude a lead
agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource.
A project has a significant impact on a historic resource if it “would result in the physical demolition,
destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance
of an historical resources would be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1)). Material
impairment would occur if the project would result in demolition or material alteration of those physical
characteristics that convey the resource’s historical significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2)).
Paleontological Resources
Only qualified, trained paleontologists with specific expertise in the type of fossils being evaluated can
determine the scientific significance of paleontological resources. Fossils are considered significant if one or
more of the following criteria apply:
The fossils provide information on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends among
organisms, living or extinct;
The fossils provide data useful in determining the age(s) of the rock unit or sedimentary stratum,
including data important in determining the depositional history of the region and the timing of geologic
events therein;
The fossils provide data regarding the development of biological communities or interaction between
paleobotanical and paleozoological biotas;
The fossils demonstrate unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life;
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Page 5.3-8 PlaceWorks
The fossils are in short supply and/or in danger of being depleted or destroyed by the elements,
vandalism, or commercial exploitation, and are not found in other geographic locations.
Significant paleontological resources are determined to be fossils or assemblages of fossils that are unique,
unusual, rare, uncommon, or diagnostically important. Significant fossils can include remains of large to very
small aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates or remains of plants and animals previously not represented in certain
portions of the stratigraphy. Assemblages of fossils that might aid stratigraphic correlation, particularly those
offering data for the interpretation of tectonic events, geomorphologic evolution, and paleoclimatology are
also critically important. Paleontological remains are recognized as nonrenewable resources significant to the
history of life.
5.3.3 Relevant General Plan Policies
The following are relevant policies of the Mid-Century Plan Land Use Element, which are designed to reduce
the potential impacts on cultural resources from implementation of the Proposed Project.
LU 5.1 Consultation. Consult with the appropriate organizations and individuals (e.g. California
Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC),
etc.) to minimize potential impacts to historic and cultural resources.
LU 5.2 National, California, and Local Registers. Encourage property owners of qualified resources
to seek listing under the appropriate register(s) including the National Register of Historic Places,
California Register of Historic Resources, and Los Angeles County Historical Landmarks and Records.
LU 5.3 Adaptive Reuse. Encourage adaptive reuse of historic resources when the original use of the
resource is no longer feasible.
LU 5.4 Incentive Program. Explore the feasibility of establishing a voluntary incentive program, such
as a Mills Act program, that would provide financial assistance, including property tax reductions, to
owners of qualifying historic properties, as demonstrated by owner-funded studies, for property
maintenance and improvements.
LU 5.5 Awareness of Historic Resources. Support programs and policies that raise awareness of
Temple City’s historic buildings, sites, and contextual features.
LU 5.6 Coordination with Other Entities. Coordinate with and support public, quasi-public, and
private entities in their historic preservation programs and efforts.
LU 5.7 Education. Provide information to the public on Temple City’s historic and cultural resources
through landmark plaques, wayfinding signage, and collateral materials that provide residents and visitors
with an understanding of the City’s heritage.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
June 2017 Page 5.3-9
5.3.4 Environmental Impacts
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study, included as
Appendix A, disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets
after the impact statement.
Impact 5.3-1: Future development that would be accommodated by the Proposed Project could result in an impact to known and/or unknown historic resources. [Threshold C-1]
Impact Analysis: Following is a discussion of the potential impacts to historic resources as a result of
development that would be accommodated under each component of the Proposed Project.
Mid-Century Plan
As discussed in the Existing Historic Resources subsection of Section 5.3.1.3, Cultural Setting, there is currently
no locally-, state-, or federally-designated historic resources in the Plan Area. However, there are a number of
buildings and structures (residential, commercial and institutional) throughout the Plan Area that were
constructed as far back as the early 1900s. Therefore, because these resources are over 50 years old, they may
meet the criteria for historic listing, including listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
New development and redevelopment that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan would occur
throughout the Plan Area, including the area of central Temple City that contains a large concentration of
older buildings (see Figure 5.3-1). Under CEQA, a project would have a significant impact on a historic
resource if it “would result in the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or
its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resources would be materially impaired”
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1)). Material impairment would occur if the development project
would result in demolition or material alteration of those physical characteristics that convey the resource’s
historical significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2)).
Adoption of the Mid-Century Plan in itself would not directly impact any resources of potential historic
value as it is a policy-level document that guides land uses in the Plan Area and does not propose the
demolition or alteration of any resource of potential historic value. However, proposed changes in land use
designations (see Figures 3-4, Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram, and 4-2, Current General Plan Land Use
Diagram) and buildout under the Mid-Century Plan would allow for new development and infill development
within or adjacent to potential conservation areas, which may impact a resources’ immediately-surrounding
area. Additionally, future development under the Mid-Century Plan could result in a direct or indirect impact
on properties in the Plan Area that are potentially eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic
Resources or that could meet the California Register of Historical Resources criteria upon reaching 50 years
of age.
However, the proposed Mid-Century Plan land use diagram (see Figure 3-4) is sensitive to the scale and
character of existing neighborhoods; as shown in a comparison of Figure 3-4 and 4-2, land use changes are
limited to selected areas of the Plan Area and almost all single-family residential neighborhoods would remain
designated as Low Density Residential. Maintaining this residential land designation would increase the
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Page 5.3-10 PlaceWorks
likelihood that resources of potential historic value covered under this land use designation would remain.
Also, the proposed land use diagram’s (Figure 3-4) most notable change from the current land use diagram
(Figure 4-2)—the selective introduction of mixed use designations—does not require that mixed-use
development replace single-use properties that may have historic value.
Additionally, although the scale and character of new development may affect a resource of potential historic
value, either directly or indirectly, the proposed Land Use Element of the Mid-Century Plan includes policies
to protect and maintain historic properties and places in the Plan Area (see Subsection 5.3.3, Relevant General
Plan Policies, above for a complete listing of policies). Proposed policies encourage property owners of
historic properties to seek listing (Policy LU 5.2) and the City to explore the feasibility of an incentive
program related to maintenance of historic properties (Policy LU 5.4). Implementation of these policies
would ensure that future impacts to historic resources in the Plan Area would be avoided and/or minimized.
As also outlined in subsection 3.1.1.2, Guiding Principles, of Chapter 3, Project Description, one of the key
guiding principles of Mid-Century Plan states that the City and its residents value and protect the
neighborhoods, business districts, civic facilities, and open spaces that have developed since Temple City’s
founding.
In addition to compliance with the general plan policies listed above, development and redevelopment in the
Plan Area under the Mid-Century Plan would be required to comply with existing development standards and
design guidelines found in the Temple City Zoning Code (codified as Title 9 [Zoning Regulations], Chapter 1
[Zoning Code] of the City’s Municipal Code) and the Temple City Downtown Specific Plan, which both
directly address compatibility between new and existing land uses.
The 2013 California Historic Building Code also provides regulations for the preservation, restoration,
rehabilitation, relocation, or reconstruction of buildings or properties designated as qualified historical buildings or
properties. Future development projects that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan and may impact
qualified historical buildings or properties, would be required to adhere to the provisions of the 2013 California
Historic Building Code. Compliance with these provisions would be ensured through the City’s development
review process.
Furthermore, at the time a discretionary development project is proposed adjacent to or in proximity of a
known or potential historic resource, the project-level CEQA document prepared for the development
project would need to identify any impacts (direct or indirect) that the project could have on a historic
resource. The site-specific environmental review would be required to identify any known or potential
historical sites and structures on or near the proposed development site. The CEQA Guidelines require a
project that will have potentially adverse impacts on historic resources to incorporate all feasible mitigation to
avoid or reduce impacts, such as to conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties.
Compliance with the Mid-Century Plan policies, provisions of the Temple City Municipal Code and
Downtown Specific Plan, and state and federal regulations restricting alteration, relocation, and demolition of
historical resources would minimize potential impacts to historic resources. However, because development in
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
June 2017 Page 5.3-11
the Plan Area under the Mid-Century Plan could result in damage or loss of resources that could be of
historic value, impacts to historical resources are considered potentially significant.
Crossroads Specific Plan
The Specific Plan Area is fully built out. As noted above, there are a number of buildings and structures
(residential, commercial and institutional) throughout the Plan Area (including the Specific Plan Are) that
were constructed as far back as the early 1900s. Therefore, because these resources are over 50 years old, they
could be considered a resource of historic value.
As with other portions of the Plan Area under the Mid-Century Plan, proposed Land Use Element policies
related to identification and preservation of historic resources would apply to development activity that
would be accommodated by the Crossroads Specific Plan in the Specific Plan Area. Additionally, federal and
state regulations, as well as development standards and design guidelines found in the Temple City Zoning
Code would apply to the Specific Plan Area.
Furthermore, at the time a development project is proposed adjacent to or in proximity of a known or
potential historic resource, the project-level CEQA document of the development project would need to
identify any impacts (direct or indirect) that the project could have on a historic resource.
However, because development in the Specific Plan Area could result in the damage or loss of unlisted
historic resources, impacts to historical resources are considered potentially significant.
Impact 5.3-2: Future development that would be accommodated by the Proposed Project could impact
unknown archaeological or paleontological resources. [Thresholds C-2 and C-3]
Impact Analysis: Adoption of the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan in themselves would not
directly affect archaeological or paleontological resources or Native American resources. However, long-term
implementation of these plans would allow development (e.g., new development, infill development,
redevelopment, and revitalization/restoration), which could impact unknown sensitive areas and resources.
Grading and construction activities of undeveloped parcels (which are limited in the Plan Area) or
redevelopment that requires more intensive soil excavation than in the past could potentially cause the
disturbance of archeological, paleontological, or Native American resources. Therefore, future development
that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan could potentially
unearth previously undiscovered or unrecorded resources. Following is a discussion of the potential impacts
to these resources as a result of implementation of each component of the Proposed Project.
Archeological Resources
Plan Area
The Plan Area is almost completely built out and is in a highly developed, urban area of Los Angeles County.
Future development in accordance with the Mid-Century Plan would also occur in already built out and
urbanized areas of the Plan Area. Additionally, there are no known archeological resources or subsurface
historic artifacts in the Plan Area.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Page 5.3-12 PlaceWorks
However, it is possible that unknown buried deposits could be present in certain areas of the Plan Area.
There is potential for discovery of archaeological resources during construction and ground-disturbing
activities that consist of grading and/or excavation. In general, any development that requires excavation of
undisturbed ground or to levels below current foundations has the potential to unearth unknown
archeological resources. If identified, these resources may contain data that would change the significance
recommendation of the site and thus would require further evaluation.
Archaeological sites are protected by a wide variety of state policies and regulations enumerated under the
California Public Resources Code. Cultural and paleontological resources are also recognized as nonrenewable
and therefore receive protection under the California Public Resources Code and CEQA. Review and
protection of archaeological and paleontological resources are also afforded by CEQA for individual
development projects that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan, subject to discretionary actions
that are implemented in accordance with the land use diagram of the Mid-Century Plan. Per Public Resources
Code Section 21083.2 of CEQA, the lead agency is required to determine whether a development project
may have a significant effect on archaeological resources. If the lead agency determines that the project may
have a significant effect on unique archaeological resources, the project-level CEQA document prepared for
the development project is required to address the issue of those resources.
Additionally, the majority of the development potential of the Mid-Century Plan would concentrate on infill
opportunity sites, which for the most part are highly disturbed. Therefore, implementation of the Mid-
Century Plan would not introduce a substantial amount of new development that would damage or impact
unknown archeological resources. However, future development that would be accommodated by the Mid-
Century Plan could potentially unearth previously unknown archeological resources. Therefore, impacts to
archaeological resources are considered potentially significant.
Specific Plan Area
The Specific Plan Area is a subset of the Plan Area; the same conditions and potential for disturbance of
archaeological resources are applicable to implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan. Therefore,
impacts to archaeological resources are considered potentially significant.
Paleontological Resources
Plan Area
As stated above, the Plan Area is almost completely built out and is highly developed and urbanized. Future
development in accordance with the Mid-Century Plan would also occur in already built out and urbanized
areas of the Plan Area. Additionally, there are no known paleontological resources in the Plan Area.
Furthermore, virtually the entire Plan Area is underlain by young alluvial fan deposits, consisting of gravel,
sand, and silt, of Holocene and late Pleistocene age. Construction activities—including surficial and/or
shallow excavations within the surficial young alluvial fan deposits or in areas of previous disturbance—are
unlikely to result in adverse impacts to significant paleontological resources. The surficial sediments found
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
June 2017 Page 5.3-13
throughout the Plan Area are too young to preserve paleontological resources and therefore have low
paleontological sensitivity.
However, Holocene and late Pleistocene deposits at depths greater than six feet are considered moderately
sensitive for paleontological resources. As with archeological resources, it is possible that unknown buried
deposits could be present in certain areas of the Plan Area. There is potential for discovery of paleontological
resources during construction and ground-disturbing activities that consist of grading and/or excavation,
particularly at deeper depths. Therefore, construction activities requiring excavations to a depth below the
thickness of the younger alluvial sediments may have an adverse impact to paleontological resources unless
proper mitigation measures are implemented.
However, future development that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan could potentially
unearth previously unknown paleontological resources. Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources due
to implementation of the Mid-Century Plan are considered potentially significant.
Specific Plan Area
The Specific Plan Area is a subset of the Plan Area; the same conditions and potential for disturbance of
paleontological resources are applicable to implementation the Crossroads Specific Plan. Therefore, impacts
to paleontological resources are considered potentially significant.
Impact 5.3-3: Grading activities of future development that would be accommodated by the Proposed Project would not be expected to disturb human remains. [Threshold C-4]
Impact Analysis: Following is a discussion of the potential impacts to human remains as a result of
implementation of each component of the Proposed Project.
Plan Area
The Plan Area is completely built out with urban land uses and is not known to contain archeological
resources, human remains, or Native American sacred lands. There are also no cemeteries in the Plan Area.
Therefore, the likelihood that human remains may be discovered during site clearing and grading activities is
considered extremely low. However, unknown human remains could potentially be buried in soils beneath
existing land uses. Ground disturbance by projects developed pursuant to the Mid-Century Plan could disturb
these remains. For example, future development projects could involve deeper excavation than previously
performed in certain locations of the Plan Area.
In the unlikely event that human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities, California Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the Los Angeles
Coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the
recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the
person responsible for the excavation or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in
Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. The coroner is required to make a determination within two
working days of notification of the discovery of the human remains. If the coroner determines that the
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Page 5.3-14 PlaceWorks
remains are not subject to his or her authority or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a
Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage
Commission. Compliance with existing law regarding the discovery of human remains would reduce potential
impacts to human remains. Therefore, impacts to human remains are not anticipated to be significant.
Specific Plan Area
The Specific Plan Area is a subset of the Plan Area and the regulations identified above would apply to
development that would be accommodated by the Crossroads Specific Plan. As with the Mid-Century Plan,
impacts to human remains under the Crossroads Specific Plan are not anticipated to be significant.
5.3.5 Existing Regulations
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
Executive Order 11593, 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 8921 as incorporated into Title 16,
United States Code, Section 470
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Title 25, United States Code Section 3001, et
seq.
State
California Public Resources Code 5020–5029.5, 5079–5079.65, and 5097.9–5097.991
California Register of Historic Resources
2013 California Historical Building Code
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
Local
Temple City Downtown Specific Plan
5.3.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon adherence of the regulatory requirements, implementation of the policies contained in the Mid-
Century Plan, and compliance with the provisions of the Specific Plan the following impacts would be less
than significant: 5.3-3.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
June 2017 Page 5.3-15
Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant:
Impact 5.3-1 Future development that would be accommodated by the Proposed Project could
impact historic resources.
Impact 5.3-2 Future development that would be accommodated by the Proposed Project could
impact buried or obscured archaeological and/or paleontological resources during
construction activities of future development projects.
5.3.7 Mitigation Measures
Impact 5.3-1
Mid-Century Plan
CUL-1 Project applicants for future development projects with intact extant building(s) more than
50 years old shall prepare and submit a historic resource technical study to the City of
Temple City for review and approval. The technical study shall be prepared by a qualified
architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior Standards. The study shall
evaluate the significance and data potential of the resource in accordance with these
standards. If the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of
Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852): 1)
mitigation shall be identified within the technical study that ensures the value and integrity
of the historical resource is maintained in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior
Standards, or 2) provide evidence that retention/relocation of the historical resources is not
feasible through a credible feasibility study and provide mitigation to preserve the historical
value through recordation, interpretive, commemorative, or educational measures.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 applies here.
Impact 5.3-2
Mid-Century Plan
CUL-2 Prior to issuance of grading permits for excavations at depths of greater than six feet, the
City of Temple City shall ensure that an archeologist who meets the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for professional archaeology has been retained by the project
applicant/construction contractor and will be on call during the grading activities associated
with the aforementioned depths. Evidence of the contracted professional retained shall be
provided to the City’s Community Development Department. If any evidence of
archaeological or cultural resources is discovered during the grading activities, the following
measures shall be taken:
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Page 5.3-16 PlaceWorks
The Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians shall be notified of the find(s). The tribe shall
coordinate with the contracted archeologist to determine if a certified Native American
monitor is needed to assess the find.
All below-grade work shall stop within a 50-foot radius of the discovery. Work shall not
continue until the discovery has been evaluated by the contracted archaeologist and in
consultation with the Native American monitor.
A qualified archaeologist shall assess the find(s) in coordination and consultation with
the appropriate City staff and Native American monitor to determine if they are of
archeological or cultural value. If the find(s) are of value, then the following steps shall
be taken:
• The archaeologist shall draft a monitoring program and monitor all ground-
disturbing activities related to the project. The monitoring program shall include
accommodations and procedures for Native American monitors.
• The archeologist shall prepare all potential finds in excavated material to the point
of identification.
• Significant archaeological and/or cultural resources found shall be preserved as
determined necessary by the archaeologist and in consultation with the Native
American monitor.
• Excavated archeological finds shall be offered to the Los Angeles County Museum
of Natural History or California State University, Fullerton, or its designee for
curation on a first-refusal basis. After which, finds shall be offered to a local
museum or repository willing to accept the resource.
• Within 30 days of completion of earth-moving activities, the archeologist shall draft
a report summarizing the finds and shall include the inspection period, an analysis
of any resources found, and the present repository of the items.
• The archaeologist’s report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval
and filed with the County of Los Angeles and South Central Coastal Information
Center at the California State University, Fullerton.
CUL-3 Prior to issuance of grading permits for excavations at depths of greater than six feet, the
City of Temple City shall ensure that a county-certified paleontologist has been retained by
the project applicant/construction contractor and will monitor all grading and other
significant ground-disturbing activities that occur more than six feet below the ground
surface in areas of Holocene and late Pleistocene deposits. Evidence of the contracted
professional retained shall be provided to the City’s Community Development Department.
If any evidence of paleontological resources is discovered during grading and ground-
disturbing activities, the following measures shall be taken:
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
June 2017 Page 5.3-17
All below-grade work shall stop within a 50-foot radius of the discovery. Work shall not
continue until the discovery has been evaluated by a qualified paleontologist.
A qualified paleontologist in coordination with the appropriate City staff shall assess the
find(s) and determine if they are of paleontological value. If the find(s) are of value,
then:
• The paleontologist shall draft a monitoring program and monitor all ground-
disturbing activities.
• The paleontologist shall prepare all potential finds in excavated material to the point
of identification.
• Significant paleontological resources found shall be preserved as determined
necessary by the paleontologist.
• Excavated finds shall be offered to the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural
History or its designee for curation on a first-refusal basis. After which, finds shall
be offered to an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of
current and future generations.
• Within 30 days of completion of the end of earth-moving activities, the
paleontologist shall draft a report summarizing the finds and shall include the
inspection period, an analysis of any resources found, and the present repository of
the items.
• The paleontologist’s report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.
Any resulting reports shall also be filed with the County of Los Angeles and the
permanent scientific institution where the resources are curated.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure’s CUL-2 and CUL-3 apply here.
5.3.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of mitigation measures set forth above would minimize impacts to historical resources.
However, implementation of the Specific Plan would occur over a number of years and buildings and
structures may become historic during Specific Plan buildout. Additionally, if a future site-specific
development project has met the requirements of CUL-1 and determines that retention or onsite relocation
of the historical resource is not feasible and demolition is allowed to occur, a significant and unavoidable
impact to historical resources would occur.
The mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with archeological and
paleontological resources to a level that is less than significant.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Page 5.3-18 PlaceWorks
5.3.9 References
Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 2012, October 24. California Historical Resources.
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/listedresources/.
———. 1995, March. Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. http://
ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/manual95.pdf
Temple City, City of. 2014, November. City of Temple City Community Profile.
http://maketchappen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/CommunityProfile_FINAL.pdf.
———. 2002. Downtown Specific Plan. http://www.ci.temple-city.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/841.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2017 Page 5.4-1
5.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for implementation
of the Proposed Project, which includes the Temple City 2050 Mid-Century General Plan (Mid-Century
Plan), to impact geological and soil resources in the overall Plan Area. Specifically, this section is focused on
impacts related to erosion and topsoil. All other geology and soils impacts of the Proposed Project were
determined to be less than significant in the Initial Study prepared for the Proposed Project, which is
included as Appendix A to this DEIR.
5.4.1 Environmental Setting
5.4.1.1 REGULATORY SETTING
State, regional and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines related to geology and soils that are potentially
applicable to the Proposed Project are summarized below.
State
California Building Code and California Health and Safety Code
Requirements for geotechnical investigations are included in Appendix J Section J104 of the California
Building Code (CBC; California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2), adopted by reference in Chapter 1
(Building Code) of Title 7 (Building Regulations) of the City’s Municipal Code. Additional requirements for
subdivisions requiring tentative and final maps and for other specified types of structures are contained in
California Health and Safety Code Sections 17953 to 17955 and in Section 1802 of the CBC. Testing of
samples from subsurface investigations is required, such as from borings or test pits. Studies must be done as
needed to evaluate slope stability, soil strength, position and adequacy of load-bearing soils, the effect of
moisture variation on load-bearing capacity, compressibility, liquefaction, differential settlement, and
expansiveness.
General Construction Permit and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans
The General Construction Permit (GCP; Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES (National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System) Permit No. CAS000002), and its subsequent revisions (Order No. 2012-0006-
DWQ), issued by the State Water Resources Control Board and effective July 17, 2012, regulates stormwater
and non-stormwater discharges associated with construction activities disturbing one acre or greater of soil.
Under the GCP, discharges of storm water from construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more
acres are required to either obtain individual NPDES permits for storm water discharges or to be covered by
the GCP. Coverage by the GCP is accomplished by completing and filing a Notice of Intent with the State
Water Resources Control Board and developing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). Each applicant under the GCP must ensure that a SWPPP is prepared prior to grading and is
implemented during construction. The SWPPP must list BMPs implemented at the construction site to
protect storm water runoff, and must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC DRAFT EIR
CITY OT TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Page 5.4-2 PlaceWorks
for "non-visible" pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a monitoring plan if the site
discharges directly to a water body listed on the state’s 303(d) list of impaired waters.
Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules 402 and 403
The South Coast Air Quality Management District oversees and implements various rules, including Rules
402 and 403. Rule 402 requires dust suppression techniques be implemented to prevent dust and soil erosion
from creating a nuisance offsite. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control
measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property
line of the emissions source.
Los Angeles County Low Impact Development Standards Manual
Los Angeles County has prepared the 2014 Low Impact Development Standards Manual (LID Manual) to
comply with the requirements of the NPDES MS4 permit for stormwater and non-stormwater discharges
within the coastal watersheds of Los Angeles County (CAS004001, Order No. R4-2012-0175). The LID
Manual addresses the following objectives and goals:
Lessen the adverse impacts of stormwater runoff from development and urban runoff on natural
drainage systems, receiving waters, and other water bodies.
Minimize pollutant loadings from impervious surfaces by requiring development projects to incorporate
properly-designed, technically appropriate BMPs and other LID strategies.
Minimize erosion and other hydrologic impacts on all projects located within natural drainage systems
that have not been improved by requiring projects to incorporate properly designed, technically
appropriate hydromodification control development principles and technologies.
Local
City of Temple City Low-Impact Development for Small Sites Technical Guidance Document
The City has prepared a technical guidance document (TGD) for certain types of projects disturbing 500 or
more square feet of soil but less than 5,000 or 10,000 square feet of soil, depending on the type of project.
The TGD sets forth design criteria for several LID measures including flow-through planter boxes, vegetated
swales, rain gardens, Hollywood driveways, and “bottomless trenches”.
New industrial or commercial developments 10,000 square feet or more; and restaurants, gas stations, or
parking lots 5,000 square feet or more; or projects creating or replacing 5,000 square feet or more of
impervious surfaces are subject to the Los Angeles County Low Impact Development Standards Manual and
not to the City’s TGD. Projects disturbing less than 500 square feet of soil are exempt from both the City of
Temple City and Los Angeles County LID requirements.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
June 2017 Page 5.4-3
City of Temple City Municipal Code
The City’s Municipal Code has existing standards and regulations that help mitigate potential impacts related
to soil erosion; specifically, those contained in Chapter 3 (Pollutant Sources Reduction). Per Section 8.3.2
(New Development and Construction) of this chapter, the following provisions apply to new development
and construction activities:
Vegetation Clearing Limits: As a condition of granting a construction permit, the city may set
reasonable limits on the clearing of natural vegetation from construction sites, in order to reduce the
potential for soil erosion. These limits may include, but not be limited to, regulating the length of time
soil is allowed to remain bare or prohibiting bare soil.
Additional Plans: The manager may require, prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit,
preparation of appropriate wet weather erosion control, stormwater pollution prevention or other plans
consistent with the countywide development construction guidance document and the goals of this
chapter.
5.4.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Land Cover
Plan Area
The majority of the Plan Area and Specific Plan Area are built out; only two acres of the 2,570-acre Plan
Area are vacant, with no vacant parcels within the confines of the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, erosion
potential is limited due to buildings, pavement, and landscaping. Additionally, both the Plan Area and Specific
Plan area are flat, with a nearly uniform south-southeast slope of about 1.5 percent grade. There are no major
slopes or bluffs in the overall Plan Area.
Specific Plan Area
The existing conditions information provided above applies to the Specific Plan Area.
Soils
Plan Area
Virtually the entire Plan Area, including the Specific Plan Area, is underlain by young alluvial fan deposits,
consisting of gravel, sand, and silt, of Holocene and late Pleistocene age. The Holocene Epoch extends from
about 11,700 years before present (ybp) to the present; the late Pleistocene extends from about 130,000 to
11,700 ybp (GSA 2012).
Specific Plan Area
The existing conditions information provided above applies to the Specific Plan Area.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC DRAFT EIR
CITY OT TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Page 5.4-4 PlaceWorks
5.4.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
G-1 Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault. (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.
iv) Landslides.
G-2 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
G-3 Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse.
G-4 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property.
G-5 Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.
The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds
would be less than significant:
Thresholds G-1 (i - iv), G-3, G-4, and G-5
These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis.
5.4.3 Relevant General Plan Policies
The following are relevant policies of the Mid-Century Plan Hazards Element, which are designed to reduce
potential impacts related to geological and soil hazards from implementation of the Proposed Project.
H 8.1 Safety Standards. Enforce state and local seismic and geologic safety laws, standards, and
guidelines, including the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Seismic Hazard Mapping Act and
the California Building Code throughout Temple City.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
June 2017 Page 5.4-5
H 8.3 Geotechnical Investigations. Require geotechnical investigations prior to approval of
development in areas where the potential for geologic or seismic hazards exists, addressing ground
shaking, landslides, liquefaction, expansive soils, subsidence, and erosion and incorporate recommended
mitigation measures to reduce or avoid hazards, as appropriate.
5.4.4 Environmental Impacts
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 5.4-1: Development that would be accommodated by the Proposed Project would not result in the substantial increase of soil erosion or topsoil loss. [Threshold G-2]
Impact Analysis: Erosion is the movement of rock and soil from place to place, and is a natural process.
Common agents of erosion in the project region include wind and flowing water. Significant erosion typically
occurs on steep slopes where stormwater and high winds can carry topsoil down hillsides. Erosion can also
be increased greatly by earth-moving activities (e.g., grading and construction) if erosion control measures are
not used.
Development or redevelopment projects pursuant to the Proposed Project would result in the exposure and
disturbance of substantial amounts of soil, and therefore, could cause considerable soil erosion. Following is
a discussion of the potential construction- and operational-related erosion impacts as a result of development
that would be accommodated under each component of the Proposed Project.
Mid-Century Plan
Construction Phase
Future development that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan would involve excavation,
grading, and construction activities that disturb soil and leave exposed soil on the ground surface. Grading
temporarily increases the potential for erosion by removing protective vegetation, changing natural drainage
patterns, and constructing slopes. Common means of soil erosion from construction sites include water,
wind, and being tracked offsite by vehicles. These activities could result in soil erosion if effective erosion-
control measures are not used.
However, future development that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan would be subject to
local and state codes and requirements for erosion control and grading during construction. For example,
developments projects are required to comply with standard regulations, including South Coast Air Quality
Management District Rules 402 and 403, which would reduce construction erosion impacts. Rule 402 requires
dust suppression techniques be implemented to prevent dust and soil erosion from creating a nuisance offsite.
Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of
such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emissions source. For
example, as outlined in Table 1 (Best Available Control Measures) of Rule 403, control measures to reduce
erosion during grading and construction activities include stabilizing backfilling materials when not actively
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC DRAFT EIR
CITY OT TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Page 5.4-6 PlaceWorks
handling, stabilizing soils during clearing and grubbing activities, and stabilizing soils during and after cut-and-
fill activities.
Additionally, the GCP issued by the State Water Resources Control Board regulates construction activities to
minimize water pollution, including sediment risk from construction activities to receiving waters.
Improvements associated with future development projects that would be accommodated by the Mid-
Century Plan would be subject to the NPDES permitting regulations, including the development and
implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is further discussed in Section
5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. The construction contractor of individual development projects would be
required to prepare and implement a SWPPP and associated best management practices (BMPs) in
compliance with the GCP during grading and construction. For example, types of BMPs that are
incorporated in SWPPPs and would help minimize impacts from soil erosion include:
Erosion control BMPs: These BMPs cover and/or bind the soil surface, to prevent soil particles from
being detached and transported by water or wind. Erosion control BMPs include mulch, geotextiles,
mats, hydroseeding, earth dikes, and swales.
Sediment control BMPs: These BMPs filter out soil particles that have been detached and transported
in water; such BMPs include barriers such as straw bales, sandbags, fiber rolls, and gravel bag berms;
desilting basins; and cleaning measures such as street sweeping.
Tracking Control BMPs: These BMPs minimize the tracking of soil offsite by vehicles via stabilized
construction roadways and construction entrances/exits and entrance/outlet tire washes.
Waste Management and Control BMPs: These BMPs include management of stockpiles such as soil
stockpiles; for instance, covering stockpiles and surrounding stockpiles with barriers such as straw bales,
sandbags, or fiber rolls.
Furthermore, future development projects would be required to have a site-specific geotechnical investigation
report prepared by a geotechnical consultant in accordance with Appendix J, Section J104 (Engineered
Grading Requirements) of the CBC; such investigation would assess soil types and stability and provide any
needed recommendations (e.g., engineered compacted soil, vegetated slopes) to prevent or minimize soil
erosion. Compliance with the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation report would be required as
a condition of a grading permit and/or building permit, and would be ensured by the City during its
development review process. Additional geotechnical investigation requirements for subdivisions requiring
tentative and final maps and for other specified types of structures are contained in California Health and
Safety Code Sections 17953 to 17955 and in Section 1802 of the CBC.
Future development projects would also be required to adhere to the provision of Chapter 3 (Pollutant
Sources Reduction) of the City’s Municipal Code. Per Section 8.3.2 (New Development and Construction) of
this chapter, the following provisions apply to new development and construction activities:
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
June 2017 Page 5.4-7
Vegetation Clearing Limits: As a condition of granting a construction permit, the city may set
reasonable limits on the clearing of natural vegetation from construction sites, in order to reduce the
potential for soil erosion. These limits may include, but not be limited to, regulating the length of time
soil is allowed to remain bare or prohibiting bare soil.
Additional Plans: The manager may require, prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit,
preparation of appropriate wet weather erosion control, stormwater pollution prevention or other plans
consistent with the countywide development construction guidance document and the goals of this
chapter.
Lastly, the Mid-Century Plan contains policies designed to minimize impacts related to erosion; these include:
H 8.1 Safety Standards. Enforce state and local seismic and geologic safety laws, standards, and
guidelines, including the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Seismic Hazard Mapping Act and
the California Building Code throughout Temple City.
H 8.3 Geotechnical Investigations. Require geotechnical investigations prior to approval of
development in areas where the potential for geologic or seismic hazards exists, addressing ground
shaking, landslides, liquefaction, expansive soils, subsidence, and erosion and incorporate recommended
mitigation measures to reduce or avoid hazards, as appropriate.
Based on the preceding, soil erosion impacts from grading and construction activities are not anticipated to
occur.
Operational Phase
The Plan Area is largely built out and does not feature substantial undeveloped areas where new development
would disturb topsoil. The Plan Area also has little variation in topography (i.e., relatively flat)—no major
slopes or bluffs exist within the confines of the Plan Area. Soils on steeper slopes are more susceptible to
erosion, such as in the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the Puente Hills to the south. Due to the flat
topography and mostly-developed condition of the Plan Area, soil erosion is not anticipated to be an issue as
a result of development that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan. Additionally, after
completion, future development projects would not contain exposed or bare soil since they would be
developed with buildings, hardscape, landscape, and/or BMP features. Upon completion of each
development project, the potential for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be expected to be extremely
low.
Furthermore, development projects meeting certain criteria would be subject to the Los Angeles County LID
Manual and the City’s TGD. Criteria for projects subject to each regulatory program are summarized in
Section 5.4.1.1, Regulatory Setting. For example, a design criteria of the LID Manual calls for the protection of
slopes from erosion by safely conveying stormwater runoff from the tops of slopes. The use of mulch and
grasses to minimize erosion is also outlined as a design criteria in the LID Manual (CLADPW 2014). The
TGD also sets forth design criteria for several LID measures including flow-through planter boxes, vegetated
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC DRAFT EIR
CITY OT TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Page 5.4-8 PlaceWorks
swales, rain gardens, Hollywood driveways, and “bottomless trenches”. Vegetated swales for example, may be
used to intercept, divert, and convey off-site drainage through or around the project site to prevent flooding
or erosion that might otherwise occur (CLADPW 2014).
Based on the preceding, operation-phase soil erosion impacts are not anticipated to occur.
Crossroads Specific Plan
The above analysis also applies to the Crossroads Specific Plan.
5.4.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions
State
Statewide General Construction Permit (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ) and its subsequent revisions
(Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ)
California Building Code: Appendix J, Section J104, Engineered Grading Requirements
California Health and Safety Code Sections 17953 to 17955: Requirements for Geotechnical
Investigations
Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules 402 and 403
Los Angeles County Public Works Department: Low Impact Development Standards Manual
Local
City of Temple City Municipal Code: Chapter 3, Pollutant Sources Reduction, Section 8.3.2, New
Development and Construction
City of Temple City: Low-Impact Development for Small Sites Technical Guidance Document
5.4.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon adherence to regulatory requirements, implementation of the policies contained in the Mid-Century
Plan, and compliance with the provisions of the Specific Plan, the following impact would be less than
significant: 5.4-1.
5.4.7 Mitigation Measures
No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
June 2017 Page 5.4-9
5.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No significant adverse impacts related to soil erosion were identified
5.4.9 References
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (CLADPW). Low Impact Development Standards
Manual.
https://dpw.lacounty.gov/ldd/lib/fp/Hydrology/Low%20Impact%20Development%20Standards%
20Manual.pdf.
Geological Society of America (GSA). 2012, November 13. GSA Geologic Time Scale.
http://www.geosociety.org/science/timescale/timescl.pdf.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC DRAFT EIR
CITY OT TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Page 5.4-10 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2017 Page 5.5-1
5.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for implementation
of the Proposed Project, which includes the City of Temple City Mid-Century Plan (Mid-Century Plan) and
Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan (Crossroads Specific Plan) to cumulatively contribute to greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions impacts. Because no single project is large enough to result in a measurable increase in
global concentrations of GHG emissions, climate change impacts of a project are considered on a cumulative
basis.
This evaluation is based on the methodology recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD). Transportation-sector impacts for the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan
are based on average daily vehicle trips associated with the projects and vehicle miles traveled provided in the
traffic study (see Appendix H). Water use and wastewater generation for the Mid-Century Plan and
Crossroads Specific Plan are based on rates provided in the infrastructure report (see Appendix E). The Mid-
Century Plan’s communitywide emissions inventory also utilizes data provided by Southern California Edison
and the Southern California Gas Company for energy use and CalRecycle for solid waste disposal. GHG
emissions modeling are included in Appendix C of this DEIR.
Terminology
The following are definitions for terms used throughout this section.
Greenhouse gases (GHG). Gases in the atmosphere that absorb infrared light, thereby retaining heat in
the atmosphere and contributing to a greenhouse effect.
Global warming potential (GWP). Metric used to describe how much heat a molecule of a greenhouse
gas absorbs relative to a molecule of carbon dioxide (CO2) over a given period of time (20, 100, and
500 years). CO2 has a GWP of 1.
Carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e). The standard unit to measure the amount of greenhouse gases in
terms of the amount of CO2 that would cause the same amount of warming. CO2e is based on the GWP
ratios between the various GHGs relative to CO2.
MTCO2e. Metric ton of CO2e.
MMTCO2e. Million metric tons of CO2e.
5.5.1 Environmental Setting
5.5.1.1 GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large
amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as GHGs, to the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHGs is
fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHGs—
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-2 PlaceWorks
water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3)—that are the likely cause of an increase
in global average temperatures observed within the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHGs identified by the
IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent are nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6),
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons (IPCC 2001).1,2 The major GHGs are
briefly described below.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and
coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and respiration, and also as a result of other chemical
reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (sequestered)
when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.
Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane
emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and from the decay of organic waste
in landfills and water treatment facilities.
Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as during the
combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.
Fluorinated gases are synthetic, strong GHGs that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes.
Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances. These gases are
typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent GHGs, they are sometimes referred to
as high global-warming-potential (GWP) gases.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are GHGs covered under the 1987 Montreal Protocol and used for
refrigeration, air conditioning, packaging, insulation, solvents, or aerosol propellants. Since they are
not destroyed in the lower atmosphere (troposphere), CFCs drift into the upper atmosphere where,
given suitable conditions, they break down the ozone layer. These gases are therefore being replaced
by other compounds that are GHGs covered under the Kyoto Protocol.
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are a group of human-made chemicals composed of carbon and fluorine
only. These chemicals (predominantly perfluoromethane [CF4] and perfluoroethane [C2F6]) were
introduced as alternatives, along with hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), to ozone-depleting substances. In
addition, PFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are used in manufacturing.
PFCs do not harm the stratospheric ozone layer, but they have a high GWP.
1 Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water
vapor is not considered a pollutant because it is considered part of the feedback loop rather than a primary cause of change.
2 Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly, by absorbing sunlight, and indirectly, by depositing on snow (making it
melt faster) and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Black carbon is the most strongly light-absorbing
component of particulate matter (PM) emitted from burning fuels such as coal, diesel, and biomass. Reducing black carbon
emissions globally can have immediate economic, climate, and public health benefits. California has been an international leader in
reducing emissions of black carbon, with close to 95 percent control expected by 2020 due to existing programs that target
reducing PM from diesel engines and burning activities (CARB 2017a). However, state and national GHG inventories do not
include black carbon due to ongoing work resolving the precise global warming potential of black carbon. Guidance for CEQA
documents does not yet include black carbon.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-3
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is a colorless gas soluble in alcohol and ether, and slightly soluble in
water. SF6 is a strong GHG used primarily in electrical transmission and distribution systems as an
insulator.
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) contain hydrogen, fluorine, chlorine, and carbon atoms.
Although they are ozone-depleting substances, they are less potent than CFCs. They have been
introduced as temporary replacements for CFCs.
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) contain only hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon atoms. They were
introduced as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances to serve many industrial, commercial, and
personal needs. HFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are also used in
manufacturing. They do not significantly deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, but they are strong
GHGs. (IPCC 1995; USEPA 2017)
GHGs are dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Some GHGs
have a stronger greenhouse effect than others. These are referred to as high GWP gases. The GWP of GHG
emissions are shown in Table 5.5-1. The GWP is used to convert GHGs to CO2-equivalence (CO2e) to show
the relative potential that different GHGs have to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute
to the greenhouse effect. For example, under IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) GWP values for CH4,
a project that generates 10 metric tons (MT) of CH4 would be equivalent to 250 MT of CO2.3
Table 5.5-1 GHG Emissions and their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2
GHGs
Second Assessment Report Atmospheric Lifetime
(Years)
Fourth Assessment Report Atmospheric Lifetime
(Years)
Second Assessment Report Global Warming
Potential Relative to CO21
Fourth Assessment Report Global Warming
Potential Relative to CO21
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50 to 200 50 to 200 1 1
Methane2 (CH4) 12 (±3) 12 21 25
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 120 114 310 298
Hydrofluorocarbons:
HFC-23 264 270 11,700 14,800
HFC-32 5.6 4.9 650 675
HFC-125 32.6 29 2,800 3,500
HFC-134a 14.6 14 1,300 1,430
HFC-143a 48.3 52 3,800 4,470
HFC-152a 1.5 1.4 140 124
HFC-227ea 36.5 34.2 2,900 3,220
HFC-236fa 209 240 6,300 9,810
HFC-4310mee 17.1 15.9 1,300 1,030
Perfluoromethane: CF4 50,000 50,000 6,500 7,390
Perfluoroethane: C2F6 10,000 10,000 9,200 12,200
Perfluorobutane: C4F10 2,600 NA 7,000 8,860
3 CO2-equivalence is used to show the relative potential that different GHGs have to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and
contribute to the greenhouse effect. The global warming potential of a GHG is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of
the gas molecule in the atmosphere.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-4 PlaceWorks
Table 5.5-1 GHG Emissions and their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2
GHGs
Second Assessment Report Atmospheric Lifetime (Years)
Fourth Assessment Report Atmospheric Lifetime (Years)
Second Assessment Report Global Warming Potential Relative to CO21
Fourth Assessment Report Global Warming Potential Relative to CO21
Perfluoro-2-methylpentane:
C6F14
3,200 NA 7,400 9,300
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 NA 23,900 22,800
Source: IPCC 1995 and IPCC 2007.
Notes: The IPCC has published updated global warming potential (GWP) values in its Fifth Assessment Report (2013) that reflect new information on atmospheric lifetimes
of GHGs and an improved calculation of the radiative forcing of CO2. However, GWP values identified in the Fourth Assessment Report are used by SCAQMD to maintain consistency in statewide GHG emissions modeling. In addition, the 2014 Scoping Plan Update was based on the GWP values in the Fourth Assessment Report.
1 Based on 100-year time horizon of the GWP of the air pollutant relative to CO2.
2 The methane GWP includes direct effects and indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. T he indirect effect due to the
production of CO2 is not included.
California’s GHG Sources and Relative Contribution
California is the 20th largest GHG emitter in the world and the second largest emitter of GHG emissions in
the United States, surpassed only by Texas (CARB 2014a). However, California also has over 12 million more
people than Texas. Because of more stringent air emission regulations, in 2014, California ranked third lowest
in energy-related carbon emissions per capita (EIA 2014).
In 2016, the statewide GHG emissions inventory was updated for 2000 to 2014 emissions using the GWPs in
IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).4 Based on these GWPs, California produced 442 MMTCO2e GHG
emissions in 2014. California’s transportation sector remains the single largest generator of GHG emissions,
producing 36.1 percent of the state’s total emissions. Industrial sector emissions made up 21.1 percent and
electric power generation made up 20.0 percent of the state’s emissions inventory. Other major sectors of
GHG emissions include commercial and residential (8.7 percent), agriculture (8.2 percent), high global
warming potential GHGs (3.9 percent), and recycling and waste (2.0 percent) (CARB 2016a).
Human Influence on Climate Change
For approximately 1,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere
remained relatively constant. During the 20th century, however, scientists observed a rapid change in the
climate and the quantity of climate change pollutants in the Earth’s atmosphere that is attributable to human
activities. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 35 percent since preindustrial
times and has increased at an average rate of 1.4 parts per million per year since 1960, mainly due to
combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation (IPCC 2007). These recent changes in the quantity and
concentration of climate change pollutants far exceed the extremes of the ice ages, and the global mean
temperature is warming at a rate that cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Human activities are
directly altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of climate change
pollutants (CAT 2006). In the past, gradual changes in the earth’s temperature changed the distribution of
4 Methodology for determining the statewide GHG inventory is not the same as the methodology used to determine statewide GHG
emissions under Assembly Bill 32 (2006).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-5
species, availability of water, etc. However, human activities are accelerating this process so that
environmental impacts associated with climate change no longer occur in a geologic time frame but within a
human lifetime (IPCC 2007).
Like the variability in the projections of the expected increase in global surface temperatures, the
environmental consequences of gradual changes in the Earth’s temperature are also hard to predict.
Projections of climate change depend heavily upon future human activity. Therefore, climate models are
based on different emission scenarios that account for historic trends in emissions and on observations of
the climate record that assess the human influence of the trend and projections for extreme weather events.
Climate-change scenarios are affected by varying degrees of uncertainty. For example, there are varying
degrees of certainty on the magnitude of the trends for:
Warmer temperatures and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas.
Warmer temperatures and more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas.
An increase in frequency of warm spells/heat waves over most land areas.
An increase in frequency of heavy precipitation events (or proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls)
over most areas.
Larger areas affected by drought.
Intense tropical cyclone activity increases.
Increased incidence of extremely high sea level (excludes tsunamis).
Potential Climate Change Impacts for California
Observed changes over the last several decades across the western United States reveal clear signs of climate
change. Statewide average temperatures increased by about 1.7°F from 1895 to 2011, and warming has been
greatest in the Sierra Nevada. By 2050, California is projected to warm by approximately 2.7°F above 2000
averages, a threefold increase in the rate of warming over the last century. By 2100, average temperatures
could increase from 4.1 to 8.6°F, depending on emissions levels (CCCC 2012).
In California and western North America, observations of the climate have shown: 1) a trend toward warmer
winter and spring temperatures; 2) a smaller fraction of precipitation falling as snow; 3) a decrease in the
amount of spring snow accumulation in the lower and middle elevation mountain zones; 4) an advanced
snowmelt of 5 to 30 days earlier in the springs; and 5) a similar shift (5 to 30 days earlier) in the timing of
spring flower blooms (CAT 2006). According to the California Climate Action Team, even if actions could be
taken to immediately curtail climate change emissions, the potency of emissions that have already built up,
their long atmospheric lifetimes (see Table 5.5-1, GHG Emissions and their Relative Global Warming Potential
Compared to CO2), and the inertia of the Earth’s climate system could produce as much as 0.6°C (1.1°F) of
additional warming. Consequently, some impacts from climate change are now considered unavoidable.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-6 PlaceWorks
Global climate change risks to California are listed in Table 5.5-2 and include impacts to public health, water
resources, agriculture, coastal sea level, forest and biological resources, and energy.
Table 5.5-2 Summary of GHG Emissions Risks to California
Impact Category Potential Risk
Public Health Impacts
Heat waves will be more frequent, hotter, and longer
Fewer extremely cold nights
Poor air quality made worse
Higher temperatures increase ground-level ozone levels
Water Resources Impacts
Decreasing Sierra Nevada snow pack
Challenges in securing adequate water supply
Potential reduction in hydropower
Loss of winter recreation
Agricultural Impacts
Increasing temperature
Increasing threats from pests and pathogens
Expanded ranges of agricultural weeds
Declining productivity
Irregular blooms and harvests
Coastal Sea Level Impacts
Accelerated sea level rise
Increasing coastal floods
Shrinking beaches
Worsened impacts on infrastructure
Forest and Biological Resource Impacts
Increased risk and severity of wildfires
Lengthening of the wildfire season
Movement of forest areas
Conversion of forest to grassland
Declining forest productivity
Increasing threats from pest and pathogens
Shifting vegetation and species distribution
Altered timing of migration and mating habits
Loss of sensitive or slow-moving species
Energy Demand Impacts Potential reduction in hydropower
Increased energy demand
Sources: CEC 2006a; CEC 2009; CCCC 2012; CNRA 2014.
Specific climate change impacts that could affect the Proposed Project include:
Water Resources Impacts. By the late twenty-first century, all projections show drying, and half of the
projections suggest 30-year average precipitation will decline by more than 10 percent below the historical
average. This drying trend is caused by an apparent decline in the frequency of rain and snowfall. Even in
projections with relatively small or no declines in precipitation, central and southern parts of the state can
be expected to be drier from the warming effects alone because the spring snowpack will melt sooner,
and the moisture in soils will evaporate during long dry summer months (CCCC 2012).
Wildfire Risks. Earlier snowmelt, higher temperatures, and longer dry periods over a longer fire season
will directly increase wildfire risk. Indirectly, wildfire risk will also be influenced by potential climate-
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-7
related changes in vegetation and ignition potential from lightning. Human activities will continue to be
the biggest factor in ignition risk. The number of large fires statewide is estimated to increase from 58
percent to 128 percent above historical levels by 2085. Under the same emissions scenario, estimated
burned area will increase by 57 percent to 169 percent, depending on location (CCCC 2012).
Health Impacts. Many of the gravest threats to public health in California stem from the increase of
extreme conditions, principally more frequent, more intense, and longer heat waves. Particular concern
centers on the increasing frequency of multiple hot days in succession, and simultaneous heat waves in
several regions throughout the state. Public health could also be affected by climate change impacts on air
quality, food production, the amount and quality of water supplies, energy pricing and availability, and the
spread of infectious diseases. Higher temperatures also increase ground-level ozone levels. Furthermore,
wildfires can increase particulate air pollution in the major air basins of California (CCCC 2012).
Increased Energy Demand. Increases in average temperature and higher frequency of extreme heat
events combined with new residential development across the state will drive up the demand for cooling
in the increasingly hot and long summer season and decrease demand for heating in the cooler season.
Warmer, drier summers also increase system losses at natural gas plants (reduced efficiency in the
electricity generation process from higher temperatures) and hydropower plants (lower reservoir levels).
Transmission of electricity will also be affected by climate change. Transmission lines lose 7 percent to 8
percent of transmitting capacity in high temperatures while needing to transport greater loads. This
means that more electricity needs to be produced to make up for the loss in capacity and the growing
demand (CCCC 2012).
5.5.1.2 REGULATORY SETTING
This section describes the federal, state, and local regulations applicable to GHG emissions.
Federal Laws
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG emissions
threaten the public health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions from on-road
vehicles contribute to that threat. The EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 US Supreme Court decision
that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings did not themselves
impose any emission reduction requirements, but allowed the EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed
in 2009 for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation
(USEPA 2009).
To regulate GHGs from passenger vehicles, EPA was required to issue an endangerment finding. The finding
covers emissions of six key GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and SF6—that
have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and
around the world. The first three are applicable to the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions inventory because
they constitute the majority of GHG emissions, and according to SCAQMD guidance are the GHG
emissions that should be evaluated as part of a project’s GHG emissions inventory.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-8 PlaceWorks
US Mandatory Reporting Rule for GHGs (2009)
In response to the endangerment finding, the EPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule that
requires substantial emitters of GHG emissions (large stationary sources, etc.) to report GHG emissions data.
Facilities that emit 25,000 MTCO2e or more per year must submit an annual report.
Update to Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (2010/2012)
The current Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards (for model years 2011 to 2016) incorporate stricter
fuel economy requirements promulgated by the federal government and California into one uniform
standard. Additionally, automakers are required to cut GHG emissions in new vehicles by roughly 25 percent
by 2016 (resulting in a fleet average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016). Rulemaking to adopt these new
standards was completed in 2010. California agreed to allow automakers who show compliance with the
national program to also be deemed in compliance with state requirements. The federal government issued
new standards in 2012 for model years 2017–2025, which will require a fleet average of 54.5 miles per gallon
in 2025. However, the EPA is reexamining the 2017-2025 emissions standards.
EPA Regulation of Stationary Sources under the Clean Air Act (Ongoing)
Pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has been developing regulations for new stationary
sources such as power plants, refineries, and other large sources of emissions. Pursuant to the former
President Obama’s 2013 Climate Action Plan, the EPA will be directed to develop regulations for existing
stationary sources also. However, the EPA is reviewing the Clean Power Plan under President Trump’s
Energy Independence Executive Order.
State Laws
Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in
Executive Orders S-03-05 and B-30-15, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), and Senate Bill 375
(SB 375).
Executive Order S-03-05
Executive Order S-03-05, signed June 1, 2005, set the following GHG reduction targets for the state:
2000 levels by 2010
1990 levels by 2020
80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050
Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act (2006)
Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 was passed by the California state
legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG
emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 tier of emissions reduction targets established in Executive Order S-03-05.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-9
CARB 2008 Scoping Plan
The final Scoping Plan was adopted by CARB on December 11, 2008. The 2008 Scoping Plan identified that
GHG emissions in California are anticipated to be approximately 596 MMTCO2e in 2020. In December
2007, CARB approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 MMTCO2e (471 million tons) for the state (CARB
2008). In order to effectively implement the emissions cap, AB 32 directed CARB to establish a mandatory
reporting system to track and monitor GHG emissions levels for large stationary sources that generate more
than 25,000 MTCO2e per year, prepare a plan demonstrating how the 2020 deadline can be met, and develop
appropriate regulations and programs to implement the plan by 2012.
First Update to the Scoping Plan
CARB completed a five-year update to the 2008 Scoping Plan, as required by AB 32. The First Update to the
Scoping Plan was adopted at the May 22, 2014, board hearing. The update highlights California’s progress
toward meeting the near-term 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the original 2008 Scoping Plan.
As part of the update, CARB recalculated the 1990 GHG emission levels with the updated GWPs in the
Fourth Assessment Report, and the 427 MMTCO2e 1990 emissions level and 2020 GHG emissions limit,
established in response to AB 32, is slightly higher at 431 MMTCO2e (CARB 2014b).
As identified in the Update to the Scoping Plan, California is on track to meeting the goals of AB 32.
However, the update also addresses the state’s longer-term GHG goals within a post-2020 element. The post-
2020 element provides a high-level view of a long-term strategy for meeting the 2050 GHG goals, including a
recommendation for the state to adopt a midterm target. According to the Update to the Scoping Plan, local
government reduction targets should chart a reduction trajectory that is consistent with or exceeds the
trajectory created by statewide goals (CARB 2014b). CARB identified that reducing emissions to 80 percent
below 1990 levels will require a fundamental shift to efficient, clean energy in every sector of the economy.
Progressing toward California’s 2050 climate targets will require significant acceleration of GHG reduction
rates. Emissions from 2020 to 2050 will have to decline several times faster than the rate needed to reach the
2020 emissions limit (CARB 2014b).
Executive Order B-30-15
Executive Order B-30-15, signed April 29, 2015, sets a goal of reducing GHG emissions within the state to
40 percent below 1990 levels by year 2030. Executive Order B-30-15 also directs CARB to update the
Scoping Plan to quantify the 2030 GHG reduction goal for the state and requires state agencies to implement
measures to meet the interim 2030 goal as well as the long-term goal for 2050 in Executive Order S-03-05. It
also requires the Natural Resources Agency to conduct triennial updates of the California adaption strategy,
Safeguarding California, in order to ensure climate change is accounted for in state planning and investment
decisions.
Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197
In September 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197 into law, making the
Executive Order goal for year 2030 into a statewide mandated legislative target. AB 197 established a joint
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-10 PlaceWorks
legislative committee on climate change policies and requires the CARB to prioritize direction emissions
reductions rather than the market-based cap-and-trade program for large stationary, mobile, and other
sources.
2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update
Executive Order B-30-15 and SB 32 required CARB to prepare another update to the Scoping Plan to
address the 2030 target for the state. On January 20, 2017, CARB released the Draft 2017 Climate Change
Scoping Plan Update with adoption hearings planned for April of 2017. The Draft 2017 Climate Change Scoping
Plan Update includes the potential regulations and programs including strategies consistent with AB 197
requirements to achieve the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan establishes a new emissions limit of 260
MMTCO2e for the year 2030, which corresponds to a 40 percent decrease in 1990 levels by 2030 (CARB
2017b).
California’s climate strategy will require contributions from all sectors of the economy, including the land
base, and will include enhanced focus on zero- and near-zero emission (ZE/NZE) vehicle technologies;
continued investment in renewables, including solar roofs, wind, and other distributed generation; greater use
of low carbon fuels; integrated land conservation and development strategies; coordinated efforts to reduce
emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases); and an increased
focus on integrated land use planning, to support livable, transit-connected communities and conservation of
agricultural and other lands. Requirements for direct GHG reductions at refineries will further support air
quality co-benefits in neighborhoods, including in disadvantaged communities historically located adjacent to
these large stationary sources, as well as efforts with California’s local air pollution control and air quality
management districts (air districts) to tighten emission limits on a broad spectrum of industrial sources.
Major elements of the 2017 Scoping Plan framework include:
Implementing and/or increasing the standards of the Mobile Source Strategy, which include increasing
ZEV buses and trucks;
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with an increased stringency (18 percent by 2030);
Implementation of SB 350, which expands the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 50 percent RPS
and doubles energy efficiency savings by 2030;
California Sustainable Freight Action Plan, which improves freight system efficiency, utilizes near-zero
emissions technology, and deployment of ZEV trucks;
Implementing the proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy (SLPS), which focuses on reducing
methane and hydroflurocarbon emissions by 40 percent and anthropogenic black carbon emissions by 50
percent by year 2030;
Continued implementation of SB 375;
Post -2020 Cap-and-Trad e Program that includes declining caps;
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-11
20 percent reduction in GHG emissions from refineries by 2030 5; and
Development of a Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net
carbon sink.
In addition to the statewide strategies listed above, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan also identified local
governments as essential partners in achieving the State’s long-term GHG reduction goals and identified local
actions to reduce GHG emissions. As part of the recommended actions, CARB recommends that local
governments achieve a community-wide goal to achieve emissions of no more than 6 MTCO2e or less per
capita by 2030 and 2 MTCO2e or less per capita by 2050. For CEQA projects, CARB states that lead agencies
may develop evidenced-based bright-line numeric thresholds—consistent with the Scoping Plan and the
State’s long-term GHG goals—and projects with emissions over that amount may be required to incorporate
on-site design features and mitigation measures that avoid or minimize project emissions to the degree
feasible; or, a performance-based metric using a climate action plan or other plan to reduce GHG emissions
is appropriate (CARB 2017b).
The Scoping Plan scenario is set against what is called the business-as-usual (BAU) yardstick—that is, what
would the GHG emissions look like if the State did nothing at all beyond the existing policies that are
required and already in place to achieve the 2020 limit. It includes the existing renewables requirements,
advanced clean cars, the “10 percent” Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), and the SB 375 program for more
vibrant communities, among others. However, it does not include a range of new policies or measures that
have been developed or put into statute over the past two years. As shown in Table 5.5-3, the known
commitments are expected to result in emissions that are 50 MMTCO2e above the target in 2030. In order to
make up the “gap”, a new Post- 2020 Cap-and-Trade Program and refinery measure are key components of
the 2017 Scoping Plan.
Ta ble 5.5-3 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Emissions Reductions Gap to Achieve the 2030 GHG Target
Modeling Scenario 2030 GHG Emissions MMTCO2e
Reference Scenario
(Business-as-Usual) 392.4
With Known Commitments 310
2030 GHG Target 360
Source: CARB 2017b
Table 5.5-4 provides estimated GHG emissions by sector, compared to 1990 levels, and the range of GHG
emissions for each sector estimated for 2030.
5 The plan includes policies to require direct GHG reductions at some of the State’s largest stationary sources and mobile sources in
accordance with AB 197. These policies include the use of lower GHG fuels, efficiency regulations, and the Cap-and-Trade
Program, which constrains and reduces emissions at covered sources.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-12 PlaceWorks
Table 5.5-4 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Emissions Change by Sector to Achieve the 2030 Target
Scoping Plan Sector 1990 MMTCO2e 2030 Proposed Plan Ranges MMTCO2e % Change from 1990
Agricultural 26 24-25 -4% to -8%
Residential and Commercial 44 38-40 -9% to -14%
Electric Power 108 42-62 -43% to -61%
High GWP 3 8-11 167% to 267%
Industrial 98 77-87 -11% to -21%
Recycling and Waste 7 8-9 14% to 29%
Transportation (including TCU) 152 103-111 -27% to -32%
Net Sink1 -7 TBD TBD
Sub Total 431 300-345 -20% to -30%
Cap-and-Trade Program NA 40-85 NA
Total 431 260 -40%
Source: CARB 2017b Notes: TCU = Transportation, Communications, and Utilities; TBD: To Be Determined.
Work is underway through 2017 to estimate the range of potential sequestration benefits from the natural and working lands sector.
Senate Bill 1383
On September 19, 2016, the Governor signed SB 1383 to supplement the GHG reduction strategies in the
Scoping Plan to consider short-lived climate pollutants, including black carbon and CH4. Black carbon is the
light-absorbing component of fine particulate matter (PM) produced during incomplete combustion of fuels.
SB 1383 requires the state board, no later than January 1, 2018, to approve and begin implementing that
comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants to achieve a reduction in
methane by 40 percent, hydrofluorocarbon gases by 40 percent, and anthropogenic black carbon by 50
percent below 2013 levels by 2030, as specified. The bill also establishes targets for reducing organic waste in
landfill. On March 14, 2017, CARB adopted the Final Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy, which
identifies the state’s approach to reducing anthropogenic and biogenic sources of short-lived climate
pollutants. Anthropogenic sources of black carbon include on- and off-road transportation, residential wood
burning, fuel combustion (charbroiling), and industrial processes. According to CARB, ambient levels of
black carbon in California are 90 percent lower than in the early 1960s, despite the tripling of diesel fuel use
(CARB 2017a). In-use on-road rules are expected to reduce black carbon emissions from on-road sources by
80 percent between 2000 and 2020. SCAQMD is one of the air districts that require air pollution control
technologies for chain-driven broilers, which reduces particulate emissions from these charbroilers by over 80
percent (CARB 2017a). Additionally, SCAQMD Rule 445, wood-burning devices limits installation of new
fireplaces in the SoCAB.
Senate Bill 375
In 2008, SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, was adopted to connect the GHG
emissions reductions targets established in the 2008 Scoping Plan for the transportation sector to local land
use decisions that affect travel behavior. Its intent is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-13
automobiles (excludes emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long-range
transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning to reduce VMT and
vehicle trips. Specifically, SB 375 required CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of
the 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). The Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) is the MPO for the Southern California region, which includes the counties of Los Angeles, Orange,
San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial.
Pursuant to the recommendations of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee, CARB adopted per
capita reduction targets for each of the MPOs rather than a total magnitude reduction target. SCAG’s targets
are an 8 percent per capita reduction from 2005 GHG emission levels by 2020 and a 13 percent per capita
reduction from 2005 GHG emission levels by 2035 (CARB 2010a). SB 375 requires CARB to periodically
update the targets, no later than every eight years.
The 2020 targets are smaller than the 2035 targets because a significant portion of the built environment in
2020 has been defined by decisions that have already been made. In general, the 2020 scenarios reflect that
more time is needed for large land use and transportation infrastructure changes. Most of the reductions in
the interim are anticipated to come from improving the efficiency of the region’s transportation network. The
targets would result in 3 MMTCO2e of reductions by 2020 and 15 MMTCO2e of reductions by 2035. Based
on these reductions, the passenger vehicle target in CARB’s Scoping Plan (for AB 32) would be met (CARB
2010a).
CARB is currently in the process of updating the next round of targets and methodology to comply with the
requirement for updates every eight years. Considerations for the next round of targets include whether to
change the nature or magnitude of the emissions reduction targets for each of the MPOs, and whether the
target-setting methodology should account for advances in technologies that reduce emissions. Such changes
in methodology would permit cities to account for emissions reductions from advances in cleaner fuels and
vehicles and not only from land use and transportation planning strategies. In March 2017, CARB held a
series of workshops regarding the SB 375 target update process and updated targets adopted in 2017 are
intended to become effective in 2018. Sustainable communities strategies (SCSs) adopted in 2018 would be
subject to the updated targets (CARB 2015).
SCAG’s 2016-2040 RTP/SCS
SB 375 requires the MPOs to prepare a sustainable communities strategy in their regional transportation plan.
For the SCAG region, the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS) was adopted on April 7, 2016, and is an update to the 2012 RTP/SCS (SCAG 2016). In general,
the SCS outlines a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation
network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce vehicle miles traveled from
automobiles and light duty trucks and thereby reduce GHG emissions from these sources.
The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS projects that the SCAG region will meet or exceed the passenger per capita targets
set in 2010 by CARB. It is projected that VMT per capita in the region for year 2040 would be reduced by 7.4
percent with implementation of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS compared to a no-plan year 2040 scenario. Under
the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, SCAG anticipates lowering GHG emissions 8 percent below 2005 levels by 2020,
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-14 PlaceWorks
18 percent by 2035, and 21 percent by 2040. The 18 percent reduction by 2035 over 2005 levels represents a 2
percent increase in reduction compared to the 2012 RTP/SCS projection. Overall, the SCS is meant to
provide growth strategies that will achieve the aforementioned regional GHG emissions reduction targets.
Land use strategies to achieve the region’s targets include planning for new growth around high quality transit
areas and livable corridors, and creating neighborhood mobility areas to integrate land use and transportation
and plan for more active lifestyles (SCAG 2016). However, the SCS does not require that local general plans,
specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS; instead, it provides incentives to governments and
developers for consistency.
Assembly Bill 1493
California vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under AB 1493 (Pavley I). Pavley I is a clean-car
standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light-duty auto to medium-duty vehicles)
from 2009 through 2016 and is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles by
30 percent in 2016. California implements the Pavley I standards through a waiver granted to California by
the EPA. In 2012, the EPA issued a Final Rulemaking that sets even more stringent fuel economy and GHG
emissions standards for model year 2017 through 2025 light-duty vehicles (see also the discussion on the
update to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards under Federal Laws, above). In January 2012, CARB
approved the Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through
2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases and requirements for
greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single package of standards. Under California’s Advanced
Clean Car program, by 2025, new automobiles will emit 34 percent less global warming gases and 75 percent
less smog-forming emissions.
Executive Order S-01-07
On January 18, 2007, the state set a new low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels sold within
the state. Executive Order S-01-07 sets a declining standard for GHG emissions measured in carbon dioxide
equivalent gram per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The LCFS requires a reduction of 2.5 percent in
the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by 2015 and a reduction of at least 10 percent by
2020. The standard applies to refiners, blenders, producers, and importers of transportation fuels, and would
use market-based mechanisms to allow these providers to choose how they reduce emissions during the “fuel
cycle” using the most economically feasible methods.
Senate Bills 1078, 107, X1-2, and Executive Order S-14-08
A major component of California’s Renewable Energy Program is the renewables portfolio standard (RPS)
established under Senate Bills 1078 (Sher) and 107 (Simitian). Under the RPS, certain retail sellers of
electricity were required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent in order
to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010. Executive Order S-14-08 was signed in November 2008,
which expands the state’s renewable energy standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This standard
was adopted by the legislature in 2011 (SBX1-2). Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small
hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The increase in renewable sources for electricity
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-15
production will decrease indirect GHG emissions from development projects, because electricity production
from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral.
Senate Bill 350
Senate Bill 350 (de Leon), was signed into law September 2015 and establishes tiered increases to the RPS—
40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also set a new goal to double the
energy-efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures.
Executive Order B-16-2012
On March 23, 2012, the state identified that CARB, the California Energy Commission (CEC), the Public
Utilities Commission, and other relevant agencies worked with the Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative and
the California Fuel Cell Partnership to establish benchmarks to accommodate zero-emissions vehicles in
major metropolitan areas, including infrastructure to support them (e.g., electric vehicle charging stations).
The executive order also directs the number of zero-emission vehicles in California’s state vehicle fleet to
increase through the normal course of fleet replacement so that at least 10 percent of fleet purchases of
light-duty vehicles are zero-emission by 2015 and at least 25 percent by 2020. The executive order also
establishes a target for the transportation sector of reducing GHG emissions from the transportation sector
80 percent below 1990 levels.
California Building Code: Building Energy Efficiency Standards
Energy conservation standards for new residential and non-residential buildings were adopted by the
California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977 and
most recently revised in 2016 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24
requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are
updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency
technologies and methods. On June 10, 2015, the CEC adopted the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards, which went into effect on January 1, 2017.
The 2016 Standards continues to improve upon the previous 2013 Standards for new construction of, and
additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. Under the 2016 Standards, residential
and nonresidential buildings are 28 and 5 percent more energy efficient than the 2013 Standards, respectively
(CEC 2015a). Buildings that are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent (nonresidential) more energy efficient than the prior 2008
standards as a result of better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features. While the
2016 standards do not achieve zero net energy, they do get very close to the state’s goal and make important
steps toward changing residential building practices in California. The 2019 standards will take the final step
to achieve zero net energy for newly constructed residential buildings throughout California (CEC 2015b).
California Building Code: CALGreen
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building
standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11, known as “CALGreen”) was
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-16 PlaceWorks
adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code. CALGreen established planning and design
standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code
requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants.6 The mandatory
provisions of the California Green Building Code Standards became effective January 1, 2011, and were last
updated in 2016. The 2016 Standards became effective on January 1, 2017.
2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (20 CCR §§ 1601–1608) were adopted by the CEC on
October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The
regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non–federally regulated appliances.
Though these regulations are now often viewed as “business as usual,” they exceed the standards imposed by
all other states, and they reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy demand.
Solid Waste Regulations
California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939, Public Resources Code 40050 et seq.) set a
requirement for cities and counties throughout the state to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills
by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and composting. In 2008, the requirements were
modified to reflect a per capita requirement rather than tonnage. To help achieve this, the act requires that
each city and county prepare and submit a source reduction and recycling element. AB 939 also established
the goal for all California counties to provide at least 15 years of ongoing landfill capacity.
AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) increased the statewide goal for waste diversion to 75 percent by
2020 and requires recycling of waste from commercial and multifamily residential land uses.
The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act (AB 1327, California Public Resources Code §§
42900 et seq.) requires areas to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development
projects. The act required the California Integrated Waste Management Board to develop a model ordinance
for adoption by any local agency requiring adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials as
part of development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model or an ordinance of their own.
Section 5.408 of the 2013 CALGreen also requires that at least 50 percent of the nonhazardous construction
and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse.
In October of 2014 Governor Brown signed AB 1826 requiring businesses to recycle their organic waste on
and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This law also requires that
on and after January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions across the state implement an organic waste recycling
program to divert organic waste generated by businesses, including multifamily residential dwellings that
consist of five or more units. Organic waste means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste,
nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste.
6 The green building standards became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the building code.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-17
Water Efficiency Regulations
The 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan was issued by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in 2010
pursuant to Senate Bill 7, which was adopted during the 7th Extraordinary Session of 2009–2010 and
therefore dubbed “SBX7-7.” SBX7-7 mandated urban water conservation and authorized the DWR to
prepare a plan implementing urban water conservation requirements (20x2020 Water Conservation Plan). In
addition, it required agricultural water providers to prepare agricultural water management plans, measure
water deliveries to customers, and implement other efficiency measures. SBX7-7 requires urban water
providers to adopt a water conservation target of 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use by 2020
compared to 2005 baseline use.
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) requires local agencies to adopt the updated
DWR model ordinance or an equivalent. AB 1881 also requires the CEC to consult with the DWR to adopt,
by regulation, performance standards and labeling requirements for landscape irrigation equipment, including
irrigation controllers, moisture sensors, emission devices, and valves to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or water.
Local
The following discusses the City of Temple City’s applicable plans and regulations that would contribute in
reducing GHG emissions.
City of Temple City
City of Temple City Energy Action Plan
The City of Temple City prepared the Energy Action Plan (EAP) in conjunction with the San Gabriel Valley
Council of Governments (SGVGOG), a SCAG subregion, and Southern California Edison (SCE) as part of
supporting the California Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan (CEESP). The EAP is a stand-alone
document and was prepared with the intention of serving as an equivalent to an electricity efficiency chapter
of a climate action plan. It identifies both municipal and community-wide strategies to achieve long-term
electricity efficiency goals. It also serves as part of the state and regional effort for achieving energy efficiency
and reducing GHG emissions. The specific objectives of the EAP are to:
Create a long-term vision for energy efficiency;
Provide and assess information related to energy use and GHG emissions;
Establish reduction targets for energy efficiency;
Identify goals, policies, and actions to achieve energy reductions; and
Provide a framework to implement the identified goals, policies, and actions.
Under the premise of meeting the State-recommended GHG reduction target of 15 percent below baseline
levels by year 2020, the EAP sets the following energy efficiency targets for Temple City:
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-18 PlaceWorks
Community-Wide: Achieve a 15 percent reduction below baseline community-wide GHG emissions
levels by 2020.
Residential: Achieve a 10 percent reduction below baseline residential electricity use by 2020.
Non-Residential: Achieve a 10 percent reduction below baseline non-residential electricity use by 2020.
Municipal: Achieve Platinum Level status in SCE’s Energy Leadership by reducing municipal electricity
use.
The EAP strategy to meet these electricity reduction targets involves setting goals, policies, and
implementation actions focused around seven topic areas. The seven topic areas are 1) Existing Residential
Buildings, 2) Existing Nonresidential Buildings, 3) New Development, 4) Planning Framework, 5) Urban
Cooling, 6) Water & Electricity Efficiency, and 7) Municipal Operations. The goals corresponding to these
seven topic areas include:
Goal 1: Achieve maximum energy efficiency of the City’s existing housing stock and reduce household
energy costs.
Goal 2: Optimize business energy use, cost competitiveness, and operational efficiencies.
Goal 3: Integrate energy-efficient features into new buildings and remodels that are compatible with
existing community character.
Goal 4: Enhance the City’s planning framework to provide ongoing support for energy efficiency.
Goal 5: Maximize use of shading and cooling to sustain a comfortable and energy-efficient urban
environment.
Goal 6: Support the 2020 water reduction targets set by the City’s water providers.
Goal 7: Become one of the first net zero electricity City government within the San Gabriel Valley.
5.5.1.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Mid-Century Plan
An emissions inventory of the Plan Area was conducted based on the existing land uses and is shown in
Table 5.5-5. The existing land uses are the residential, institutional, commercial, office, and industrial uses
identified in Table 4-1, Existing Land Use Statistical Summary. Criteria air pollutant emissions generated in the
Plan Area were estimated using EMFAC2014, OFFROAD2007, and data provided by SCE and the Southern
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-19
California Gas Company (SoCalGas) for electricity and natural gas use, respectively. Emissions for the Plan
Area come from the following sources:7
Transportation: Emissions from vehicle trips beginning and ending in the Plan Area boundaries and
from external/internal vehicle trips (i.e., trips that either begin or end in the City).
Area Sources: Emissions generated from lawn and garden, commercial, and construction equipment use
in the Plan Area.
Energy: Emissions generated from purchased electricity and natural gas consumption used for cooking
and heating in the Plan Area.
Solid Waste Disposal: Indirect emissions from waste generated in the Plan Area.
Water/Wastewater: Emissions from electricity used to supply, treat, and distribute water based on the
overall water demand and wastewater generation in the Plan Area.
Table 5.5-5 Existing Plan Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
Sector
Existing (CEQA Baseline) 2015 GHG Emissions
MTCO2e/year Percent of Total
Transportation1 123,814 54%
Energy – Residential2 43,650 19%
Energy – Nonresidential2 17,830 8%
Solid Waste3 5,256 2%
Water/Wastewater4 5,186 2%
Other – Off-Road Equipment5 33,161 14%
Existing Community-Wide Emissions Total 228,898 100%
Service Population (SP)6 53,104 NA
MTCO2e/Year/SP 4.3 MTCO2e/Year/SP NA
Note: Emissions may not total 100 percent due to rounding. Based on IPCC’s AR4 GWPs.
1 EMFAC2011-SG and EMFAC2014. Model runs were based on daily per capita VMT data provided by Fehr & Peers (see Appendix H).
2 Electricity and natural gas usage data provided by SCE and SoCalGas, respectively. The carbon intensity of the purchased electricity is based on SCE 2012 reported CO2e intensity factor of 705 lbs/MWh (SCE 2012). For natural gas, the intensity factors for CO2, CH4, and NO2 are from the LGOP, version 1.1 (CARB 2010b).
3 Landfill Emissions Tool Version 1.3 and CalRecycle. Waste generation based on three-year average (2013–2015) waste commitment for the City of Temple City
obtained from CalRecycle and adjusted to account for solid waste associated with the SOI. Assumes 75 percent of fugitive GHG emissions are captured within the landfill's gas capture system. The landfill gas capture efficiency is based on CARB’s Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP), version 1.1. Significant CH4 production typically begins one or two years after waste disposal in a landfill and continues for 10 to 60 years or longer. Therefore, the highest CH4 emissions from waste disposal in a given year are reported.
4 LGOP, version 1.1, based on the water demand and wastewater generation rates provided by Fuscoe Engineering (see Appendix E).
5 OFFROAD2007. Consists of landscaping, light commercial, and construction equipment. Landscaping and light commercial equipment emissions based on
population and employment for the City of Temple City as a percentage of Los Angeles County. Construction equipment emissions based on housing permit data for
Los Angeles County and the City of Temple City from the US Census. Area sources exclude emissions from fireplaces and consumer products.
6 Approximately 36,019 residents and 5,965 employees within Temple City and 10,431 residents and 689 employees in the SOI.
7 Life-cycle emissions include indirect emissions associated with materials manufacture. However, these indirect emissions involve
numerous parties, each of which is responsible for GHG emissions of their particular activity. The California Resources Agency, in
adopting the CEQA Guidelines Amendments on GHG emissions, found that life-cycle analysis was not warranted for project-
specific CEQA analysis in most situations, for a variety of reasons, including lack of control over some sources and the possibility
of double-counting emissions (see Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, December 2009). Because the amount of
materials consumed during operation or construction phases of the Proposed Project is not known, the origin of the raw materials
purchased is not known, and manufacturing information for those raw materials are also not known, calculation of life-cycle
emissions would be speculative. A life-cycle analysis is not warranted (OPR 2008).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-20 PlaceWorks
Crossroads Specific Plan
The Specific Plan Area consists of single- and multi-family residences in addition to commercial land uses.
Operation of these land uses generate GHG emissions from natural gas used for energy, heating, and
cooking; electricity usage; vehicle trips for employees and residents; area sources such as landscaping
equipment and consumer cleaning products; water demand; waste generation; and solid waste generation.
Table 5.5-6 shows the emissions currently associated with existing land uses within the Specific Plan Area,
which were modeled using CalEEMod 2016.3.1.
Table 5.5-6 Existing Specific Plan Area GHG Emissions Inventory
Sector GHG Emissions MTCO2e/Year Percent of Total
Area 17 <1%
Energy1,2 3,400 26%
On-Road Transportation3 9,278 70%
Solid Waste Disposal 378 3%
Water/Wastewater2,4 237 2%
Total 13,309 100%
Service Population (SP)5 1,753 —
MTCO2e/Year/SP 7.59 —
Source: CalEEMod 2016.3.1. Based on IPCC’s AR4 GWPs.
Notes: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
1 Existing residential and nonresidential building energy use modeled using historical energy demand rates in CalEEMod.
2 Intensity factors for CH4 and N2O based on US EPA eGRID2012 data.
3 Transportation emissions are based on trip generation and VMT data provided by Fehr & Peers (see Appendix H). Assumed vehicle fleet mix based on the annual average daily trips identified by Caltrans for the segment of Highway 19 north of State Route 91 (Caltrans 2016a).
4 Water use is based on the water demand rates provided by Fuscoe Engineering (see Appendix E).
5 Service population consists of 101 residents and 1,652 employees within the Specific Plan Area.
5.5.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
GHG-1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment.
GHG-2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCAQMD has adopted a significance threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year for permitted (stationary)
sources of GHG emissions for which SCAQMD is the designated lead agency. To provide guidance to local
lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents, SCAQMD
convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group). Based on the last
Working Group meeting (Meeting No. 15) in September 2010, SCAQMD identified a tiered approach for
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-21
evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency (SCAQMD
2010):
Tier 1. If a project is exempt from CEQA, project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than
significant.
Tier 2. If the project complies with a GHG emissions reduction plan or mitigation program that avoids
or substantially reduces GHG emissions in the project’s geographic area (i.e., city or county), project-level
and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant.
Tier 3. If GHG emissions are less than the screening-level threshold, project-level and cumulative GHG
emissions are less than significant.
For projects that are not exempt or where no qualifying GHG reduction plans are directly applicable,
SCAQMD requires an assessment of GHG emissions. SCAQMD identified a screening-level threshold of
3,000 MTCO2e annually for all land use types or the following land-use-specific thresholds: 1,400 MTCO2e
for commercial projects, 3,500 MTCO2e for residential projects, or 3,000 MTCO2e for mixed-use projects.
These bright-line thresholds are based on a review of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
database of CEQA projects. Based on their review of 711 CEQA projects, 90 percent of CEQA projects
would exceed the bright-line thresholds. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the bright-line threshold
would have a nominal, and therefore, less than cumulatively considerable impact on GHG emissions:
Tier 4. If emissions exceed the screening threshold, a more detailed review of the project’s GHG
emissions is warranted.
The SCAQMD Working Group has identified an efficiency target for projects that exceed the screening
threshold of 4.8 MTCO2e per year per service population (MTCO2e/year/SP) for project-level analyses and
6.6 MTCO2e/year/SP for plan level projects (e.g., program-level projects such as general plans) for the year
2020.8 The per capita efficiency targets are based on the AB 32 GHG reduction target and 2020 GHG
emissions inventory prepared for CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan.9
Project-related GHG emissions include on-road transportation, energy use, water use and wastewater
generation, solid waste disposal, area sources, off-road emissions, and construction activities. The SCAQMD
Working Group identified that because construction activities would result in a “one-time” net increase in
GHG emissions, construction activities should be amortized into the operational phase GHG emissions
inventory based on the service life of a building. For buildings, in general, it is reasonable to look at a 30-year
time frame, since this is a typical interval before a new building requires the first major renovation.
8 It should be noted that the Working Group also considered efficiency targets for 2035 for the first time in this meeting.
9 SCAQMD took the 2020 statewide GHG reduction target for land use only GHG emissions sectors and divided it by the 2020
statewide employment for the land use sectors to derive a per capita GHG efficiency metric that coincides with the GHG reduction
targets of AB 32 for year 2020.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-22 PlaceWorks
Mid-Century Plan
The Mid-Century Plan involves an update of the current Temple City General Plan; therefore, project
emissions are compared to the SCAQMD’s plan-level efficiency threshold. The Mid-Century Plan horizon
year is beyond year 2020, and therefore, for the purposes of this EIR is estimated to be built out by 2035.
Therefore, the efficiency targets have been adjusted based on the long-term GHG reduction target of SB 32,
which sets a target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and Executive Order S-03-05, which set a goal
of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 (see Table 5.5-7).
Table 5.5-7 Forecasting the Post-2020 Program-Level GHG Reduction Targets
Category GHG Emissions MTCO2e/Year1 (AR4 GWPs) Notes
2020 Statewide GHG Target 466,320,000 1990 levels by 2020
2030 Statewide GHG Target 258,600,000 40% below 1990 levels by 2030
2050 Statewide GHG Target 86,200,000 80% below 1990 levels by 2050
2035 Statewide GHG Target2 215,500,000 Trend-line between 2030 and 2050:
50 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2035.
Population and
Employment Forecasts 2035
Population3 44,085,600 Based on the California Department of Finance forecasts
Employment4 20,027,660 Based on California Department of Transportation
Service Population (SP) 64,113,260 —
Efficiency Target 3.4 MTCO2e/SP —
Notes: AR4: Fourth Assessment Report; GWP: Global Warming Potentials; MTCO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent Sources:
1 CARB 2014.
2 Based on the 2030 target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 under SB 32 and the goal of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 under Executive Order S-03-
05.
3 CDOF 2016.
4 Caltrans 2016.
Based on these long-term targets, the emissions associated with the Mid-Century Plan are compared to the
plan-level efficiency threshold of:
The City’s 2020 GHG estimated efficiency target would be 6.6 MTCO2e per service population per year,
to align with SCAQMD’s efficiency target, identified in their CEQA Guidelines, which is consistent with
AB 32.
The City’s 2035 GHG estimated efficiency target would be 3.4 MTCO2e per service population per year,
to align with the midterm GHG reduction target of SB 32 and the long-term reduction goal of Executive
Order S-03-05.10
10 The Proposed Project’s horizon year is 2035; therefore, the SCAQMD efficiency target has been extrapolated to 2035 based on the
GHG reduction goal of Executive Order B-30-15, which is to reduce GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and
Executive Order S-03-05, which is to reduce GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-23
Crossroads Specific Plan
For the Crossroads Specific Plan, SCAQMD’s project-level threshold for all land use types is used as the plan-
level efficiency metric is more appropriate for general plan-level analysis. If projects exceed the thresholds,
GHG emissions would be considered potentially significant in the absence of mitigation measures. However,
as the Crossroad Specific Plan’s horizon year is beyond year 2020 with an anticipated buildout of 2035, the
efficiency target has been adjusted based on the mid-term GHG reduction target of SB 32, which establishes
a target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and the long-term reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-
05, which sets a goal of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 (see Table 5.5-8).
Table 5.5-8 Forecasting the Post-2020 Project-Level GHG Reduction Targets
1990 Emissions Sector1
GHG Emissions MTCO2e/Year Tailoring the CARB Land Use Inventory
Electricity 95,964,000 Removed Industrial energy use
Transportation 140,906,000
Includes the on-road transportation sector emissions
only
Landfills 7,448,000 Landfill extracted from the Industrial sector
Wastewater 3,581,000 Wastewater treatment extracted from the Industrial
sector
Commercial 13,873,000 Removed National Security emissions
Residential 29,740,000 Includes all emissions from this sector
Other 1,269,000 Not specified/various
Construction 673,000 —
1990 Land Use Sector Total 293,454,000 —
2035 Land Use Sector GHG Target2 146,727,000 Trend-line:
50 Percent Reduction from 1990 Levels by 2035.
2035 Population and Employment Forecasts Demographics Notes
Population3 44,085,600 Based the California Department of Finance forecasts
Employment4 20,027,660 Based on Caltrans socio-economic forecasts
Service Population 64,113,260 —
2035 Efficiency Target 2.3 MTCO2e/SP —
Sources:
1 CARB 2016b. Based on AR4 GWPs.
2 Based on the 2030 target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 under SB 32 and the goal of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 under Executive Order S-03-
05.
3 CDOF 2016.
4 Caltrans 2016.
Based on these long-term targets, the emissions associated with the Crossroads Specific Plan are compared to
the project-level efficiency threshold of:
The 2020 GHG estimated efficiency target would be 4.8 MTCO2e per service population per year
(MTCO2e/SP/yr), to align with SCAQMD’s efficiency target, identified in their CEQA Guidelines, which
is consistent with AB 32.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-24 PlaceWorks
The 2035 GHG estimated efficiency target would be 2.3 MTCO2e/SP/yr, to align with the midterm
GHG reduction target of SB 32 and the long-term reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05.
5.5.3 Relevant General Plan Update Policies
The following are relevant policies of the Mid-Century Plan Land Use, Mobility, Community Services,
Economic Development, and Natural Resources Elements, which may contribute to reduce potential GHG
emissions impacts as a result of implementation of the Proposed Project.
Land Use Element
LU 2.1 Complete Community. Allow for the development of uses contributing a complete and self-
sustaining community, containing a mix of uses that minimize the need for residents to travel outside of
the City for retail goods and services, employment, entertainment, and recreation.
LU 2.3 Places to Shop. Provide for and encourage the development of a diversity of uses in Temple
City’s downtown core, commercial centers, and corridors to enable residents and business persons to
shop locally and reduce the need to travel to adjoining communities.
LU 2.4 Places to Work. Provide opportunities for the development of a broad range of land uses that
offer job opportunities, including knowledge-based and local serving jobs that are commensurate with
the education, skills, and occupations of Temple City residents.
LU 2.5 Places to Live and Work. Provide for the development of projects integrating housing with
commercial uses enabling residents to reduce automobile travel, air pollution, and greenhouse gas
emissions.
LU 3.1 Development Pattern and Urban Form. Maintain and enhance Temple City’s urban form with
distinct, compact, and walkable residential neighborhoods and business districts containing a diversity of
uses, densities, and physical characteristics.
LU 3.2 Complete and Livable Neighborhoods. Maintain the pattern of distinct residential
neighborhoods oriented around parks, schools, and community facilities that are connected to and
walkable from neighborhood-serving businesses.
LU 3.3 Vibrant Downtown. Provide for the development of a mix of uses and activities that enhance
and build upon downtown as the pedestrian-oriented, economic, cultural, and social heart of Temple
City.
LU 3.4 Arterial Nodes. Cluster higher density, pedestrian-oriented mixed uses at key intersections, such
as Las Tunas Drive and Rosemead Boulevard, and Las Tunas Drive and Temple City Boulevard, to create
an active, vibrant, and prosperous commercial environment.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-25
LU 3.6 Pedestrian-Active Districts. Maintain a robust network of streetscape and pedestrian amenities
within the downtown core and mixed-use and commercial centers supporting pedestrian activity and
enhancing walkability.
LU 3.8 A Connected Community. Maintain an interconnected network of pedestrian and bicycle
pathways facilitating access among residential, retail, and industrial districts, schools, open spaces, and
recreation areas.
LU 4.5 Hazardous Uses. Prohibit or control land uses that pose potential health and environmental
hazards to Temple City’s neighborhoods and districts.
LU 4.11 Hazardous Uses. Prohibit or effectively control land uses which pose potential environmental
hazards to Temple City’s neighborhoods.
LU 7.1 Sustainable Land Development. Promote land use and urban design development practices
that reduce energy and water consumption, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste and noise
generation. These should include practices described in the United States Green Building Council’s
LEED-ND rating program such as concentrating development to promote walking in lieu of the
automobile, capturing and re-using stormwater onsite, managing and reusing wastewater, orienting
buildings to maximize opportunities for solar energy use, use of drought tolerant and native landscapes,
shading of exterior public spaces, and recycling and salvage for reuse of construction and demolition
debris.
LU 7.2 Sustainable Design and Construction. Require new development and substantial renovations
to comply with the Cal Green Code’s sustainable building practices incorporating a “whole system”
approach to designing and constructing buildings that consume comparatively less energy, water, and
other natural resources, reduce wastes, facilitate natural ventilation, use daylight effectively, and are
healthy, safe, comfortable, and durable.
LU 7.3 Existing Structure Reuse. Encourage the retention, adaptive reuse, and renovation of existing
buildings with “green” building technologies to retain the structure’s embodied energy, increase energy
efficiency, and limit the generation of construction waste.
LU 7.4 Heat Island Effect. Reduce the heat island effect by maintaining and expanding the City’s urban
forest and promoting such features as reflective roofing, cool and green roofs, light-colored paving, and
reducing the extent of unshaded area in existing and new parking lots or other large impervious surfaces.
LU 7.5 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans. Require major development projects to prepare greenhouse
gas reduction plans consistent with the targets defined in state statutory requirements.
LU 7.7 Alternative Fuels. Provide locations for alternative fuel facilities such as electrical re-charging
stations and hydrogen fuel supplies.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-26 PlaceWorks
LU 7.8 Green Infrastructure. Utilize best practices that reduce natural resource consumption and
impacts, as defined by the Utilities section of this Plan.
LU 9.6 Walkable Neighborhoods. Maintain sidewalks, parkways, the urban forest, and landscaping
throughout residential neighborhoods to promote a safe and pleasant pedestrian environment.
LU 9.7 Connected Neighborhoods. Ensure safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connectivity
between residential neighborhoods and commercial centers, recreation and open spaces, schools, work
places, and other community activity centers.
LU 14.1 Mix of Uses. Accommodate development integrating commercial and residential land uses in
mixed -use designated areas that establish places that are economically vital and pedestrian-active
contributing to resident health and community sustainability.
LU 16.2 Land Use Mix. Provide for the development of retail, office, restaurant, and other commercial
uses along the street frontages, integrated with multi-family housing on abutting properties or on upper
level at key intersections designated on the Land Use Diagram, which expand the customer base for local
businesses, enable residents to live close to jobs, and create an active, walkable environment.
LU 16.3 Pedestrian Activity. Require that the ground floor of buildings facing Las Tunas Drive be
located directly along and oriented to the sidewalk frontages and designed to foster an active pedestrian
environment.
Mobility Element
M 1.1 Complete Streets. Require that the planning, design, and construction of all transportation
projects consider the needs of all modes of travel to create safe, livable, and inviting environments for
pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and public transit users of all ages and abilities.
M 1.4 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety. Balance the safety concerns of pedestrians and cyclists with
motor vehicles to ensure that the safety of all users of the transportation system is considered.
M 1.8 Wayfinding. Develop a comprehensive and visible pedestrian and cyclist friendly way-finding
signage system in the city to direct pedestrians and cyclists to transit facilities, local and regional trails and
routes, civic and cultural amenities, and visitor and recreation destinations. The way-finding system
should make an effort to connect with the region and surrounding cities.
M 3.1 Pedestrian Network. Create a safe and convenient circulation system for pedestrians that
addresses crosswalks; improves the connections between neighborhoods and commercial areas; provides
places to sit or gather, pedestrian-scaled street lighting, buffers from moving vehicle traffic; and includes
amenities that attract people of all ages and abilities.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-27
M 3.2 Pedestrian Improvement Prioritizations. Prioritize pedestrian improvements in areas of the
City with community facilities, supportive land use patterns, and facilities that provide connectivity to
other modes of travel such as bicycling and transit.
M 3.3 Sidewalks for Roadways. Require adequate and well maintained sidewalks along all City roadways
to allow residents of all ages and abilities to walk in a safe and accessible manner.
M 3.4 Pedestrian Connections for Development. Require that all development or redevelopment
projects provide pedestrian connections to the external pedestrian network.
M 3.5 Pedestrian Education and Awareness. Support pedestrian education, encouragement,
awareness and enforcement activities for pedestrian and automobile users.
M 4.1 Bicycle Networks. Require that the City provide additional bicycle facilities along roadways in the
City, where appropriate and feasible, in support of the City’s Bicycle Master Plan and other planning
documents.
M 4.2 Priority Bike Improvements. Prioritize improvements that address bicycling in existing areas of
the City with community facilities, complementary land use patterns, and connections to other modes of
travel including walking and transit.
M 4.3 Bicycle Parking. Require that public and private development in the City provide sufficient
bicycle parking.
M 4.4 Bicycle Share Program. Explore the feasibility of developing a citywide bike share program.
Work with the local business community to identify and coordinate with possible corporate sponsors.
M 4.5 Bicycle Education and Awareness. Encourage bicyclists and automobile users to be aware of
bicycling issues, and lawful/responsible riding. Work with TCUSD, bicycle-related organizations, public-
safety agencies, and other groups to support bicycle education events and classes that help new and
experienced bike riders become more knowledgeable and effective at bike riding and bike maintenance.
M 5.1 Transit Improvements. Promote transit service in areas of the City with sufficient density and
intensity of uses, mix of appropriate uses, and supportive bicycle/pedestrian networks.
M 5.2 Local Transit Alternatives. Work with Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Metro) and other transit providers to investigate the feasibility of local transit alternatives
including a local shuttle or trolley system and enhanced transit options for local students.
M 5.3 Bus Stops. Review existing bus stop locations to determine their accessibility to key destinations
such as schools, residential areas, retail centers, and civic facilities. Work with Metro and other transit
providers to relocate bus stop locations as needed to provide greater access to these key destinations.
Prioritize those bus stop locations which are connected to bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-28 PlaceWorks
M 5.4 Transit Supportive Development. Encourage mixed-use development in areas with high levels
of transit accessibility.
M 5.5 Senior Transit. Maintain existing paratransit service in the City to provide affordable and reliable
transportation options for older adults and persons with disabilities.
M 5.6 Safe Routes to Transit. Regularly review and improve pedestrian and cyclist access to transit.
M 6.6 Alternative Fueled City Vehicles. Prioritize the purchase of alternative fueled vehicles for City
use as appropriate within the limitations of existing City resources, the availability of support services,
and anticipated O&M costs.
M 6.7 Alternative Fueled Resident Vehicles. Promote the purchase and use of alternative fueled
vehicles by City residents through informational strategies such as fact sheets and materials regarding
alternative fuel benefits and state and federal incentives.
M 6.8 Travel Demand Management. Encourage and promote travel demand management strategies
that are aimed at reducing vehicle trips by providing greater travel options for residents, employees and
visitors of Temple City.
M 8.3 Regional Non-Motorized Connections. Collaborate with SCAG, Metro, and other agencies to
provide connections between the City’s bicycle and pedestrian network to regional facilities and
destinations.
M 8.5 Truck Routes. Identify and designate routes for efficient truck movement that protect and reduce
impacts to residential neighborhoods.
Economic Development Element
ED 4.1 Targeted Job Opportunity. Explore and identify industries with well-paying jobs that match or
that can enhance the skill base and training capacity of resident workforce.
ED 4.2 Targeted Job Promotion. Promote local workforce as marketable resource for job placement
companies serving the area and targeted industries.
ED 4.3 Targeted Job Growth. Encourage cooperative partnerships with industry businesses that plan to
increase on-site staffing upon location or expansion within Temple City.
ED 4.4 Targeted Job Hiring. Encourage and assist businesses seeking to obtain tax credits for qualified
hiring of City residents.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-29
Community Services Element
CS 11.5 Best Practices. Employ best practices to maintain the highest possible energy efficiency in the
water infrastructure system to reduce costs and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.
CS 12.2 Wastewater Best Practices. Work with LACSD to identify and implement, as feasible, best
practices and technologies for wastewater collection and treatment including those that reduce the
amount of wastewater requiring treatment, avoid sewage spills affecting the Eaton Wash and Arcadia
Wash, maintain the highest possible energy efficiency, and reduce costs and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.
CS 14.1 Adequate Service and Facilities. Coordinate with Southern California Edison (SCE) and
Southern California Gas (SoCal Gas) to continue to supply adequate electricity and natural gas services
and facilities, while also developing strategies to increase the use of renewable energy sources.
CS 14.3 Energy Efficient Design. Encourage site, building, and landscape designs that reduce energy
demands and utilize renewable energy sources.
CS 14.4 Energy Efficiency Audits. Encourage residents, business and property owners, and energy
service providers to perform energy efficiency audits of existing buildings by evaluating, repairing, and
readjusting heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and lighting systems in public facilities, new
development, and redevelopment.
CS 14.5 City Operations. Promote city operations as a model for energy efficiency and green building
and install, as feasible, energy-efficient lighting, appliances, and alternative-energy infrastructure within
City facilities.
CS 14.6 Public Awareness. Cooperate with SCE and SoCal Gas to increase public awareness of
available energy conservation programs (e.g., best practices, energy rebates) to increase energy efficiency
in older neighborhoods and developments.
CS 16.3 AB 939. Continue to partner, plan for, and document compliance with AB 939 source reduction
and recycling requirements of 50 percent diversion of solid waste from landfills.
CS 16.5 Recycling and Reuse of Construction Waste. Continue to enforce the waste management
plan for certain construction and demolition projects to reduce landfill waste by diverting a minimum of
50 percent of the construction and demolition debris (e.g., concrete, asphalt paving, asphalt roofing,
lumber, gypsum board, rock, and soil).
CS 16.6 City’s Role. Increase the City’s role in the source reduction and recycling components of waste
management through recycling programs at City facilities to reduce the quantity of City-generated waste.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-30 PlaceWorks
CS 16.8 Recycling Collection Centers. Continue to support recycling participation through permitted
drop-off and certified recycling collection centers in commercial and industrial areas.
CS 17.1 City Recycling Locations and Programs. Communicate recycling options, locations and City-
sponsored programs to the public.
CS 17.2 Network of Community Leaders. Study the possibility of establishing a network of elected
officials, commissioners, community leaders, and volunteers to promote the City’s source reduction, and
recycling goals and programs.
CS 17.3 School District Curriculum. Support TCUSD, private schools, and other school districts
curricula for Kindergarten through grade twelve that teaches waste management and recycling concepts
and encourages the designation of a school recycling coordinator to ensure recycling infrastructure in
schools.
Natural Resources Element
NR 1.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) Targets. Develop a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that
defines transportation, land use, energy, area source, water, and solid waste reduction measures for
Temple City, and establishes a target for GHG emission reductions.
NR 1.2 Air Quality Assessment and Monitoring. Cooperate with the California Air Resource Board
(CARB) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to measure air quality at emission
sources and enforce the standards of the Clean Air Act for air quality and GHG emissions.
NR 1.3 Development Dust and Particulate Emission Control. Develop regulations to reduce
particulate matter (PM) emissions from public and private construction, demolition, and debris hauling to
achieve compliance with federal standards.
NR 2.1 Land Use and Urban Form. Encourage a compact, mixed-use, pedestrian and bike friendly
environment that reduces automobile use, improves air quality, and reduces the impacts of climate
change, as defined by the Land Use Element.
NR 2.2 Infill and Mixed-Use Development. Promote infill and mixed-use development in the
downtown core, along Las Tunas Drive, Temple City Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard, and south of
Lower Azusa Road along Gidley Street.
NR 2.3 Buffer Emission Sources and Sensitive Land Uses. Prohibit land uses that emit pollution
and/or odors from locating near sensitive receptors, such as schools, nursing homes and convalescent
facilities, hospitals, and daycare facilities.
NR 2.4 Equity. Ensure that all land use decisions are made in an equitable fashion in order to protect all
residents from the health effects of air pollution.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-31
NR 3.1 Low Impact Infrastructure. Encourage utility service providers to adopt practices and
implement improvements that reduce air pollution and GHG emissions.
NR 3.2 Private Development Infrastructure. Facilitate the use of renewable energy and water-efficient
systems in residential, commercial, industrial, and other private development projects, provided that they
are designed consistent with the quality and character of Temple City.
NR 3.3 Public Facilities. Reduce air pollution and GHG emissions through continued reduction of
overall energy and water use of local public infrastructure, facilities, and programs for maintenance and
efficiency.
NR 3.4 Fleet Operations. Continue to purchase low-emission vehicles for the City’s fleet and use
available clean fuel sources for trucks and heavy equipment.
NR 3.5 Preference for Reduced-Emission Equipment. Give preference to contractors using
reduced-emission equipment for City construction projects and contracts for services (e.g. garbage
collection), as well as businesses that practice sustainable operations.
NR 4.1 Air Quality and Climate Change Education. Promote and disseminate information about
state, federal, and regional standards; health effects; and efforts that Temple City’s residents and
businesses can take to improve air quality and reduce GHG emissions.
NR 4.2 Employer Education Programs. Encourage employers to participate in the Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) public education programs to improve air quality and reduce GHG emissions.
NR 4.3 Involvement of Schools and Organizations. Work with local schools, businesses, and
organizations to increase citizen’s awareness and participation in efforts to reduce air pollution and GHG
emissions.
NR 5.1 A Greener City. Maintain and protect the City’s urban forest which provides shade and avian
habitat, sequesters carbon monoxide emissions, and supports pedestrian activity.
NR 5.2 Tree Preservation. Encourage the on-site preservation or off-site relocation of all mature and
native trees in good health in all new development or renovation projects, as feasible.
NR 5.3 Enhanced Development Landscape. Encourage business and non-residential property owners
to incorporate appropriate landscaping into surface parking lots to support wildlife habitat, shade, and
the sequestration of carbon monoxide emissions.
NR 5.5 Native Plant Use. Require the use of native and drought tolerant plant materials, including
native tree species, in public and private landscaping and revegetation projects.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-32 PlaceWorks
NR 5.6 Community Involvement. Encourage community volunteerism and stewardship in protecting
and maintaining Temple City’s urban forest and natural environment.
NR 6.7 Landscaping. Require public and private landscaping in new development and renovation
projects to be designed to reduce water demand, detain runoff, decrease flooding, and recharge
groundwater through activities such as the selection of plant material, soil preparation, and the
installation of irrigation systems.
NR 6.9 Efficient Use. Explore the development of public and private programs to reduce water use
and water waste associated with landscape irrigation, including the planting of native and drought-
tolerant plans, use of efficient irrigation systems, and collection and recycling of runoff.
5.5.4 Relevant Specific Plan Policies
The following are relevant policies of the Crossroads Specific Plan, which may contribute to reduce potential
GHG emissions impacts as a result of implementation of the Proposed Project.
Crossroads Policy 1: Accommodate the transition of the Specific Plan area from an auto-oriented
commercial corridor to a mixed-use, multi-modal area with housing, retail and services, restaurants, and
recreation and open space.
Crossroads Policy 4: Require new development to employ sustainable building and site design practices
that support pedestrian activity and minimize water use and energy consumption.
Crossroads Policy 5: Create a network of streets through the area appropriate for the mix of land uses
and encourages walking, biking, and transit use.
Crossroads Policy 6: Create new connections, especially pedestrian and bicycle connections, and
recreation and open space in concert with new development and public improvements.
5.5.5 Environmental Impacts
Methodology
The following provides a summary of the assumptions utilized for the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads
Specific Plan analyses.
Mid-Century Plan
This GHG evaluation was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA to determine if
significant GHG impacts are likely to occur in conjunction with future development that would be
accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan. The Plan Area’s GHG emissions inventory includes the following
sectors:
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-33
Transportation: Transportation emissions forecasts were modeled for vehicle trips beginning and ending
within the Plan Area and from external/internal vehicle trips (i.e., trips that either begin or end within the
Plan Area). Model runs were based on VMT data provided by Fehr & Peers using the SCAG 2012 RTP
Regional Travel Demand Model (see Appendix H) and 2016 (existing) and 2035 CARB EMFAC2014
emission rates. These rates include reductions from federal and state regulations such as Pavley I fuel
efficiency standards, California Advance Clean Car Standards, and LCFS. The VMT provided, per
Regional Transportation Advisory Committee recommendation, includes the full trip length for land uses
in the Plan Area (origin-destination approach) and a 50 percent reduction in the trip length for
external/internal and internal/external trips. Forecasts are adjusted for increases in population in the Plan
Area. To estimate annual emissions, adjusted daily VMT was multiplied by 347 days per year to account
for reduced traffic on weekends and holidays. This assumption is consistent with CARB’s methodology
within the Climate Change Scoping Plan Measure Documentation Supplement.
Energy: Natural gas and electricity use for residential and nonresidential land uses in the Plan Area were
modeled using data provided by SoCalGas and SCE, respectively, and can be found in Appendix C.
Natural gas and electricity use are based on three-year (2013–2015) averages to account for fluctuation in
annual use as a result of natural variations in climate. Forecasts are adjusted for increases in population in
the Plan Area. The carbon intensity factor of the purchased electricity is based on SCE’s reported CO2e
intensity factor for year 2012 reported in the CalEEMod 2016.3.1. User’s Guide and adjusted to account
for the reduction in carbon intensity of the energy supply required under the 33 percent RPS (SCE
2012). Intensity factors for CO2, CH4, and N2O provided in CARB’s Local Governments Protocol
(LGOP), version 1.1, were used for natural gas.
Waste: Modeling of landfilled waste disposed of by residents and employees in the Plan Area is based on
the waste commitment method using the CARB’s Landfill Emissions Tool model, version 1.3, based on
waste disposal (municipal solid waste and alternative daily cover) and waste characterization data from
CalRecycle (CalRecycle 2016). Landfills in California have gas capture systems, but because the landfill
gas captured is not under the jurisdiction of the City, the emissions from the capture system are not
included in the Plan Area’s inventory. Only fugitive sources of GHG emissions from landfills are
included. Modeling assumes a 75 percent reduction in fugitive GHG emissions from the landfill's gas
capture system. The landfill gas capture efficiency is based on CARB’s LGOP, version 1.1. Biogenic CO2
emissions are not included. Forecasts are adjusted for increases in population and employment in the City
and SOI. Furthermore, emissions are adjusted to the AR4 GWP assigned for CH4.
Water/Wastewater: GHG emissions from water and wastewater include indirect GHG emissions from
the embodied energy (i.e., energy required for treatment and distribution) of water and wastewater. Total
water generation in the Plan Area is based on the generation rate provided Fuscoe Engineering (see
Appendix E). Forecasts are adjusted for increases in population and employment. Energy use from water
use and wastewater treatment is estimated using energy rates identified by the CEC (CEC 2006c) and
carbon intensity of energy based on SCE’s reported CO2e intensity factor for year 2012 and adjusted to
account for the reduction in carbon intensity of the energy supply required under the 33 percent RPS
(SCE 2012). In addition to the indirect emissions associated with the embodied energy of water use and
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-34 PlaceWorks
wastewater treatment, wastewater treatment also results in fugitive GHG emissions. Fugitive emissions
from wastewater treatment associated with the Mid-Century Plan were calculated using the emissions
factors in CARB’s LGOP, version 1.1. Forecasts are adjusted for increases in population and employment
in the Plan Area.
Other Sources: OFFROAD2007 was used to estimate criteria air pollutant emissions from landscaping
equipment, light commercial equipment, and construction equipment in the City. OFFROAD2007 is a
database of equipment use and associated emissions for each county compiled by CARB. Annual
emissions were compiled using OFFROAD2007 for the County of Los Angeles for year 2016. In order
to determine the percentage of emissions attributable to the Plan Area, landscaping and light commercial
equipment are estimated based on population (landscaping) and employment (light commercial
equipment) for the Plan Area as a percentage of Los Angeles County. Construction equipment use is
estimated based on building permit data for the City of Temple City and County of Los Angeles from
data compiled by the US Census. Daily off-road construction emissions are multiplied by 347 days per
year to account for reduced/limited construction activity on weekends and holidays. Forecasts are
adjusted for increases in population and employment in the Plan Area, with the exception of
construction activities, which assumes that construction emissions for the forecast year would be similar
to historical levels. Area sources exclude emissions from fireplaces and consumer products in the Plan
Area.
Industrial sources of emissions that require a permit from SCAQMD are not included in the Plan Area’s
community inventory. However, due to the 15/15 Rule, natural gas and electricity use data for industrial land
uses may also be aggregated with the nonresidential land uses in the data provided by SoCalGas and SCE.11
Life-cycle emissions are not included in this analysis because not enough information is available for the Mid-
Century Plan, and therefore they would be speculative. Black carbon emissions are not included in the GHG
analysis because CARB does not include this pollutant in the state’s AB 32 inventory and treats this short-
lived climate pollutant separately.12
Crossroads Specific Plan
The analysis in this section is based on buildout of the Specific Plan Area as modeled using CalEEMod,
Version 2016.3.1. As CalEEMod does not include specific emission rates for year 2038, for purposes of this
analysis and based on CalEEMod methodology, the GHG emissions inventory is based on year 2035
emission rates.
11 The 15/15 Rule was adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission in the Direct Access Proceeding (CPUC Decision 97-
10-031) to protect customer confidentiality. The 15/15 rule requires that any aggregated information provided by a utility must be
made up of at least 15 customers, and a single customer’s load must be less than 15 percent of an assigned category. If the number
of customers in the compiled data is below 15, or if a single customer’s load is more than 15 percent of the total data, categories
must be combined before the information is released. The Rule further requires that if the 15/15 Rule is triggered for a second time
after the data have been screened once already using the 15/15 Rule, the customer be dropped from the information provided.
12 Particulate matter emissions, which include black carbon, are analyzed in Section 5.2, Air Quality. Black carbon emissions have
sharply declined due to efforts to reduce on-road and off-road vehicle emissions, especially diesel particulate matter. The State's
existing air quality policies will virtually eliminate black carbon emissions from on-road diesel engines within 10 years (CARB
2016d).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-35
Transportation: GHG emissions are based on the annual average trip generation and vehicle miles
traveled data provided by Fehr & Peers (see Appendix H). For purposes of this analysis, the estimated
6,500 average daily trips (ADT) generated under existing conditions and the 16,400 ADTs generated
under full buildout conditions are utilized (Fehr & Peers 2016). Based on the number of trips anticipated,
approximately 65,030 vehicle miles per day are generated currently and 150,160 vehicle miles per day
would be generated under full buildout conditions (Fehr & Peers 2016).
Solid Waste Disposal: Indirect emissions from waste generation are based on CalRecycle solid waste
generation rates. Emissions calculated using CalEEMod include biogenic emissions generated from solid
waste.
Water/Wastewater: GHG emissions from this sector are associated with the embodied energy used to
supply water, treat water, distribute water, and then treat wastewater and fugitive GHG emissions from
wastewater treatment. Emissions are based on average water demand and wastewater generation provided
by Fuscoe Engineering (see Appendix E).
Area Sources: Area and stationary sources are based on the CalEEMod defaults for use of consumer
products and cleaning supplies.
Energy: GHG emissions from this sector are from use of electricity and natural gas by the existing and
proposed buildings. For purposes of this analysis, new buildings are assumed to comply with the 2016
Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which are 28 percent more energy efficient for residential buildings
and 5 percent more energy efficient for nonresidential buildings than the 2013 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards while existing buildings are assumed to comply with the 2005 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards. The carbon intensity factor utilized for year 2035 is based on SCE’s reported CO2e
intensity factor for year 2012 reported in the CalEEMod 2016.3.1. User’s Guide and adjusted to account
for the reduction in carbon intensity of the energy supply required under the 33 percent RPS (SCE 2012)
Intensity factors for CO2, CH4, and N2O provided in CARB’s Local Governments Protocol (LGOP),
version 1.1, were used for natural gas.
Construction: For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that development of the Specific Plan Area
would generally commence beginning of 2018 with a buildout of year 2035. In addition, while the
specific timeline in how the land uses accommodated under the Crossroads Specific Plan would be
developed is unknown, this analysis assumes that the various construction activities (e.g., site preparation,
demolition, building construction) would overlap. Construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod
defaults such as construction equipment mix and worker, vendor, and haul trips.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-36 PlaceWorks
Life-cycle emissions are not included in this analysis because not enough information is available for the
Crossroads Specific Plan; therefore, life cycle GHG emissions would be speculative.13 Black carbon emissions
are not included in the GHG analysis because CARB does not include this pollutant in the state’s AB 32
inventory and treats this short-lived climate pollutant separately.14
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study, included as
Appendix A, disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets
after the impact statement.
Impact 5.5-1: Implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan would generate a substantial increase in GHG emissions compared to existing conditions and would have a significant impact on the environment. [GHG-1]
Impact Analysis: Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted
as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large one,
does not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions on its own to influence global climate change
significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact.
Mid-Century Plan
Implementation of the Mid-Century Plan would contribute to global climate change through direct and
indirect emissions of GHG from land uses in the Plan Area. The change in GHG emissions is based on the
difference between existing land uses and those of the proposed Mid-Century Plan. The community-wide
GHG emissions forecast for the Plan Area at buildout (year 2035) compared to existing conditions is
provided in Table 5.5-9. The buildout forecast includes reductions from federal and state measures identified
in CARB’s Scoping Plan, including the California Advanced Clean Cars program, Pavley fuel efficiency
standards, LCFS for fuel use (transportation and off-road), on-road diesel fleet rules, and the
Smartway/Phase I Heavy Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Regulation, and a reduction in carbon intensity from
California’s renewables portfolio standard.
13 Life-cycle emissions include indirect emissions associated with materials manufacture. However, these indirect emissions involve
numerous parties, each of which is responsible for GHG emissions of their particular activity. The California Resources Agency, in
adopting the CEQA Guidelines Amendments on GHG emissions found that lifecycle analyses was not warranted for project-
specific CEQA analysis in most situations, for a variety of reasons, including lack of control over some sources, and the possibility
of double-counting emissions (see Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, December 2009). Because the amount of
materials consumed during the operation or construction phases of individual development projects is not known, the origin of the
raw materials purchased is not known, and manufacturing information for those raw materials are also not known, calculation of
life cycle emissions would be speculative. A life-cycle analysis is not warranted (OPR 2008).
14 Particulate matter emissions, which include black carbon, are analyzed in Section 5.2, Air Quality. Black carbon emissions have
sharply declined due to efforts to reduce on-road and off-road vehicle emissions, especially diesel particulate matter. The State's
existing air quality policies will virtually eliminate black carbon emissions from on-road diesel engines within 10 years (CARB
2016d).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-37
Table 5.5-9 Plan Area GHG Emissions Forecast for Mid-Century Plan at Buildout
Pollutant
Buildout GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/Year)
2016 Mid-Century Plan Buildout 2035
Mid-Century Plan
Buildout 2035 Percent of Total Change from 2016
Percent Change from 2016
Transportation1 117,885 87,848 42% -30,037 -25%
Energy – Residential2 43,652 53,814 26% 10,163 23%
Energy – Nonresidential2 17,831 23,493 11% 5,662 32%
Waste3 5,256 6,838 3% 1,582 30%
Water/Wastewater4 5,187 6,978 3% 1,791 35%
Other – Off-road Equipment5 33,161 30,031 14% -3,130 -9%
Total Community Emissions 222,972 209,002 NA -13,970 NA
Net Change in Percentage NA NA NA -6% NA
Service Population (SP)6 53,104 69,082 NA N/A N/A
Emissions per Capita (MTCO2e/Year/SP) 4.3 3.0 NA N/A N/A
Plan-Level Efficiency Threshold N/A 3.4 NA N/A N/A
Notes: Emissions forecast based on changes in population (residential energy), employment (nonresidential energy), or service population (City energy, waste, water/wastewater, transportation). Based on IPCC’s AR4 GWPs.
Emissions may not total 100% due to rounding.
1 Based on EMFAC2014 emission factors and daily per capita VMT data provided by Fehr & Peers (see Appendix H).
2 Electricity and natural gas usage data provided by SCE and SoCalGas, respectively. The carbon intensity of the purchased electricity is based on reported year 2012 carbon intensity factor for SCE. For natural gas, the intensity factors for CO2, CH4, and NO2 are from CARB’s Local Governments Protocol (LGOP), version 1.1.
3 Landfill Emissions Tool version 1.3 and CalRecycle. Waste generation based on three-year average (2013–2015) waste commitment for the City of Temple City obtained from CalRecycle. Assumes 75 percent of fugitive GHG emissions are captured in the landfill's gas capture system. The landfill gas capture efficiency is based on CARB’s LGOP, version 1.1. Significant CH4 production typically begins one or two years after waste disposal in a landfill and continues for 10 to 60 years
or longer. Therefore, the highest CH4 emissions from waste disposal in a given year are reported. Moreover, emissions are adjusted to the global warming potential
assigned for CH4 as reported in IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report.
4 LGOP, version 1.1, based on the water demand and wastewater generation rates provided by Fuscoe Engineering (see Appendix C).
5 OFFROAD2007. Consists of landscaping, light commercial, and construction equipment. Landscaping and light commercial equipment emissions based on population and employment for the Plan Area proportioned to Los Angeles County. Construction equipment emissions based on housing permit data for Los Angeles County and the City of Temple City from the US Census. Area sources exclude emissions from fireplaces and consumer products.
6 Based on an existing service population of 53,104 people (46,450 residents and 6,654 employees); and a projected 2035 service population of 69,082 people
(59,228 residents and 9,854 employees) in the Plan Area.
As shown in Table 5.5-9, buildout of the land uses accommodated under the Mid-Century Plan would result
in a net decrease of 13,970 MTCO2e of GHG emissions (6 percent decrease in GHG emissions) from
existing conditions and would not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e SCAQMD bright-line screening threshold.
Emissions decrease despite an increase in population and employment in the Plan Area as result of
regulations adopted to reduce GHG emissions and turnover of California’s on-road vehicle fleets. As
identified by the California Natural Resources Agency’s “Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action,
Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Pursuant to Senate Bill 97” (2009), the CEQA Guidelines do not establish a zero emissions
threshold of significance because there is no one molecule rule in CEQA. Therefore, emissions generated by
additional growth in the Plan Area under the Mid-Century Plan would be offset by a reduction in existing
emissions from implementation of federal and state regulations. Therefore, the Plan Area would not
experience an increase in GHG emissions under buildout of the Mid-Century Plan.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-38 PlaceWorks
In addition, on a per capita basis, buildout of the Mid-Century Plan would result in a reduction of GHG
emissions from 4.3 MTCO2e/year/SP under existing conditions to 3.0 MTCO2e/year/SP at full buildout and
would also achieve the forecast 3.4 MTCO2e/year/SP efficiency standard for year 2035. The forecast
efficiency standard for year 2035 is based on the long-term GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05.
Therefore, GHG emissions impacts in the Plan Area are considered less than significant for long-term
growth associated with the Mid-Century Plan.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan would contribute to global climate change through direct
emissions of GHG from onsite area sources and vehicle trips generated by development projects that would
be accommodated by the specific plan, and indirectly through offsite energy production required for onsite
activities, water use, and waste disposal. Annual GHG emissions were calculated for construction and
operation activities that would be accommodated by the Crossroads Specific Plan. The emissions associated
with the Crossroads Specific Plan includes emissions associated with new facilities, the overall growth in the
service population (e.g., mobile-source emissions), and the existing facilities to remain. Total construction
emissions were amortized over 30 years and included in the emissions inventory to account for the short-
term, one-time GHG emissions from the construction phase of future development projects. The total and
net annual GHG emissions associated with full buildout of Mid-Century Plan are shown in Table 5.5-10.
Table 5.5-10 Crossroads Specific Plan Total and Net Annual Operational Phase GHG Emissions Forecast at Buildout
Sector
GHG Emissions MTCO2e/Year
Existing Specific Plan Buildout Percent Change from Existing
Area 9 178 1% 169
Energy1, 2 3,401 7,730 32% 4,330
On-Road Transportation3 9,278 12,632 52% 3,355
Solid Waste Disposal 378 1,523 6% 1,145
Water/Wastewater2,4 237 746 3% 509
Amortized Construction5 NA 1,632 7% 1,632
Total 13,302 24,441 100% 11,140
SCAQMD Bright-Line Threshold — — — 3,000
Exceed Threshold? — — — Yes
Service Population (SP)6 1,753 6,622 — 4,869
MTCO2e/SP 7.59 3.69 — -3.90
2035 Project-Level Efficiency Threshold7 — 2.3 — —
Exceed Threshold? — Yes — —
Source: CalEEMod 2016.3.1. Based on IPCC’s AR4 GWPs. Notes: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. MTCO2e: Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide-Equivalent.
1 Existing residential and nonresidential building energy use modeled using historical energy demand rates in CalEEMod. New buildings would achieve the 2016 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards which are 5 percent more energy efficient for nonresidential structures and 28 percent more energy efficient for residential buildings compared
to the 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
2 Based on US EPA eGRID2012 CH4 and N2O intensity factors (USEPA 2015b). Intensity factors for year 2035 buildout conditions based on year 2012 CO2e carbon intensity for SCE per CalEEMod methodology and year 2012 RPS percentage for SCE adjusted to the year 2020 RPS target of 33 percent.
3 Transportation emissions are based on trip generation and VMT data provided by Fehr & Peers (see Appendix H).
4 Based on water demand and wastewater generation rates provided by Fuscoe Engineering (see Appendix E).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-39
Table 5.5-10 Crossroads Specific Plan Total and Net Annual Operational Phase GHG Emissions Forecast at Buildout
Sector
GHG Emissions MTCO2e/Year
Existing Specific Plan Buildout Percent Change from Existing
5 Total construction emissions during the buildout period are amortized over a 30-year project lifetime in accordance with SCAQMD guidance and incorporated into the operational emissions analysis.
6 Existing service population consists of 101 residents and 1,652 employees within the Specific Plan Area. Buildout service population consists of 3,774 residents and 2,848
employees within the p Specific Plan Area.
7 Based on the SCAQMD 2020 per capita target of 4.8 MTCO2e per service population and extrapolating it for the mid-term year 2030 GHG reduction target of SB 32 and
the long term GHG reduction goals of Executive Order S-03-05 for 2050. Project-level thresholds are based only on the State’s land use emissions inventory sectors identified in the Scoping Plan to ensure consistency with the scope of emissions included in a development project’s GHG emissions inventory; and are therefore, more stringent than the plan-level thresholds, which include all GHG sectors.
The analysis for the Crossroads Specific Plan focuses on changes in land use within the Specific Plan Area.
The Specific Plan Area currently accommodates approximately six percent of the Plan Area’s employment
and population (i.e., service population). At buildout, the Crossroads Specific Plan would accommodate
approximately 12 percent of the Plan Area’s service population, including over 42 percent of the City’s
employment. Consequently, while some areas of the Plan Area are likely to see relatively little change over the
general plan horizon year, the Crossroads Specific Plan accommodates a substantial amount of the Plan
Area’s commercial and residential growth.
As shown in Table 5.5-10, implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan would result in a net increase of
GHG emissions by 11,140 MTCO2e per year compared to the existing conditions of the Specific Plan Area.
The net increase would exceed SCAQMD’s bright-line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. While
implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan under full buildout conditions would result in lower GHG
emissions on a per capita basis by approximately 51 percent compared to the existing conditions, the
forecasted year 2035 per capita threshold of 2.3 MTCO2e per service population per year would be exceeded
for the Specific Plan Area. The increases in overall emissions would be attributable to the new additional non-
residential and residential land uses proposed. In addition, an increase in service population would contribute
to an increase in wastewater generation, water demand, and vehicle trips. While new buildings would be more
energy efficient, there would be an overall increase in energy usage due to the amount of new building space
that would be constructed. Overall, the Crossroads Specific Plan’s cumulative contribution to the long-term
GHG emissions in the state would be considered potentially significant.
Impact 5.5-2: Implementation of the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan would not conflict with plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. [Threshold GHG-2]
Impact Analysis: Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include CARB’s
Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, and the Temple City EAP. A consistency analysis with these
plans for each component of the Proposed Project (Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan) is
presented below:
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-40 PlaceWorks
CARB Scoping Plan
The CARB Scoping Plan is applicable to state agencies, but is not directly applicable to cities/counties and
individual projects (i.e., the Scoping Plan does not require the City to adopt policies, programs, or regulations
to reduce GHG emissions). However, new regulations adopted by the state agencies outlined in the Scoping
Plan result in GHG emissions reductions at the local level. As a result, local jurisdictions benefit from
reductions in transportation emissions rates, increases in water efficiency in the building and landscape codes,
and other statewide actions that would affect a local jurisdiction’s emissions inventory from the top down.
Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the LCFS and changes in the corporate average fuel
economy standards (e.g., Pavley I and Pavley California Advanced Clean Cars program).
Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan
Development projects accommodated under both the proposed Mid-Century Plan and the Crossroads
Specific Plan are required to adhere to the programs and regulations identified by the Scoping Plan and
implemented by state, regional, and local agencies to achieve the statewide GHG reduction goals of AB 32.
Future development projects would be required to comply with these state GHG emissions reduction
measures as they are statewide strategies. For example, new buildings under the Mid-Century Plan and
Crossroads Specific Plan would be built to meet the current CalGreen and Building Energy Efficiency
Standards. CEC anticipates that new residential buildings will be required to achieve ZNE (Zero Net Energy)
by 2020 and that new non-residential buildings will be required to achieve ZNE by 2030. Project GHG
emissions shown in Table 5.5-9, Plan Area GHG Emissions Forecast for Mid-Century Plan at Buildout, and Table
5.5-10, Crossroads Specific Plan Total and Net Annual Operational Phase GHG Emissions Forecast at Buildout, include
reductions associated with statewide strategies that have been adopted since AB 32.
Furthermore, both the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan include policies that would help
reduce GHG emissions and therefore, help achieve GHG reduction goals.
Mid-Century Plan
LU 2.1 Complete Community. Allow for the development of uses contributing a complete and self-
sustaining community, containing a mix of uses that minimize the need for residents to travel outside of
the City for retail goods and services, employment, entertainment, and recreation.
LU 3.6 Pedestrian-Active Districts. Maintain a robust network of streetscape and pedestrian amenities
within the downtown core and mixed-use and commercial centers supporting pedestrian activity and
enhancing walkability.
LU 7.5 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans. Require major development projects to prepare greenhouse
gas reduction plans consistent with the targets defined in state statutory requirements.
LU 7.7 Alternative Fuels. Provide locations for alternative fuel facilities such as electrical re-charging
stations and hydrogen fuel supplies.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-41
LU 7.8 Green Infrastructure. Utilize best practices that reduce natural resource consumption and
impacts, as defined by the Utilities section of this Plan.
Policy LU 14.1: Mix of Uses. Accommodate development integrating commercial and residential land
uses in mixed-use designated areas that establish places that are economically vital and pedestrian-active
contributing to resident health and community sustainability.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Crossroads Policy 5: Create a network of streets through the area appropriate for the mix of land uses
and encourages walking, biking, and transit use.
Crossroads Policy 6: Create new connections, especially pedestrian and bicycle connections, and
recreation and open space in concert with new development and public improvements.
In addition to policies, the Crossroads Specific Plan includes several design guidelines that would help reduce
GHG emissions, including:
Buildings and development projects within the Specific Plan area should be designed and constructed
using the sustainable, energy efficient materials and should incorporate strategies for the conservation of
water, energy, and other natural resources.
The streetscape should be designed to enhance the pedestrian experience and encourage walking as a
form of transportation and leisure.
Sidewalks or pedestrian walkways should be included within surface parking lots providing safe
pedestrian travel from parking spaces to uses served by the parking.
A variety of special colored, textured, and/or permeable paving or surface treatments should be used to
delineate areas for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-motorists within the street-scape, including the
use of raised or textured crosswalks.
Therefore, implementation of the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan would not obstruct
implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan.
SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
SCAG’s 2016-2040 RTP/SCS was adopted April 7, 2016. The RTP/SCS identifies multimodal transportation
investments, including bus rapid transit, light rail transit, heavy rail transit, commuter rail, high-speed rail,
active transportation strategies (e.g., bike ways and sidewalks), transportation demand management strategies,
transportation systems management, highway improvements (interchange improvements, high-occupancy
vehicle lanes, high-occupancy toll lanes), arterial improvements, goods movement strategies, aviation and
airport ground access improvements, and operations and maintenance to the existing multimodal
transportation system.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-42 PlaceWorks
SCAG’s RTP/SCS identifies that land use strategies that focus on new housing and job growth in areas
served by high quality transit and other opportunity areas would be consistent with a land use development
pattern that supports and complements the proposed transportation network. The overarching strategy in the
2016-2040 RTP/SCS is to provide for a plan that allows the southern California region to grow in more
compact communities in existing urban areas, provide neighborhoods with efficient and plentiful public
transit, abundant and safe opportunities to walk, bike and pursue other forms of active transportation, and
preserve more of the region’s remaining natural lands (SCAG 2016). The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS contains
transportation projects to help more efficiently distribute population, housing, and employment growth, as
well as a forecasted development that is generally consistent with regional-level general plan data. The
projected regional development pattern when integrated with the proposed regional transportation network
identified in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, would reduce per capita vehicular travel-related GHG emissions and
achieve the GHG reduction per capita targets for the SCAG region. The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS does not
require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, but
provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers.
Mid-Century Plan
Table 5.5-11 provides an evaluation of the Mid-Century Plan in comparison to the three, primary
transportation-land-use strategies in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. As shown in the table, the Mid-Century Plan
would be consistent with these strategies. In addition, Table 5.8-1, Consistency with SCAG’s 2016–2040
RTP/SCS Goals, in Section 5.8, Land Use and Planning, provides an assessment of the Mid-Century Plan’s
relationship to applicable 2016-2040 RTP/SCS goals. As demonstrated in Table 5.8-1, the Mid-Century Plan
and its policies would be consistent with the applicable 2016-2040 RTP/SCS goals. Furthermore, the VMT
efficiency at full buildout of the Mid-Century Plan would be 14.0 miles/SP compared to the VMT efficiency
of 16.5 miles/SP under existing conditions (15.5 percent decrease from existing) (Fehr & Peers 2016). Thus,
implementation of the Mid-Century Plan would be consistent with the overall 2016-2040 RTP/SCS goal of
reducing VMT per capita and/or per service population. Therefore, the Mid-Century Plan would not
interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-43
Table 5.5-11 SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Consistency: Mid-Century Plan
SCAG Transportation-Land Use Strategies Implementing Policies/Strategies Consistency
Focus new growth around high quality transit areas (HQTA). The 2016
RTP/SCS overall land use pattern
reinforces the trend of focusing new
housing and employment in the region’s
HQTAs. The 2016 RTP/SCS assumes that
46 percent of new housing and 55 percent
of new employment locations developed
between 2012 and 2040 will be in HQTAs,
which comprise only 3 percent of the total
land area in the SCAG region (SCAG
2016).
Additional local policies that ensure that
development in HQTAs achieve the intended
reductions in VMT and GHG emissions include:
Affordable housing requirements.
Reduced parking requirements.
Adaptive reuse of existing structures.
Density bonuses tied to family housing units
such as three- and four-bedroom units.
Mixed-use development standards that include
local serving retail.
Increased Complete Streets investments
around HQTAs.
Consistent: There are identified
HQTAs in the eastern end of the Plan
Area. The proposed land use diagram
includes designated low to high
density residential areas within the
HQTAs (e.g., along Santa Anita
Avenue and East El Monte Avenue).
Additionally, the Mid-Century Plan
includes the Livable Streets Goal
(Goal M 1), which emphasizes
Complete Streets principles and also
includes a specific Complete Streets
policy (M 1.1). In addition, the Mid-
Century Plan includes a Mixed Use
Districts goal (Goal LU 14) and
supporting policies, as well as Policy
LU 2.5, which calls for development of
projects that integrates housing and
commercial uses. Furthermore, the
Mid-Century Plan includes various
adaptive reuse policies (e.g., LU 5.3
and 7.3) and policies supporting the
development of more affordable
housing units (Policy LU 8.4 and LU
11.1) goal (Goal M 1.1) and
supporting.
Plan for growth around livable corridors. SCAG’s livable-corridors
strategy seeks to revitalize commercial
strips through integrated transportation
and land use planning that results in
increased economic activity and improved
mobility options.
Additional livable corridors strategies include:
Transit improvements, including dedicated lane
bus rapid transit (BRT) or semidedicated BRT-
light. The remaining corridors have the
potential to support other features that improve
bus performance (enhanced bus shelters, real-
time travel information, off-bus ticketing, all
door boarding, and longer distances between
stops to improve speed and reliability).
Active transportation improvements: Livable
corridors include increased investments in
complete streets to make these corridors and
the intersecting arterials safe for biking and
walking.
Land use policies: Livable corridor strategies
include the development of mixed-use retail
centers at key nodes along the corridors,
increasing neighborhood-oriented retail at
more intersections, and zoning that allows for
the replacement of underperforming auto-
oriented strip retail between nodes with higher
density residential and employment.
Consistent: The identified 3,000 miles
of livable corridors are generally a
subset of HQTAs, except for 154 miles
that have been identified in
sustainability planning grant projects.
As stated above, the Mid-Century Plan
includes the livable streets goal that
includes policies promoting complete
street principles. Additionally, the Mid-
Century Plan Land Use Element
includes goals focused on creating
mixed-use pedestrian-active and
connected and complete communities
(Goals LU 2, LU 3, LU 9, LU 14, and
LU 16). Furthermore, the Mobility
Element includes goals focused on
improving the pedestrian, bicycle, and
public transit networks (Goals M-3
through M-5).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-44 PlaceWorks
Table 5.5-11 SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Consistency: Mid-Century Plan
SCAG Transportation-Land Use Strategies Implementing Policies/Strategies Consistency
Provide more options for short trips in neighborhood mobility areas and
complete communities. Neighborhood
mobility areas have a high intersection
density, low to moderate traffic speeds,
and robust residential retail connections.
These areas are suburban in nature, but
can support slightly higher density in
targeted locations. The land use strategies
include shifting retail growth from large
centralized retail strip malls to smaller
distributed centers throughout a
neighborhood mobility area.
Neighborhood mobility area land use strategies
include pursuing local policies that encourage
replacing motor vehicle use with neighborhood
electric vehicle (NEV) use. NEVs are a
federally designated class of passenger vehicle
rated for use on roads with posted speed limits
of 35 miles per hour or less. Steps needed to
support NEV use include providing state and
regional incentives for purchases, local
planning for charging stations, designating a
local network of low speed roadways, and
adopting local regulations that allow smaller
NEV parking stalls.
Complete communities strategies include
creation of mixed-use districts through a
concentration of activities with housing,
employment, and a mix of retail and services in
close proximity to each other. Focusing a mix
of land uses in strategic growth areas creates
complete communities wherein most daily
needs can be met within a short distance of
home, providing residents with the opportunity
to patronize their local area and run daily
errands by walking or cycling rather than
traveling by automobile.
Consistent: As stated above, the Mid-
Century Plan designates mixed-use
areas in the Plan Area, which would
accommodate the development of a
variety of uses in proximity to each
other. The Mid-Century Plan includes
policies and goals that promote active
transit improvements, which would
provide greater bicycle and pedestrian
connectivity to amenities in local
neighborhoods within the Plan Area.
Source: SCAG 2016.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Table 5.5-12 provides an evaluation of the Crossroads Specific Plan in comparison to the three, primary
transportation-land-use strategies in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. As shown in the table, the Crossroads Specific
Plan would be consistent with the applicable strategy. Additionally, like the Mid-Century Plan, as
demonstrated in Table 5.8-1, Consistency with SCAG’s 2016–2040 RTP/SCS Goals, of Section 5.8, Land Use and
Planning, the Crossroads Specific Plan would be consistent with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS goals. Based on the
existing average service population of 1,753 persons and an estimated 65,030 VMT per day, the current VMT
efficiency is approximately 37.1 VMT/SP. At full buildout of the Crossroads Specific Plan, the average daily
service population within the Specific Plan Area would be 6,622 who would generate approximately 150,160
VMT (Fehr and Peers 2016). VMT efficiency at buildout would be 22.7 VMT/SP, which would be a 14.4-mile
decrease over existing conditions (38.9 percent decrease from existing). Thus, implementation of the
Crossroads Specific Plan would be consistent with the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS Goals, RTP/SCS goal of
reducing VMT per capita and/or per service population. Therefore, implementation of the Crossroads
Specific Plan would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the
2016–2040 RTP/SCS.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-45
Table 5.5-12 SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Consistency: Crossroads Specific Plan
SCAG Transportation-Land Use Strategies Implementing Policies/Strategies Consistency
Focus new growth around high quality transit areas (HQTA). The 2016
RTP/SCS overall land use pattern
reinforces the trend of focusing new
housing and employment in the region’s
HQTAs. The 2016 RTP/SCS assumes that
46 percent of new housing and 55 percent
of new employment locations developed
between 2012 and 2040 will be in HQTAs,
which comprise only 3 percent of the total
land area in the SCAG region (SCAG
2016).
Additional local policies that ensure that
development in HQTAs achieve the intended
reductions in VMT and GHG emissions include:
Affordable housing requirements.
Reduced parking requirements.
Adaptive reuse of existing structures.
Density bonuses tied to family housing units
such as three- and four-bedroom units.
Mixed-use development standards that include
local serving retail.
Increased Complete Streets investments
around HQTAs.
Not Applicable: There are no
identified HQTAs in the Crossroads
Specific Plan area.
Plan for growth around livable
corridors. SCAG’s livable-corridors
strategy seeks to revitalize commercial
strips through integrated transportation
and land use planning that results in
increased economic activity and improved
mobility options.
Additional livable corridors strategies include:
Transit improvements, including dedicated lane
bus rapid transit (BRT) or semidedicated BRT-
light. The remaining corridors have the
potential to support other features that improve
bus performance (enhanced bus shelters, real-
time travel information, off-bus ticketing, all
door boarding, and longer distances between
stops to improve speed and reliability).
Active transportation improvements: Livable
corridors include increased investments in
complete streets to make these corridors and
the intersecting arterials safe for biking and
walking.
Land use policies: Livable corridor strategies
include the development of mixed-use retail
centers at key nodes along the corridors,
increasing neighborhood-oriented retail at
more intersections, and zoning that allows for
the replacement of underperforming auto-
oriented strip retail between nodes with higher
density residential and employment.
Not Applicable: The identified 3,000
miles of livable corridors are generally
a subset of HQTAs, except for 154
miles that have been identified in
sustainability planning grant projects.
As stated, there are no HQTAs in the
Crossroads Specific Plan area.
Provide more options for short trips in neighborhood mobility areas and complete communities. Neighborhood
mobility areas have a high intersection
density, low to moderate traffic speeds,
and robust residential retail connections.
These areas are suburban in nature, but
can support slightly higher density in
targeted locations. The land use strategies
include shifting retail growth from large
centralized retail strip malls to smaller
distributed centers throughout a
neighborhood mobility area.
Neighborhood mobility area land use strategies
include pursuing local policies that encourage
replacing motor vehicle use with neighborhood
electric vehicle (NEV) use. NEVs are a
federally designated class of passenger vehicle
rated for use on roads with posted speed limits
of 35 miles per hour or less. Steps needed to
support NEV use include providing state and
regional incentives for purchases, local
planning for charging stations, designating a
local network of low speed roadways, and
adopting local regulations that allow smaller
NEV parking stalls.
Complete communities strategies include
creation of mixed-use districts through a
concentration of activities with housing,
employment, and a mix of retail and services in
close proximity to each other. Focusing a mix
of land uses in strategic growth areas creates
Consistent: Guiding principles for the
Crossroad Specific Plan would support
citywide efforts to transition future
development to accommodate a mix of
uses, to increase non-motorized
transportation, promote healthy living
options, and encourage social
interaction. Additionally, the
Crossroads Specific Plan policies
would also support mixed-use
development (Policies 1 through 3)
and promote active transit (Policies 4
through 6).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-46 PlaceWorks
Table 5.5-12 SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Consistency: Crossroads Specific Plan
SCAG Transportation-Land Use Strategies Implementing Policies/Strategies Consistency
complete communities wherein most daily
needs can be met within a short distance of
home, providing residents with the opportunity
to patronize their local area and run daily
errands by walking or cycling rather than
traveling by automobile.
Source: SCAG 2016.
City of Temple City Energy Action Plan
Mid-Century Plan
Table 5.5-13 provides an evaluation of the Mid-Century Plan’s consistency with the goals and policies
contained in the City of Temple City’s EAP. The EAP goals and policies focus on reducing GHG emissions
through reducing citywide and municipal electricity demand (Temple City 2012). As shown in the table, the
Mid-Century Plan includes goals and policies that would be consistent with the City’s EAP.
Table 5.5-13 Mid-Century Plan Consistency with the City of Temple City Energy Action Plan
EAP Goal EAP Policies Compliance with Goals
Goal 1: Achieve maximum energy
efficiency of the City’s existing
housing stock and reduce household
energy costs.
Policy 1.1: Promote energy conservation in
existing residential structures through
education and outreach.
Consistent: Future residential and non-
residential buildings accommodated under the
Mid-Century Plan would be built to comply with
the current 2016 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards, at minimum. Future residential and
non-residential buildings would be more energy
efficient than existing buildings they replace.
Furthermore, the Mid-Century Plan includes
goals and policies that promote energy
efficiency (e.g., LU 7.1, LU 7.2, Goal CS 14)
Policy 1.2: Reduce energy use and plug load
demand through upgrades to household
appliances and equipment.
Policy 1.3: Support owner occupied whole
house renovations that reduce energy use and
improve thermal comfort of existing residential
buildings.
Policy 1.4: Support renovations that reduce
energy use and improve thermal comfort in
existing multi-family units and buildings.
Policy 1.5: Encourage energy-efficient
improvements in the City’s historic housing
stock.
Goal 2: Optimize business energy
use, cost competitiveness, and
operational efficiencies.
Policy 2.1: Educate Temple City’s businesses
about opportunities to conserve energy use
and reduce costs through behavioral changes
daily operations.
Consistent: See Goal 1 above.
Policy 2.2: Support the use of energy-efficient
appliances and equipment in leased and
owner-occupied businesses.
Policy 2.3: Facilitate retrofits and energy
efficiency improvements within the non-
residential building stock.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-47
Table 5.5-13 Mid-Century Plan Consistency with the City of Temple City Energy Action Plan
EAP Goal EAP Policies Compliance with Goals
Goal 3: Integrate energy-efficient
features into new buildings and
remodels that are compatible with
existing community character.
Policy 3.1: Support the integration of energy
efficiency upgrades as part of new building
construction, remodels, or tenant
improvements.
Consistent: See Goal 1 above.
Policy 3.2: Encourage the use of energy-
efficient appliances and equipment in new
buildings.
Policy 3.3: Participate in a regional effort to
implement energy efficiency standards for new
development.
Goal 4: Enhance the City’s planning
framework to provide ongoing
support for energy efficiency.
Policy 4.1: Streamline and encourage energy
efficiency through development standards and
the permit and plan review process.
Consistent: The Mid-Century Plan includes
Policies LU 7.1, LU 7.2, and LU 7.5. These
policies promote sustainable development best
practices. Additionally, the Mid-Century Plan
includes Policies CS 14.3 and 14.4, which
encourage planning designs that reduce
energy demand and to utilize renewable
energy and to perform energy audits.
Policy 4.2: Align planning efforts with energy
efficiency and conservation.
Goal 5: Maximize use of shading and
cooling to sustain a comfortable and
energy-efficient urban environment.
Policy 5.1: Expand the City’s urban forest. Consistent: The Mid-Century Plan includes
Policies NR 5.1, 5.2, and 5.6, which promotes
and encourages maintaining and protecting the
City’s urban forest. In addition, Policy LU 7.4
calls for maintaining and expanding the City’s
urban forest and promoting use of cool and
green roofs, light-colored paving, and reducing
the extent of unshaded areas to reduce the
heat island effect.
Policy 5.2: Maximize the use of cool roofs and
surfaces to reduce building energy use.
Goal 6: Support the 2020 water
reduction targets set by the City’s
water providers.
Policy 6.1: Promote water-efficient practices
through educational efforts to promote the
conservation of electricity for water pumping,
conveyance, and treatment. Encourage the
use of energy- and water-efficient water
fixtures for indoor water use.
Consistent: Policies LU 7.1, LU 7.2, CS 11.5,
NR 3.2, NR 3.3, NR 5.5, NR 6.7, and NR 6.9 of
the Mid-Century Plan promote water
conservation and efficiency.
Policy 6.2: Encourage the use of energy- and
water-efficient water fixtures for indoor water
use.
Policy 6.3: Encourage water-wise
landscaping.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-48 PlaceWorks
Table 5.5-13 Mid-Century Plan Consistency with the City of Temple City Energy Action Plan
EAP Goal EAP Policies Compliance with Goals
Goal 7: Become one of the first net
zero electricity city governments
within the San Gabriel Valley.
Policy 7.1: Pilot and demonstrate the fiscal
benefits of the City’s innovative energy-efficient
actions.
Consistent: The Mid-Century Plan includes
policies that would be consistent with this EAP
goal, such as Policy 3.3, which calls for a
reduction in GHG emission through reduction
of overall energy and water use of local public
infrastructure and facilities; Policy NR 5.5,
which requires use of native and drought
tolerant plants and trees in public landscaping;
Policy NR 6.7, which would require public
landscaping to be designed to reduce water
demand; Policy NR 6.9, which promotes
exploring the development of public and private
programs to reduce water use and water
waste; and Policy CS 14.4, which encourages
energy audits of lighting systems in public
facilities.
Policy 7.2: Maximize the efficiency of
equipment in city facilities to reduce
maintenance and energy costs.
Policy 7.3: Optimize energy efficiency at
existing city facilities.
Policy 7.4: Identify long-term targets to
increase the energy efficiency of heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning equipment.
Policy 7.5: Improve outdoor lighting energy
efficiency while reducing maintenance and
operational costs.
Policy 7.6: Conserve water use at City
facilities to reduce electricity use and model
best practices to the community.
Policy 7.7: Work with the San Gabriel Valley
Council of Governments to create an energy
management position to track energy use at
City facilities, identify opportunities for
efficiencies and cost savings, and help each
department implement energy-efficient
projects.
Source: Temple City 2013.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Table 5.5-14 provides an evaluation of the Crossroads Specific Plan consistency with the goals and policies
contained in the City of Temple City’s EAP. As shown in the table, the Crossroads Specific Plan includes
design principles, policy, and design guidelines that encourage and promote incorporation and inclusion of
design features that would contribute in increasing energy efficiency, reducing energy demand, and increasing
water conservation. Therefore, the Crossroads Specific Plan would be generally consistent with the City’s
EAP.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-49
Table 5.5-14 Crossroads Specific Plan Consistency with the City of Temple City Energy Action Plan
EAP Goal EAP Policies Compliance with Goals
Goal 1: Achieve maximum energy
efficiency of the City’s existing
housing stock and reduce household
energy costs.
Policy 1.1: Promote energy conservation in
existing residential structures through
education and outreach.
Consistent: While the Crossroads Specific
Plan focuses on new development and
redevelopment of existing land uses, it
contains guiding principles, policy, and design
guidelines that would encourage and support
increase energy efficiency and reducing energy
demand. Thus, the redevelopment of existing
uses would result in the construction of newer
more energy-efficient land uses.
Policy 1.2: Reduce energy use and plug load
demand through upgrades to household
appliances and equipment.
Policy 1.3: Support owner occupied whole
house renovations that reduce energy use and
improve thermal comfort of existing residential
buildings.
Policy 1.4: Support renovations that reduce
energy use and improve thermal comfort in
existing multi-family units and buildings.
Policy 1.5: Encourage energy-efficient
improvements in the City’s historic housing
stock.
Goal 2: Optimize business energy
use, cost competitiveness, and
operational efficiencies.
Policy 2.1: Educate Temple City’s businesses
about opportunities to conserve energy use
and reduce costs through behavioral changes
daily operations.
Consistent: Crossroads Policy 4 requires new
developments to employ sustainable design
practices to minimize water use and energy
consumption. In addition, the specific plan’s
design guidelines support the use of energy
efficient materials in the design and
construction of buildings and development
projects accommodated within the Specific
Plan Area. Furthermore, design guidelines
pertaining to use of motion-activated lighting
systems in public open spaces and promotion
of utilizing natural lighting are included
Crossroads Specific Plan.
Policy 2.2: Support the use of energy-efficient
appliances and equipment in leased and
owner-occupied businesses.
Policy 2.3: Facilitate retrofits and energy
efficiency improvements within the non-
residential building stock.
Goal 3: Integrate energy-efficient
features into new buildings and
remodels that are compatible with
existing community character.
Policy 3.1: Support the integration of energy
efficiency upgrades as part of new building
construction, remodels, or tenant
improvements.
Consistent: See response to Goal 2.
Policy 3.2: Encourage the use of energy-
efficient appliances and equipment in new
buildings.
Policy 3.3: Participate in a regional effort to
implement energy efficiency standards for new
development.
Goal 4: Enhance the City’s planning
framework to provide ongoing
support for energy efficiency.
Policy 4.1: Streamline and encourage energy
efficiency through development standards and
the permit and plan review process.
Consistent: The Crossroads Specific Plan is a
broad City planning document that contains
guiding principles, policy, and design
guidelines that would encourage and support
increased energy efficiency and reducing
energy demand.
Policy 4.2: Align planning efforts with energy
efficiency and conservation.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-50 PlaceWorks
Table 5.5-14 Crossroads Specific Plan Consistency with the City of Temple City Energy Action Plan
EAP Goal EAP Policies Compliance with Goals
Goal 5: Maximize use of shading and
cooling to sustain a comfortable and
energy-efficient urban environment.
Policy 5.1: Expand the City’s urban forest. Consistent: The Crossroads Specific Plan
includes design guidelines that promote use of
white or green roofs, non-reflective coatings,
low-emissivity glass, and external shade
devices to control heat and glare. Furthermore,
it contains design guidelines that promote
planting of trees in addition to the pedestrian
concept plan, which calls for use of street trees
and landscaping to provide shade.
Policy 5.2: Maximize the use of cool roofs and
surfaces to reduce building energy use.
Goal 6: Support the 2020 water
reduction targets set by the City’s
water providers.
Policy 6.1: Promote water-efficient practices
through educational efforts to promote the
conservation of electricity for water pumping,
conveyance, and treatment. Encourage the
use of energy- and water-efficient water
fixtures for indoor water use.
Consistent: Crossroads Policy 4 requires new
developments to employ sustainable design
practices to minimize water use and energy
consumption. In addition, the Crossroads
Specific Plan includes design guidelines that
promote use of native, drought-tolerant plant
species, use of sustainable water-efficient
landscaping practices (e.g., micro-irrigation,
drip systems, etc.).
Policy 6.2: Encourage the use of energy- and
water-efficient water fixtures for indoor water
use.
Policy 6.3: Encourage water-wise
landscaping.
Goal 7: Become one of the first net
zero electricity city governments
within the San Gabriel Valley.
Policy 7.1: Pilot and demonstrate the fiscal
benefits of the City’s innovative energy-efficient
actions.
Not applicable: This goal is applicable at the
City-wide level and to municipal facilities and
infrastructure only. However, as stated in
responses to EAP Goals 1 through 6 above,
the Crossroads Specific Plan contains guiding
principles, policy, and design guidelines that
would encourage and support increase energy
efficiency and reducing energy demand.
Policy 7.2: Maximize the efficiency of
equipment in city facilities to reduce
maintenance and energy costs.
Policy 7.3: Optimize energy efficiency at
existing city facilities.
Policy 7.4: Identify long-term targets to
increase the energy efficiency of heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning equipment.
Policy 7.5: Improve outdoor lighting energy
efficiency while reducing maintenance and
operational costs.
Policy 7.6: Conserve water use at City
facilities to reduce electricity use and model
best practices to the community.
Policy 7.7: Work with the San Gabriel Valley
Council of Governments to create an energy
management position to track energy use at
City facilities, identify opportunities for
efficiencies and cost savings, and help each
department implement energy-efficient
projects.
Source: Temple City 2013.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-51
5.5.6 Existing Regulations
State
California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32)
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit (SB 32)
Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375)
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets (Executive Order S-03-05)
Clean Car Standards – Pavley (AB 1493)
Renewables Portfolio Standards (SB 1078)
California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939)
California Mandatory Commercial Recycling Law (AB 341)
California Advanced Clean Cars CARB (Title 13 CCR)
Low-Emission Vehicle Program – LEV III (Title 13 CCR)
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Measure (Title 17 CCR)
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (Title 17 CCR)
California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881)
California Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBX7-7)
Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368).
Airborne Toxics Control Measure to Limit School Bus Idling and Idling at Schools (13 CCR 2480)
Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fuel Commercial Vehicle Idling (13 CCR 2485)
In-Use Off-Road Diesel Idling Restriction (13 CCR 2449)
Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6)
California Green Building Code (Title 24, Part 11)
Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 20)
5.5.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon adherence to regulatory requirements, implementation of the policies contained in the Mid-Century
Plan, and compliance with the provisions of the Specific Plan, the following impacts would be less than
significant: 5.5-2.
Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant:
Impact 5.5-1 Implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan would generate a substantial
increase in GHG emissions compared to existing conditions and would have a
significant impact on the environment.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-52 PlaceWorks
5.5.8 Mitigation Measures
The following outlines mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with the
Proposed Project. Separate mitigation measures are provided for the Mid-Century Plan and the Crossroads
Specific Plan to address each potentially significant impact based on the level of analysis provided for each.
As the Crossroads Specific Plan is evaluated at the project-level and future individual projects would result in
cumulatively exceeding the applicable significance thresholds, its recommended mitigation measures to
control air pollutant emissions are applicable to all future individual development projects.
Impact 5.5-1
Mid-Century Plan
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Mitigation Measures AQ-5 through AQ-8 from Section 5.2, Air Quality, which are reproduced below, apply
here and would reduce GHG emissions of the Crossroads Specific Plan.
Stationary Source
AQ-5 Prior to the issuance of building permits for new development projects within the Specific
Plan Area, the project applicant shall show on the building plans that all major appliances
(dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) to be provided/installed are Energy
Star-certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy
Star or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City of Temple City Community
Development Department prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Transportation and Motor Vehicles
AQ-6 For development projects within Specific Plan Area that generate 50 or more peak hour
trips, the project applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan
to the City of Temple City Community Development Director for review and approval.
TDM strategies that could be implemented include but are not limited to:
Car sharing
Carpool/vanpool
Unbundled parking (parking spaces are rented or sold separately, rather than
automatically included with the rent or purchase price of a residential or commercial
unit)
Joint use (shared parking)
Transit, bicycle, and pedestrian system improvements
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-53
Trip reduction incentives to employees, such as free transit passes
AQ-7 Prior to issuance of building permits for non-single-family residential and mixed-use
residential development projects within the Specific Plan Area, the project applicant shall
indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the
design of the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the City of
Temple City Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
Electric vehicle charging shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.8.2 (Residential
Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
Bicycle parking shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary
Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
AQ-8 Prior to the issuance of building permits for nonresidential development projects within the
Specific Plan Area, project applicants shall indicate on the building plans that the following
features have been incorporated into the design of the building(s). Proper installation of
these features shall be verified by the City of Temple City Community Development
Department prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
For buildings with more than ten tenant-occupants, changing/shower facilities shall be
provided as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the
CALGreen Code.
Preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles shall be
provided as specified in Section A5.106.5.1 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the
CALGreen Code.
Facilities shall be installed to support future electric vehicle charging at each
nonresidential building with 30 or more parking spaces. Installation shall be consistent
with Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code
and the Temple City Municipal Code.
5.5.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impact 5.5-1
Crossroads Specific Plan
The Crossroads Specific Plan would improve GHG efficiency from 7.59 MTCO2e/year/SP to 3.95
MTCO2e/year/SP, meaning that its implementation would be consistent with local, regional, and state
objectives to increase density along transportation corridors. Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation
Measures AQ-5 through AQ-8 in addition to the Crossroad’s Specific Plan’s policies and design guidelines
would further reduce GHG emissions from stationary and mobile sources to the extent feasible. For example,
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-54 PlaceWorks
Crossroads Policies 1, 5, and 6 focus on mixed use and active transit infrastructure development, which would
contribute in reducing mobile-source GHG emissions. In addition, Mitigation Measure AQ-6, which
prescribes a TDM program, and Mitigation Measures AQ-7 and AQ-7, which focus on amenities for
alternative fueled vehicles and bicycle transit, would contribute in reducing mobile-source emissions.
Crossroads Policy 4 focuses on water and energy conservation, which would contribute in reducing GHG
emissions from the energy sector. While these mitigation measures would help to offset the increase in
energy-related and transportation-related GHG emissions, additional federal and state measures would be
necessary to transform California’s energy economy and reduce GHG emissions enough to achieve the mid-
term GHG reduction target of SB 32, which identified a mid-term target to reduce GHG emissions to 40
percent of 1990 levels by 2030. Although the 2030 Target Scoping Plan is being prepared by CARB, which will
include additional statewide strategies to achieve the 2030 target under SB 32, there is currently no adopted
statewide plan past 2020 that achieves the mid-term GHG reduction target of SB 32 or a plan to achieve the
even more aggressive target identified in Executive Order S-03-05 for which the state cannot meet without
major advancements in technology (CCST 2012). Since no additional federal or state measures are currently
available that would ensure that the Crossroads Specific Plan could achieve the 2035 target, Impact 5.5-1
would remain significant and unavoidable.
5.5.10 References
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2016. California Emissions Estimator
Model (CalEEMod). Version 2016.3.1. Prepared by: Trinity Consultants and the California Air
Districts.
California Air Resources Board. 2014, March. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2012 - by
Category as Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2012/ghg_inventory_scopingplan_00-
12_2014-03-24.pdf.
———. 2008, October. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change.
———. 2010a, August. Staff Report Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for
Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375.
———. 2010b, May. Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP), Version 1.1.
———. 2014a, March 24. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000–2012: By Category as Defined by
the Scoping Plan, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm.
———. 2014b, May 15. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework,
Pursuant to AB 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm.
———. 2015, September 15. ARB Process and Schedule for SB 375 Target Update.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-55
———. 2016a, June. 2016 Edition California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2014: By Category as
Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm.
———. 2016b. Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory - Query Tool for years 1990 (1st Edition).
https://www.arb.ca.gov/app/ghg/1990_1990/ghg_sector.php.
———. 2017a, March 14. Final Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/shortlived.htm.
———. 2017b, January 20. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update: The Proposed Strategy for
Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.
California Climate Action Team (CAT). 2006, March. Climate Action Team Report to Governor
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2012, July. Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability and
Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California.
California Council on Science and Technology (CCST). 2012, September. California’s Energy Future:
Portraits of Energy Systems for Meeting Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets.
http://www.ccst.us/publications/2012/2012ghg.pdf.
California Department of Finance. 2016. Report P-2: State and County Population Projections by
Race/Ethnicity and Age (5-year groups).
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/projections/documents/P-
2_Age5yr_CAProj_2010-2060.xls.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2016. Disposal Reporting System,
Jurisdiction Reporting by Facility.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Reports/DRS/Destination/JurDspFa.aspx.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2016. Long-Term Socio-Economic Forecasts by County,
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/socio_economic.html.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2006a. Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California. 2006
Biennial Report, California Climate Change Center. CEC-500-2006-077.
———. 2006b, December. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. CEC-500-2006-
118. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. Based on the electricity use for Southern California.
———. 2009, May. The Future Is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response
Options for California. CEC-500-2008-0077.
———. 2015a, 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Adoption Hearing Presentation.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/rulemaking/documents/ June 10.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-56 PlaceWorks
———. 2015b, 2016 Building Energy and Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/rulemaking/documents/2016_Building_Energy_
Efficiency_Standards_FAQ.pdf.
California Natural Resources Agency. 2009, December. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action,
Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Pursuant to Senate Bill 97.
———. 2014, July. Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk, An Update to the 2009 California
Climate Adaptation Strategy.
Fehr & Peers. 2016, November. Draft Temple City General Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan Transportation Impact
Analysis.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2008, June. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing
Climate Change through CEQA Review. Technical Advisory.
http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/june08-ceqa.pdf.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1996. Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995.
———. 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. New York: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. New York: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2013. Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2013. New York: Cambridge University Press.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2010, September 28. Agenda for Meeting 15.
Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-
significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-main-
presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016, April 7. Final 2016-2040 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS): A Plan for Mobility,
Accessibility, Sustainability, and a High Quality of Life.
http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx.
Southern California Edison (SCE). 2012. 2012 Corporate Responsibility & Sustainability.
https://www.sce.com/wps/wcm/connect/68145014-2eba-40c2-8587-
6482ce056977/CRR_08202013.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&ContentCache=NONE.
Temple City, City of. 2013, January. City of Temple City Energy Action Plan.
US Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2014. Rankings: Total Carbon Dioxide Emissions 2014.
Website accessed on April 17, 2017 at http://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/#/series/226.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
June 2017 Page 5.5-57
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009, December. EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public
Health and the Environment: Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at
unprecedented levels due to human activity.
https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252.
———. 2015, October. eGRID2012 Annual Output Emission Rates, WECC California Region.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/egrid2012_summarytables_0.pdf.
———. 2017. Overview of Greenhouse Gases.
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Page 5.5-58 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2017 Page 5.6-1
5.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential impacts on human
health and the environment as a result of implementation of the Proposed Project, which includes the
Temple City 2050 Mid-Century General Plan (Mid-Century Plan) and Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan
(Crossroads Specific Plan), Potential project impacts and appropriate mitigation measures or standard
conditions are included as necessary. The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the following source:
Data Map Area Study for the Temple City General Plan Area. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR).
August 11, 2016.
A complete copy of the environmental database search is included in Appendix D of this DEIR.
5.6.1 Environmental Setting
5.6.1.1 REGULATORY SETTING
Hazardous materials refer generally to hazardous substances that exhibit corrosive, poisonous, flammable,
and/or reactive properties and have the potential to harm human health and/or the environment. Hazardous
materials are used in products (household cleaners, industrial solvents, paint, pesticides, etc.) and in the
manufacturing of products (e.g., electronics, newspapers, plastic products). Hazardous materials can include
petroleum, natural gas, synthetic gas, acutely toxic chemicals, and other toxic chemicals that are used in
agriculture, commercial, and industrial uses; businesses; hospitals; and households. Accidental releases of
hazardous materials can occur from a variety of causes, including highway incidents, warehouse fires, train
derailments, shipping accidents, and industrial incidents.
Hazardous materials and waste can pose a significant actual or potential hazard to human health and the
environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Many federal,
state, and local programs that regulate the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials and waste
are in place to prevent these unwanted consequences—these programs are constantly changing. These
regulatory programs are designed to reduce the danger that hazardous substances may pose to people and
businesses under normal daily circumstances and as a result of emergencies and disasters.
Agencies that regulate hazardous materials and waste, as well as regulatory programs that are applicable to the
Proposed Project, are summarized below.
Agencies that Regulate Hazardous Materials and Waste
Federal
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary federal agency that regulates
hazardous materials and waste. In general, EPA works to develop and enforce regulations that implement
environmental laws enacted by Congress. The agency is responsible for researching and setting national
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Page 5.6-2 PlaceWorks
standards for a variety of environmental programs and delegates to states and tribes the responsibility for
issuing permits and for monitoring and enforcing compliance. EPA programs promote handling hazardous
wastes safely, cleaning up contaminated land, and reducing trash. Under the authority of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and in cooperation with state and tribal partners, EPA’s Waste
Management Division manages a hazardous waste program, an underground storage tank program, and a
solid waste program that includes development of waste reduction strategies such as recycling.
State
California Environmental Protection Agency
The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), a state cabinet-level agency within the
government of California, was created in 1991 by the Governor's Executive Order (Order W-5-91). The three
boards, two departments, and one office were placed under the Cal/EPA umbrella to create a cabinet-level
voice for the protection of human health and the environment and to assure the coordinated deployment of
state resources. Cal/EPA oversees the unified hazardous waste and hazardous materials management
regulatory program for the state.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is a department of Cal/EPA, which
authorizes DTSC to carry out the RCRA program in California to protect people from exposure to
hazardous wastes. The department regulates hazardous waste, cleans up existing contamination, and looks for
ways to control and reduce the hazardous waste produced in California primarily under the authority of
RCRA and in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety
Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (Title 22, California Code of
Regulations, Divisions 4 and 4.5). Permitting, inspection, compliance, and corrective action programs ensure
that people who manage hazardous waste follow state and federal requirements and other laws that affect
hazardous waste specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and
emergency planning. Los Angeles County, including the Plan Area, is in DTSC’s Southern California region.
Hazardous Materials and Waste Regulations
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The RCRA of 1976 is the principal federal law that regulates the generation, management, and transportation
of waste. Hazardous waste management includes the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste.
Treatment is any process that changes the physical, chemical, or biological character of the waste to reduce its
potential as an environmental threat. Treatment can include neutralizing the waste; recovering energy or
material resources from the waste; rendering the waste less hazardous; or making the waste safer to transport,
dispose of, or store.
The RCRA gave EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from “cradle to grave,” that is, from
generation to transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal. The RCRA also set forth a framework for the
management of nonhazardous wastes. The 1986 amendments to the RCRA enabled EPA to address
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
June 2017 Page 5.6-3
environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous
substances. It should be noted that the RCRA focuses only on active and future facilities and does not
address abandoned or historical sites. The federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments are the 1984
amendments to the RCRA that required phasing out land disposal of hazardous waste. Some of the other
mandates of this strict law include increased enforcement authority for EPA, more stringent hazardous waste
management standards, and a comprehensive underground storage tank program.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980,
commonly known as the Superfund, was enacted to protect the water, air, and land resources from the risks
created by past chemical disposal practices such as abandoned and historical hazardous waste sites. Through
the act, EPA was given power to seek out the parties responsible for any release and assure their cooperation
in the cleanup. This federal law created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries that went to a trust
fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. CERCLA also enabled the revision of
the National Contingency Plan, which provided the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases
and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The National Contingency Plan
also established the National Priority List (NPL) of sites, which are known as Superfund sites. CERCLA was
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act on October 17, 1986.
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) reauthorized CERCLA to continue cleanup
activities around the country. Several site-specific amendments, clarifications, and technical requirements were
added to the legislation, including additional enforcement authorities. Title III of SARA also authorized the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.
Emergency Planning & Community Right to Know Act
The Emergency Planning & Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) was enacted by Congress as the
national legislation on community safety. This law was designated to help local communities protect public
health, safety, and the environment from chemical hazards. The primary purpose of EPCRA is to inform
communities and citizens of chemical hazards in their areas by requiring businesses to report the locations
and quantities of chemicals stored onsite to state and local agencies. These reports help communities prepare
to respond to chemical spills and similar emergencies. Section 3131 of EPCRA requires manufacturers to
report releases to the environment (air, soil, and water) of more than 600 designated toxic chemicals; report
offsite transfers of waste for treatment or disposal at separate facilities; pollution prevention measures and
activities; and participate in chemical recycling. These annual reports are submitted to EPA and state agencies.
EPA maintains and publishes a database that contains information on toxic chemical releases and other waste
management activities by certain industry groups and federal facilities. This online, publicly available, national
digital database is called the Toxics Release Inventory and was expanded by the Pollution Prevention Act of
1990.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Page 5.6-4 PlaceWorks
To implement EPCRA, Congress required each state to appoint a State Emergency Response Commission
(SERC) to coordinate planning and implementation activities associated with hazardous materials. The
SERCs were required to divide their states into Emergency Planning Districts and to name a Local
Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) for each district. The federal EPCRA program is implemented and
administered in California by the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA), a SERC, six
LEPCs, and 83 Certified Unified Program Agencies. Cal EMA provides staff support to the SERC and the
LEPCs. The Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) coordinates and provides staff support for the
SERC and LEPCs. Broad representation by firefighters, health officials, government and media
representatives, community groups, industrial facilities, and emergency managers ensures that all necessary
elements of the planning process are represented.
Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 was enacted by Congress to give EPA the ability to track the
75,000 industrial chemicals currently produced or imported into the United States. EPA repeatedly screens
these chemicals and can require reporting or testing of any that may pose an environmental or human health
hazard. It can ban the manufacture and import of those chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk. Also, EPA
has mechanisms in place to track the thousands of new chemicals that industry develops each year with either
unknown or dangerous characteristics. It then can control these chemicals as necessary to protect human
health and the environment. The act supplements other federal statutes, including the Clean Air Act and the
Toxics Release Inventory under EPCRA.
Business Plan Act
In recognition of the dangers associated with keeping hazardous substances, the state legislature has enacted
several laws regulating the use and transport of identified hazardous materials. California’s Hazardous
Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, sometimes called the “Business Plan Act,” aims to
minimize the potential for accidents involving hazardous materials and to facilitate an appropriate response to
possible hazardous materials emergencies. The law requires businesses that use hazardous materials to
provide inventories of those materials to designated emergency response agencies, to illustrate on a diagram
where the materials are stored onsite, to prepare an emergency response plan, and to train employees to use
the materials safely.
Chapter 6.95 (Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory) of the California Health and
Safety Code and Title 19, Section 2729 of the California Code of Regulation describe the requirements for
chemical disclosure, business emergency plans, and community right-to-know programs. These regulations
require businesses to provide emergency response plans and procedures, training program information, and a
hazardous material chemical inventory disclosing hazardous materials stored, used, or handled onsite. A
business that uses hazardous materials or a mixture containing hazardous materials must establish and
implement a hazardous materials business plan if the hazardous material is handled in certain quantities. In
particular, Chapter 6.95 requires all businesses using hazardous materials to inform local government agencies
of the types and quantities of materials stored on site. This disclosure enables emergency response agencies to
respond quickly and appropriately to accidents involving dangerous substances.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
June 2017 Page 5.6-5
The state requires the owner or operator of any business that handles hazardous materials in quantities equal
to or greater than 55 gallons, 500 pounds, or 200 cubic feet of gas at standard temperature and pressure, to
develop and submit a business plan. The California OES, acting pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section
25503.3, has developed a single comprehensive hazardous materials inventory form for businesses to use to
submit their individual hazardous materials inventories. This form contains all state and federally required
inventory information. Use of this form is mandatory.
Hazardous Materials Transportation
Section 31303 of the California Vehicle Code and US Department of Transportation regulations state that
hazardous materials being directly transported from one location to another (“through-transport”) must use
routes with the least overall travel time (e.g., major roadways/highways instead of local streets). However,
local roadways can be used for deliveries and pickups of hazardous materials and wastes to or from a specific
location. The California Highway Patrol and California Department of Transportation are the enforcement
agencies for hazardous materials transportation regulations in the planning area. Transporters of hazardous
materials and waste are responsible for complying with all applicable packaging, labeling, and shipping
regulations. The California OES also provides emergency response services involving hazardous materials
incidents.
Worker and Workplace Hazardous Materials Safety
Occupational safety standards exist in federal and state laws to minimize worker safety risks from both
physical and chemical hazards in the workplace. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
(Cal/OSHA) is responsible for developing and enforcing workplace safety standards and ensuring worker
safety in the handling and use of hazardous materials. Among other requirements, Cal/OSHA obligates many
businesses to prepare Injury and Illness Prevention Plans and Chemical Hygiene Plans. The Hazard
Communication Standard requires that workers be informed of the hazards associated with the materials they
handle. For example, manufacturers are to appropriately label containers, Material Safety Data Sheets are to
be available in the workplace, and employers are to properly train workers.
Hazardous Materials in Structures: Asbestos-Containing Materials and Lead-Based Paint Regulations
Asbestos is regulated as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act and is also regulated as a potential
worker safety hazard under the authority of Cal/OSHA. Cal/OSHA considers asbestos-containing building
material a hazardous substance when a bulk sample contains more than 0.1 percent asbestos by weight.
Cal/OSHA requires that a qualified contractor licensed to handle asbestos materials handle any material
containing more than 0.1 percent asbestos by weight. Any activity that involves cutting, grinding, or drilling
during building renovation or demolition, or relocation of underground utilities, could release friable asbestos
fibers unless proper precautions are taken.
Several regulations and guidelines pertain to abatement of and protection from exposure to asbestos-
containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP). These include Construction Safety Orders 1529
(pertaining to ACM) and 1532.1 (pertaining to LBP) from Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, and
Part 61, Subpart M, of the Code of Federal Regulations (pertaining to ACM). These rules and regulations
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Page 5.6-6 PlaceWorks
prohibit emissions of asbestos from asbestos-related demolition or construction activities; require medical
examinations and monitoring of employees engaged in activities that could disturb asbestos; specify
precautions and safe work practices that must be followed to minimize the potential for release of asbestos
fibers; and require notice to federal and local government agencies prior to beginning renovation or
demolition that could disturb asbestos. In California, ACM and LBP abatement must be performed and
monitored by contractors with appropriate certification from the California Department of Health Services.
Those demolishing pre-1978 structures may presume the buildings contain LBP without having an inspection
for LBP. Lead must be contained during demolition activities (California Health & Safety Code sections
17920.10 and 105255). Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1926 establishes standards for
occupational health and environmental controls for lead exposure. The standard also includes requirements
addressing exposure assessment, methods of compliance, respiratory protection, protective clothing and
equipment, hygiene facilities and practices, medical surveillance, medical removal protection, employee
information and training, signs, recordkeeping, and observation or monitoring.
California Government Code Sections 1529 and 1532.1 provide for exposure limits, exposure monitoring,
respiratory protection and good working practice by workers exposed to lead and ACMs.
Requirements for limiting asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities are specified
in South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from
Demolition/Renovation Activities).
Environmental Site Assessments
Phase I Environmental Site Assessments are required for land purchasers to qualify for the Innocent
Landowner Defense under CERCLA and to minimize environmental liability under other laws such as
RCRA; and as a lender prerequisite to extend a loan for purchase of land.
Siting of Schools on or near Sources of Hazardous Materials
The California Education Code (Sections 17210 et seq.) outlines the requirements of siting school facilities
near or on known or suspected hazardous materials sites, or near facilities that emit hazardous air emissions
or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. The code requires that, prior to
commencing the acquisition of property for a new school site, an environmental site investigation be
completed to determine the health and safety risks (if any) associated with the site. Recent legislation and
changes to the Education Code identify DTSC’s role in the assessment, investigation, and cleanup of
proposed school sites. All proposed school sites that receive state funding for acquisition and/or construction
must go through a comprehensive investigation and cleanup process under DTSC oversight.
DTSC is required to be involved in the environmental review process to ensure that selected properties are
free of contamination, or if the property is contaminated, that it is cleaned up to a level that is protective of
students and faculty who will occupy the new school. All proposed school sites must be suitable for
residential land use, which is DTSC’s most protective standard for children.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
June 2017 Page 5.6-7
Certified Unified Program Agency
A Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) is an agency of a county or city that administers several state
programs regulating hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. The Los Angeles County Fire Department
(LACoFD), the CUPA for much of Los Angeles County, including the Plan Area, administers the following
programs:
Hazardous Materials Release Response and Inventory Program
California Accidental Release Prevention Program, a combination of federal and state programs for the
prevention of accidental release of regulated toxic and flammable substances.
Underground Storage Tanks Program
Aboveground Storage Tanks Program
Hazardous Waste Generator Program (LACoFD 2017)
5.6.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Hazardous Materials Use and Waste
Hazardous materials are routinely used in industrial, manufacturing, and commercial businesses, as well as in
hospitals and households. Businesses generating between 100 and 1,000 kilograms (approximately 220 to
2,200 pounds) of hazardous waste per month (“small quantity generators”) and businesses that generate
more than 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds) of hazardous waste, or over 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of acutely
hazardous waste per month (“large quantity generators”) must operate in compliance with the federal RCRA
and Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments laws and regulations.
Light and heavy-industrial land uses exist within the Plan Area—these occur in the southern end of the Plan
Area (see Figure 4-1, Existing Land Uses). Some of these industrial uses handle, store, and transport hazardous
materials in various quantities; some use hazardous materials for manufacturing processing and can generate
large amounts of hazardous waste. Commercial businesses throughout the Plan Area (mostly along major
corridors), including auto repair, medical facilities, and dry cleaners, handle hazardous materials and generally
small quantities of hazardous waste.
Household hazardous waste (e.g., paint, oil, batteries, oil filters, household chemicals, and household cleaners)
can be harmful if not handled properly. The City encourages homeowners to dispose of household
hazardous waste at a collection center. Specifically, the City encourages hazardous waste to be taken to a
Household Hazardous Waste Roundup1 or a permanent S.A.F.E. Collection Center 2. The nearest S.A.F.E.
1 Household Hazardous Waste Roundups are one-day events hosted by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County and the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works on Saturdays at various locations around Los Angeles County.
2 S.A.F.E. (Solvents / Automotive / Flammables / Electronics) Collection Centers are permanent facilities that are open every
weekend to all Los Angeles County residents.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Page 5.6-8 PlaceWorks
Collection Center for residents of the Plan Area is the Los Angeles-Glendale Treatment Plant at 4600
Colorado Boulevard in Los Angeles, which is 20 miles west of the Plan Area (Temple City 2017). This facility
accepts household hazardous wastes as well as e-waste.
Hazardous Materials Sites
An environmental database search for the Plan Area, which includes the Specific Plan Area, and a one-mile-
wide buffer surrounding the Plan Area was completed by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) on
August 11, 2016 (see Appendix D). The hazardous materials sites in the search area, which are enumerated in
Table 5.6-1, are mapped in Figures 5.6-1a and 5.6-1b, Hazardous Materials Sites Map.
Table 5.6-1 Environmental Database Listings
Database Number of Listings in the Search Area
NPL: National Priorities List (“Superfund”) priority cleanup sites San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site Area 1: Part of the Main San
Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin including about 65 acres in the
south end of the Plan Area, mainly between Temple City Boulevard on
the east and Encinita Avenue on the west (see Figure 5.6-1b)
San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site Area 3: Part of the Main San
Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin including approximately 18 acres of
the Specific Plan Area abutting the western Plan Area boundary and
centered just south of Las Tunas Drive (see Figure 5.6-1b)
SEMS: Superfund Enterprise Management System: Hazardous
waste sites, potentially hazardous waste sites, and remedial
activities pursuant to the Federal Superfund program.
3, including the two above-mentioned NPL sites
SEMS-Archive: Sites formerly listed pursuant to the Federal
Superfund program. 2
CORRACTS: Hazardous waste handlers with Corrective Action
activity 2
RCRA-TDSF: Facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous
waste listed pursuant to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)
1
LQG: Large quantity generators of hazardous wastes: facilities
generating over 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg
of acutely hazardous waste, monthly; listed pursuant to RCRA
15
SQG: Small quantity generators of hazardous wastes: facilities
generating between 100 and 1,000 kg of hazardous wastes per
month; listed pursuant to RCRA
75
RCRA-SESQG: Conditionally exempt SQGs: generate less than
100 pounds of hazardous wastes monthly; listed pursuant to
RCRA
2
RCRA NonGen/NLR: Facilities not currently generating
hazardous wastes; listed pursuant to RCRA 10
US ENG CONTROLS: Sites with engineering controls in place 1 (San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site Area 1)
ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System: reported
releases of oil and hazardous substances 6
CONSENT: Major legal settlements respecting cleanup of NPL
sites. 1 (San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site Area 1)
ROD: Record of Decision: Mandates for permanent remedies at
NPL sites 1 (San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site Area 1)
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
June 2017 Page 5.6-9
Table 5.6-1 Environmental Database Listings
Database Number of Listings in the Search Area
TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System: Facilities that
release toxic chemicals to the air, water, and land in reportable
quantities pursuant to the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA)
1
FTTS: Tracks cases related to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA)
3
HIST FTTS: Historic FTTS database 3
SSTS: Facilities producing pesticides listed pursuant to FIFRA 2
ICIS: Integrated Compliance Information System: national
enforcement and compliance program 3
FINDS: Facility Index System: tracks facilities listed on other
databases. 124
ECHO: Enforcement and Compliance History Information 123
US AIRS: Aerometric Information Retrieval Program: air pollution
compliance data 2
2020 COR ACTION: Facilities expected to need corrective action 2
PRP: Potentially Responsible Parties 3
US FIN ASSUR: Facilities that treat, store, or dispose of
hazardous waste: 1
SCH: Proposed and existing school sites being evaluated by the
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for possible
hazardous materials contamination.
2
SWF/LF: Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites 9
WDS: Waste Discharge System 9
NPDES: Permits pursuant to National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) regulations 16
Cortese: underground storage tanks, solid waste facilities, and
cleanup sites 1
HIST Cortese: Historic database: underground storage tanks,
solid waste facilities, and cleanup sites 56
SWRCY: Recycling Facilities 4
LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 80
FID UST: Historic underground storage tanks 24
SLIC: Spills Leaks Investigations and Cleanup 37
UST: Registered Underground Storage Tanks 20
HIST UST: Historical Underground Storage Tanks 60
NY MANIFEST: Hazardous waste shipment manifests 1
RI MANIFEST: Hazardous waste shipment manifests 1
SWEEPS UST: Historical underground storage tanks 75
CHMIRS: California Hazardous Materials Reporting System 25
LDS: Waste discharges to land for treatment, storage, and
disposal in waste management units 1
AST: Aboveground Storage Tanks 1
Notify 65: Proposition 65 incidents 1
DEED: Recorded land use restrictions 1
VCP: Voluntary Cleanup Program 2
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Page 5.6-10 PlaceWorks
Table 5.6-1 Environmental Database Listings
Database Number of Listings in the Search Area
DRYCLEANERS 12
WIP: Well Investigation Program 181
CDL: Clandestine drug lab 13
ENF: Enforcement Actions listed by the State Water Resources
Control Board 12
Haznet: Hazardous waste shipment manifests 460
TX Ind. Haz. Waste: Industrial and Hazardous Waste Database:
waste handlers, generators, and shippers, in Texas 1
EMI: Emissions Inventory Data: Toxic and criteria pollutant
emissions data 61
ENVIROSTOR: Sites with known contamination or reason for
further investigation 15
PEST LIC: Licenses and certificates: Department of Pesticide
Regulation 8
HWP: hazardous waste facilities and cleanups 2
WMUDS/SWAT: Waste Management Unit Database
System/Solid Waste Assessment Test 1
HWT: Hazardous waste transporters 2
EDR Hist Auto: Historical auto service businesses 89
EDR Hist Cleaner: Historical dry-cleaners 45
RGA LUST: Recovered Government Archive LUST 65
RGA LF: Historical solid waste disposal facilities including tire
disposal 1
Source: EDR 2016.
Superfund Sites in Main San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin Overlapping the Plan Area
The El Monte (“Area 1”) Superfund Site (Area 1 Superfund Site), spanning 10 square miles of the Main San
Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin under portions of the cities of El Monte, South El Monte, Rosemead, and
Temple City, is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including perchloroethylene (PCE),
trichloroethylene (TCE), perchlorate, n-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), and 1,4-dioxane. Construction of
cleanup systems for VOCs was ongoing in 2013 (USEPA 2013). Area 1 Superfund Site includes about 65
acres in the south end of the Plan Area, mainly between Temple City Boulevard on the east and Encinita
Avenue on the west (see Figure 5.6-1b, Hazardous Materials Sites Map).
The Area 3 Superfund Site, encompassing 19 miles in the western San Gabriel Valley and underlying portions
of six cities including Temple City, is contaminated with VOCs and perchlorate. USEPA is working on a
feasibility study and developing a soil and groundwater cleanup plan for Area 3 (SWRCB 2016). Area 3
includes approximately 18 acres of the Crossroads Specific Plan Area abutting the western Plan Area
boundary, centered just south of Las Tunas Drive (see Figure 5.6-1a, Hazardous Materials Sites Map).
.5605607207206806
8
0
680
640 640640640
600 600600
6
0
0
600
560560560560520 520520520520
520 520
520
480480480
480 480480
440440 440
440
440
4 00
5205
6
0
36036024028320360
320
320280280
320
280
5 20
520
5 20240
2280280 280280280320240280
320320
360320
2
8
0 280280
360
360480
480
480
480
320440440
440
440440
280
320280
400400
400400
400
400
400400
360360360360 3603 6 0 360360360
360 360
3203
20320
320
320 320320 32 0
320 320320
320
320
320 320280 280280280280280
280
280280240
EDR DataMap
Area Study
118 06 00 118 05 00 118 04 00 118 03 00 118 02 00 118 01 00
34 05 0034 06 0034 07 0034 08 0034 05 0034 06 0034 07 0034 08 00118 06 00 118 05 00 118 04 00 118 03 00 118 02 00 118 01 00
Base Map Source: EDR, 2016
PlaceWorks
Figure 5.6-1a - Hazardous Materials Sites Map
0
Scale (Miles)
0.5
5. Environmental Analysis
210
.560560720720680680
680
640640 640640
600600600600
600
560560560 560520 520520520520 520 520 520
480480480
480 480480
440440 440
440
440
4 00
5205
6
0
36036024028320360
320
320280280
320
28
0
5 2 0
520
520
240
2280280 280280280320240280
320320
360320
2
8
0 280280
360
360480
480
480
480
320440440
440
440440
280
320280
400400
400400
400
400
400400
360360360360 3603 6 0 360360360
360 360
3203
2
0320
320
320 32032 0 32 0
320 320320
320
320320 320280 280280280280280
280
280280240
EDR DataMapArea Study118 06 00118 05 00 118 04 00 118 03 00 118 02 00 118 01 00
34 05 0034 06 0034 07 0034 08 0034 05 0034 06 0034 07 0034 08 00118 06 00118 05 00 118 04 00 118 03 00 118 02 00 118 01 00
Temple City Boundary
Listed Sites
Roads
Search Boundary
Major Roads
Earthquake Epicenters
(Richter 5 or greater)
Waterways
Railroads
Contour Lines
Pipelines
Powerlines
Fault Lines
Water
Superfund Sites
Federal DOD Sites
Indian Reservations BIA
National Wetland Inventory
2
h1 Superfund Site Area 1
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
2 Superfund Site Area 3
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Page 5.6-12 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
.560560720720680680680640640640640600600600600600560560560 560520 520520520520 520 520 520480480480480480480440440440440440400520560
36036024028320360
320
320280280
320
280
5 20520
5 20240
2280280 280280280320240280
320320
360320
2
8
0 280280
360
360480
480
480
480
320440440
440
440440
280
320280
400400
400400
400
400
400400
360360360360 3603 6 0 360360360
360 360
3203
20320
320
320 320320 32 0
320 320320
320
320
320 320280 280280280280280
280
280280240
EDR DataMapArea Study118 06 00 118 05 00 118 04 00 118 03 00 118 02 00 118 01 00
34 05 0034 06 0034 07 0034 08 0034 05 0034 06 0034 07 0034 08 00118 06 00 118 05 00 118 04 00 118 03 00 118 02 00 118 01 00
.560
5607207206806
8
0
680
640640 640640
600600600600
600
560560560 560520 520520520520
520 520
520
480480480
480 480480
440440 440
440
440
4 0 0
5205
6
0
36036024028320360
320
320280280
320
28
0
5 2 0
520
520
240
2280280 280280280320240280
320320
360320
2
8
0 280280
360
360480
480
480
480
320440440
440
440440
280
320280
400400
400400
400
400
400400
360360360360 3603 6 0 360360360
360 360
3203
20320
320
320 320320 32 0
320 320320
320
32
0320 320280 280280280280280
280
280280240
EDR DataMap
Area Study
118 06 00118 05 00 118 04 00 118 03 00 118 02 00 118 01 00
34 05 0034 06 0034 07 0034 08 0034 05 0034 06 0034 07 0034 08 00118 06 00118 05 00 118 04 00 118 03 00 118 02 00 118 01 00
Temple City Boundary
Listed Sites
Roads
Search Boundary
Major Roads
Earthquake Epicenters
(Richter 5 or greater)
Waterways
Railroads
Contour Lines
Pipelines
Powerlines
Fault Lines
Water
Superfund Sites
Federal DOD Sites
Indian Reservations BIA
National Wetland Inventory
Base Map Source: EDR, 2016
PlaceWorks
Figure 5.6-1b - Hazardous Materials Sites Map
0
Scale (Miles)
0.5
5. Environmental Analysis
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
10
h1
h1
h1
h1
h1
2
h1 2Superfund Site Area 1 Superfund Site Area 3
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Page 5.6-14 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
June 2017 Page 5.6-15
Open Cases Listed on GeoTracker and EnviroStor databases
Open cases listed on the GeoTracker and EnviroStor databases are listed in Table 5.6-2. Many EnviroStor
cases are cross-listed on GeoTracker; the only EnviroStor cases listed in the table are those not also listed on
GeoTracker.
Table 5.6-2 GeoTracker and EnviroStor: Open Cases in the Search Area
Site Address, City, and Map No. Status
GEOTRACKER
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites
Plan Area
Ming Star Automotive, 9901 Las Tunas Dr, Temple City
Map No. 140
Gasoline release affected soil. Site assessment 2016.
Mobil #17-MWJ, 9401 E Broadway, Temple City
Map No. 259
Gasoline release affected soil. Leak being confirmed.
J E DeWitt, Inc., 10030 Lower Azusa Rd, El Monte
Map No. 362
Gasoline release. Site assessment 2003.
Gould Inc.-Navcom Sy, 4350 Temple City Blvd, Temple City
Map No. 414
Solvents release affected drinking water aquifer. Pollution
Characterization began 1988.
Calif Target Ent, 9701 Valley Blvd, Rosemead
Map No. 424
Gasoline release affected soil. Preliminary site assessment
underway.
Gonzalez, Ramon-Carwash, 9540 Valley Blvd, Rosemead
Map No. 426
Gasoline release affected groundwater other than drinking water.
Site Assessment
Specific Plan Area
Arco # 9665, 1386 Las Tunas Dr, Temple City
Map No. 201
Gasoline release affected soil. Site Assessment 2009.
Temple Sheriff Station, 8838 Las Tunas Dr, Temple City
Map No. 211
Gasoline release affected groundwater other than drinking water
Preliminary site assessment underway. Eligible for closure.
Cleanup Program Sites
Plan Area
B&G Sheet Metal, 9415 Gidley St, Temple City
Map No. 391
Release of volatile organic compounds affected drinking water
aquifer.
Birtcher Medical Systems, 4501 Arden Dr, El Monte
Map No. 394
Volatile Organic Compounds release affected drinking water aquifer.
Beagle Mfg. Co., 4377 Baldwin Ave, El Monte
Map No. 398
Release of 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), PCE, TCE affected drinking
water aquifer. Site eligible for closure in 2015.
Miller Dial Corp, 4400 N Temple City Blvd, El Monte
Map No. 401
Release of volatile organic compounds affected drinking water
aquifer. Assessment and interim remedial action in 2015.
Acme Converting Co., 4327 N Temple City Blvd, Temple City
Map No. 407
Release of alcohols affected drinking water aquifer. Post remedial
action monitoring.
Crown City Plating C, 4350 Temple City Blvd, Temple City
Map No. 408
Release of solvents affected drinking water aquifer. Post remedial
action monitoring.
Remington Mfg, 4331 Temple City Blvd, Temple City
Map No. 408
Release of PCE affected drinking water aquifer
Brown Jordan Co, 9860 Gidley St, El Monte
Map No. 409
Release of chromium, metals/heavy metals, semi-volatile organic
compounds, and/or volatile organic compounds affected drinking
water aquifer
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Page 5.6-16 PlaceWorks
Table 5.6-2 GeoTracker and EnviroStor: Open Cases in the Search Area
Site Address, City, and Map No. Status
UST-9 and UST-10 Clayton Industries, 4213 Temple City Blvd, El
Monte
Map No. 412
Release of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) affected soil.
Eligible for closure in 2015.
Hermetic Seal Corp, 4232 Temple City Blvd, Rosemead
Map No. 412
Release of chromium, metals/heavy metals, semi-volatile organic
compounds, or volatile organic compounds affected drinking water
aquifer.
James Jones Co, 4127 Temple City Blvd, El Monte
Map No. 416
Release of arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, other metal, PCE, TPH,
and/or zinc affected drinking water aquifer, soil, soil vapor
Eligible for closure 2015
The Gill Corp, 4056 Easy St, El Monte
Map No. 418
Release of chromium, metals/heavy metals, and/or volatile organic
compounds affected drinking water aquifer, soil, soil vapor. Soil gas
survey 1994.
EG&G Birtcher Facility, 4501 & 4505 Arden Ave, El Monte
Map No. 394
Release of 1,1,1-TCA, benzene, other chlorinated hydrocarbons,
PCE, TCE affected drinking water aquifer. Assessment & interim
remedial action 2015.
Specific Plan Area
Former Royal Cleaner, 5739 Rosemead Blvd, Temple City
Map No. 172
Release of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) affected drinking water aquifer,
soil, soil vapor.
Former Sweds Cleaners, 8841 E Las Tunas Dr, Temple City
Map No. 200
Release of PCE, trichloroethylene (TCE) affected drinking water
aquifer, sediments, soil, soil vapor.
Temple Sheriff Station, 8838 Las Tunas Dr, Temple City
Map No. 211
Release of volatile organic compounds affected drinking water
aquifer.
K Mart, 5665 N Rosemead Blvd, Temple City
Map No. 228
Release of volatile organic compounds affected drinking water
aquifer.
Broadway Cleaners, 5423 N Rosemead Blvd, Temple City
Map No. 275
Release of volatile organic compounds affected drinking water aquifer
Site assessment 2014.
ENVIROSTOR
Hazardous Waste Facility
Plan Area
Kinneola Avenue Property, 175 South Kinneola Avenue, Pasadena
Map No. 2
Release of halogenated organic compounds
metals - other inorganic solid waste
ACMs affected soil.
Certified operations and maintenance agreement; land use
restrictions only as of 2001.
Safety-Kleen Systems, 10625 Hickson St, El Monte
Map No. 425
Permitted hazardous waste storage and treatment facility; undergoing
closure. Corrective action; referred to USEPA 2008.
Specific Plan Area
None
Sources: EDR 2016; SWRCB 2016; DTSC 2016a.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
June 2017 Page 5.6-17
Asbestos
Asbestos is the name of a group of silicate minerals that are heat resistant, and thus were commonly used as
insulation and fire retardant. Inhaling asbestos fibers has been shown to cause lung disease (asbestosis) and
lung cancer (mesothelioma) (DTSC 2016b). Beginning in the early 1970s, a series of bans on the use of
certain ACMs in construction were established by EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Most
US manufacturers voluntarily discontinued the use of asbestos in certain building products during the 1980s.
Considering the ages of many of the buildings in the Plan Area and Specific Plan Area, it is expected that
many buildings may contain ACMs.
Lead
Lead was formerly used as an ingredient in paint (before 1978) and as a gasoline additive; both of these uses
have been banned. Lead is listed as a reproductive toxin and a cancer-causing substance; it also impairs the
development of the nervous system and blood cells in children (DTSC 2016b). Considering the ages of many
of the buildings in the Plan Area and Specific Plan Area, it is expected that many buildings may contain LBP.
Schools
Active public schools mapped on the California School Campus Database maintained by the GreenInfo
Network; and active private schools mapped on the California School Directory maintained by the California
Department of Education, in, or within one-quarter mile of the Plan Area are listed in Table 5.6-3. None of
the schools listed are within the Specific Plan Area.
Table 5.6-3 Schools in and within One-Quarter Mile of the Plan Area
School Address Level Grades
Temple City Unified School District
Cloverly Elementary School 5476 Cloverly Avenue, Temple
City Elementary School 4-6
Emperor Elementary School 2301 East La Rosa Drive,
Temple City Elementary School K-3
La Rosa Elementary School 9501 East Wendon Street,
Temple City Elementary School K-5
Longden Elementary School 6415 North Muscatel, San
Gabriel Elementary School K-5
Oak Avenue Intermediate
School 1505 North Marengo Avenue Intermediate/Middle School 7-8
Temple City High School 9501 Lemon Avenue, Temple
City High School 9-12
Dr. Doug Sears Learning Center
(Community Learning Center)
2925 East Sierra Madre
Boulevard, Temple City Alternative School of Choice 9-12
El Monte City School District
Cleminson Elementary School 213 Daleview Ave, Temple City Elementary School K-6
Gidley Elementary School 10226 East Lower Azusa Road,
El Monte K-8 K-8
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Page 5.6-18 PlaceWorks
Table 5.6-3 Schools in and within One-Quarter Mile of the Plan Area
School Address Level Grades
El Monte Union High School District
Arroyo High School 4921 North Cedar Avenue, El
Monte High School 9-12
Rosemead High School 9063 East Mission Drive,
Rosemead High School 9-12
Arcadia Unified School District
Longley Way Elementary 2601 Longley Way, Arcadia Elementary School K-5
San Gabriel Unified School District
Jefferson Middle School 1372 East Las Tunas Drive, San
Gabriel Middle School 6-8
Private Schools
Arcadia Children’s Educational
Center 9845 E Lemon Ave, Arcadia Preschool PRE-K
ARK Christian Academy 6539 Rosemead Blvd, Temple
City Preschool & Kindergarten PRE-K and K
Calvary Chapel El Monte
Homeschool Academy
10506 Lower Azusa Rd., El
Monte K-12 K-12
Clairbourn School 8400 Huntington Dr., San
Gabriel Elementary School K-8
Pacific Friends School 210 Temple City Blvd, Temple
City Preschool PRE-K
Rio Hondo Preparatory 5150 Farna Ave., Arcadia Middle/High School 6-12
St. Luke Elementary School 5521 Cloverly Ave, Temple City Elementary School K-8
Sources: Greeninfo Network 2017; CDE 2017
5.6.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
H-1 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials.
H-2 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
H-3 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
H-4 Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
June 2017 Page 5.6-19
H-5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area.
H-6 For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area.
H-7 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
H-8 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to the urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands.
The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds
would be less than significant:
Threshold H-5
Threshold H-6
Threshold H-7
Threshold H-8
These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis.
5.6.3 Relevant General Plan Policies
The following are relevant policies of the Mid-Century Plan Lan Use, Natural Resources, and Hazards
Elements, which are designed to reduce potential hazards impacts from implementation of the Proposed
Project.
Land Use Element
LU 4.1 Development Compatibility. Require that development is located and designed to assure
compatibility among land uses, addressing such elements as building orientation and setbacks, buffering,
visibility and privacy, automobile and truck access, impacts of noise and lighting, landscape quality, and
aesthetics.
LU 4.2 High-Impact Uses. Avoid the overconcentration of uses and facilities in any neighborhood or
district where their intensities, operations, and/or traffic would adversely impact the character, safety,
health, and/or quality of life.
LU 4.5 Hazardous Uses. Prohibit or control land uses that pose potential health and environmental
hazards to Temple City’s neighborhoods and districts.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Page 5.6-20 PlaceWorks
LU 15.5 Impact Mitigation. Coordinate with private businesses and adjacent residential neighborhoods
to ensure that industrial uses do not negatively impact Temple City residents.
Natural Resources Element
NR 2.3 Buffer Emission Sources and Sensitive Land Uses. Prohibit land uses that emit pollution
and/or odors from locating near sensitive receptors, such as schools, nursing homes and convalescent
facilities, hospitals, and daycare facilities.
Hazards Element
H 3.1 Hazardous Waste Facility Siting. Ensure facilities that generate, use, transport, or store
hazardous waste or materials are properly sited and are compatible with surrounding land uses.
H 3.2 Project Review. Review all proposed development projects that manufacture, use, transport, or
store hazardous waste or materials and waste for compliance with appropriate federal, state, county, and
local agencies.
H 3.3 Hazardous Materials Transport. Work with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and California
Department of Transportation (CalTrans) to enforce applicable state and local laws regulating the
transport of hazardous waste or materials through Temple City, including the restriction of hazardous
materials transport to designated routes.
H 3.4 Hazardous Material Disclosure. Require that essential information is provided to emergency
service personnel of the known use and dangers of hazardous materials present in Temple City.
H 3.5 Hazardous Materials Business Plan. Work with LACoFD to ensure that all specified hazardous
facilities conform to the Los Angeles County Hazardous Materials Program.
H 3.6 Assessment of Known Areas of Contamination. Require new development in known
contamination areas to perform comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments, in
accordance with applicable regulations, and if contamination exceeds regulatory levels, require new
development to undertake remediation procedures consistent with federal, state, and local regulations
prior to any site disturbance or development.
H 3.7 Best Practices and New Technologies. Encourage residents and businesses to utilize best
practices and technologies to reduce generation and use of hazardous waste or materials.
H 4.1 Household Waste Disposal. Continue to work with the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
County (LACSD) and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LADPW) to offer monthly
Household Hazardous Waste Roundup events.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
June 2017 Page 5.6-21
H 4.2 S.A.F.E. Collection Centers. Continue to coordinate with the County of Los Angeles to
encourage Temple City residents to utilize the County’s S.A.F.E. Collection Centers for the disposal of
household solvent, automotive, flammable, and electronic products and waste.
H 4.3 Disposal of Prescription and Over-the-Counter Medications. Continue to collect
pharmaceuticals and sharps at the LASD Temple Station and encourage residents to dispose of
pharmaceuticals and sharps at S.A.F.E. Collection Centers or at Household Hazardous Waste Roundup
events.
H 4.4 Community Education. Continue to educate residents, businesses, and property owners on the
proper use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and products and encourage the use of safer,
nontoxic, environmentally friendly equivalent products.
H 4.5 Monitor Legislation. Monitor state and federal legislation regarding household hazardous
materials and waste disposal to remain current on regulatory requirements and improve hazardous waste
management practices and methods.
5.6.4 Environmental Impacts
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for potentially significant impacts. The
applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 5.6.1: The construction and operational phases of development projects that would be accommodated by the Proposed Project would involve the transport, use, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous materials and waste, which in turn could create a significant hazard
to the public or environment. [Thresholds H-1, H-2, and H-3]
Impact Analysis: Following is a discussion of the Proposed Project’s potential to create a significant hazard
to the public or environment through the accidental release of hazardous materials during the operational and
construction phases of future development projects that would be accommodated under each component of
the Proposed Project. Impacts to the public includes potential impacts to schools (both public and private)
that are in or within one-quarter mile of the Plan Area, which are listed in Table 5.6-3. None of the schools
listed are within the Specific Plan Area.
Mid-Century Plan
Construction Phase
Construction Activities
Development projects that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan would involve the use of
hazardous materials during construction activities, including substances such as paints, sealants, solvents,
greases, adhesives, cleaners, lubricants, and fuels. However, the materials used would not be in such quantities
or stored in such a manner as to pose a significant safety hazard. These activities would also be short term or
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Page 5.6-22 PlaceWorks
one time in nature. Project construction workers would also be trained in safe handling and hazardous
materials use.
Additionally, to prevent hazardous conditions, existing local, state, and federal laws and regulations—such as
those listed under Section 5.7.1.1, Regulatory Framework—are required to be enforced at construction sites. The
use, storage, transport, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials and waste would be required
to conform to existing laws and regulations. For example, Cal/OSHA has regulations concerning the use of
hazardous materials, including requirements for safety training, exposure warnings, availability of safety
equipment, and preparation of emergency action/prevention plans. Additionally, all spills or leakage of
petroleum products during construction activities are required to be immediately contained, the hazardous
material identified, and the material remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations. All
contaminated waste would also be required to be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed
disposal or treatment facility.
Compliance with existing laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of
hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an
appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts to occur. Compliance with these
laws and regulations would be ensured through the City’s development review and building plan check
process.
Demolition Activities
Future development projects pursuant to the Mid-Century Plan may involve demolition of existing buildings
and structures associated with a specific development site—some building materials used in the mid and late
1900’s are considered hazardous to the environment and harmful to people. Asbestos for example, was
commonly used in building materials before the mid-1970s—it was primarily out of building materials by
1980, but was occasionally used until the late 1980s. Lead was used in paint for residential structures prior to
the late 1970s and for commercial structures up until the early 1990’s—it was banned for residential use in
1978 and phased out for commercial structures in 1993.
Due to the age of the buildings and structures throughout the Plan Area (many over 50 years old), it is likely
that ACMs and LBP, as well as other building materials containing lead (e.g., ceramic tile, insulation), were
used in their construction. Demolition of these building and structures can cause encapsulated ACM (if
present) to become friable and, once airborne, they are considered a carcinogen.3,4 Demolition of the existing
buildings and structures can also cause the release of lead into the air if not properly removed and handled.
EPA has classified lead and inorganic lead compounds as "probable human carcinogens" (EPA 2013). Such
releases could pose significant risks to persons living and working in and around a proposed development
site, as well as to project construction workers.
3 When dry, an ACM is considered friable if it can be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. If it cannot, it is
considered non-friable ACM. It is possible for non-friable ACM to become friable when subjected to unusual conditions, such as
demolishing a building or removing an ACM that has been glued into place.
4 A carcinogen is a substance that causes cancer or helps cancer grow.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
June 2017 Page 5.6-23
Abatement of all ACM and LBP encountered during any future building demolition activities would be
required to be conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including those of the EPA
(which regulates disposal); US Occupational Safety and Health Administration; US Department of Housing
and Urban Development; Cal/OSHA (which regulates employee exposure); and SCAQMD. For example,
Cal/OSHA’s regulations for exposure of construction employees to ACMs require that demolition materials
be handled and transported the same as other, non-friable ACMs. EPA requires that all asbestos work
performed within regulated areas be supervised by a competent person who is trained as an asbestos
supervisor (EPA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, 40 CFR 763).
SCAQMD’s Rule 1403 requires that buildings undergoing demolition or renovation be surveyed for ACM
prior to any demolition or renovation activities. Should ACM be identified, Rule 1403 requires that ACM be
safely removed and disposed of at a regulated site, if possible. If it is not possible to safely remove ACM,
Rule 1403 requires that safe procedures be used to demolish the building with asbestos in place without
resulting in a significant release of asbestos. Additionally, during demolition, grading, and excavation, all
construction workers would be required to comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code
of Regulations, Section 1529 (Asbestos), which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory
protection, and good working practices by workers exposed to asbestos.
Cal/OSHA Regulation 29 (CFR Standard 1926.62) regulates the demolition, renovation, or construction of
buildings involving lead-based materials. It includes requirements for the safe removal and disposal of lead,
and the safe demolition of buildings containing LBP or other lead materials. Additionally, during demolition,
grading, and excavation, all construction workers would be required to comply with the requirements of Title
8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1 (Lead), which provides for exposure limits, exposure
monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practice by workers exposed to lead.
However, to further prevent impacts from the potential release of ACM or LBP associated with individual
development projects under the Mid-Century Plan, an ACM and LBP survey of existing buildings and
structures constructed prior to 1995 would be required prior to any demolition activities, as outlined in
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. With compliance of existing laws and regulations and implementation of
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, hazardous impacts related to the release of ACMs and LBP are not anticipated
to occur. Compliance with these laws, regulations, and mitigation measure would be ensured through the
City’s development review and building plan check process.
Grading Activities
Grading activities of the individual development projects would involve the disturbance of onsite soils. Soils
on certain properties of the Plan Area could be contaminated with hazardous materials due to current and
historical activities of the nonresidential land uses of those properties—specifically, properties identified in
the environmental database search conducted for the Plan Area (see Appendix D). Exposure of
contaminated soils to workers and the surrounding environment would result in a significant impact.
However, if soil is encountered during construction activities that is suspected of being impacted by
hazardous materials, work at the subject construction activity area would be required to be halted, and the
suspect site conditions be evaluated by a qualified environmental professional—in accordance with Mitigation
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Page 5.6-24 PlaceWorks
Measures HAZ-2. The results of the evaluation and response/remedial measures (if identified) would be
required to occur to the satisfaction of the appropriate responsible agency, DTSC, Regional Water Quality
Control Board, or other applicable oversight agency (e.g., LACoFD). Any identified response/remedial
measures would be implemented until all specified requirements of the oversight agencies are satisfied and a
“no further action” status is attained.
Additionally, the project applicant/developer of a development application for a project on a site identified in
the environmental database search conducted for the Plan Area is required to submit a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to the City for review and approval (see Mitigation Measure HAZ-3).
The Phase I ESA would identify any potential environmental conditions of the development site and
determine whether contamination is present—if contaminated soil is identified, the Phase I ESA would
outline recommendations for the contaminated soil, including remediation if necessary.
Therefore, with adherence to existing laws and regulations and implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-
2 and HAZ-3, impacts arising from the potential of encountering contaminated soils during project grading
activities would not occur. Compliance with the existing laws, regulations, mitigation measures would be
ensured through the City’s development review and building plan check process.
Operation Phase
Operation of residential land uses permitted under the Mid-Century Plan would involve use of small
quantities of hazardous materials for cleaning and maintenance purposes, such as paints, household cleansers,
pesticides, and fertilizers. Nonresidential land uses would include retail, restaurants, entertainment facilities,
offices including medical and dental offices, hotels, gas stations and auto repair businesses, and industrial uses.
Some nonresidential land uses such as retail, restaurants, offices, hotels, and entertainment facilities would
involve small amounts of hazardous materials for cleaning and maintenance purposes. Others such as
industrial uses, gas stations, and auto repair businesses would involve larger amounts of hazardous materials.
The use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials by land uses pursuant to the Mid-Century
Plan would be governed by existing regulations set forth by several agencies—such as those listed under
Section 5.7.1.1, Regulatory Framework. For example, regulations that would be required of those uses that
involve hazardous materials include RCRA, which provides the ‘cradle to grave’ regulation of hazardous
wastes; CERCLA, which regulates closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act, which governs hazardous materials transportation on U.S. roadways; IFC, which creates
procedures and mechanisms to ensure the safe handling and storage of hazardous materials; CCR Title 22,
which regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste; and CCR
Title 27, which regulates the treatment, storage and disposal of solid wastes. For development within the State
of California, Government Code Section 65850.2 requires that no final certificate of occupancy or its
substantial equivalent be issued unless there is verification that the owner or authorized agent has met, or is
meeting, the applicable requirements of the California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95
(Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory), Article 2, Sections 25500 through 25520.
Businesses that use hazardous materials or a mixture containing hazardous materials must establish and
implement a hazardous materials business plan if the hazardous material is handled in certain quantities.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
June 2017 Page 5.6-25
LACoFD functions as the CUPA for the Plan Area, and is responsible for enforcing Chapter 6.95 of the
California Health and Safety Code. As the CUPA, LACoF D is required to regulate hazardous materials
business plans and chemical inventory, hazardous waste and tiered permitting, underground storage tanks,
and risk-management plans. Additionally, LACoFD is required to conduct ongoing routine inspections of
businesses to ensure compliance with existing laws and regulations; identify safety hazards that could cause or
contribute to an accidental spill or release; and suggest preventative measures to minimize the risk of a spill
or release of hazardous substances.
Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transport, and disposal of
hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials associated with future development
that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan are used and handled in an appropriate manner and
would minimize the potential for safety impacts.
Furthermore, future development projects would be subject to the City’s development review process upon a
formal request for a development permit. The City’s development review process would include verification
of land use compatibility compliance in accordance with the development standards of the City’s Zoning
Regulations (Title 9 of the City’s Municipal Code).
Finally, the Mid-Century Plan contains policies that would ensure that hazardous impacts to the environment
and sensitive land uses would not occur. For example, the Land Use, Natural Resources, and Hazards
Elements set forth policies that relate to the disclosure, transportation, and handling of hazardous waste and
materials; provide assurance of land use compatibility with sensitive land uses; and encouraging residents and
businesses to reduce or eliminate the use of hazardous materials, as well as the proper disposal of such
materials (Lan Use Element Policies LU 4.2, 4.5, and 15.5; Natural Resources Element Policy NR 2.3; and
Hazards Element Policies H 3.1 through H 3.6). Refer to Section 5.6.3, Relevant General Plan Policies, for the
complete listing of applicable policies.
Therefore, with adherence to existing laws and regulations and implementation of the Mid-Century Plan
policies, substantial hazards to the public or the environment arising from the operational phase of future
development projects would not occur. Compliance with these laws and regulations is ensured through the
City’s development review and building plan check process.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Construction and Operation Phases
The Specific Plan Area is a subset of the Plan Area; the same conditions and potential for the use and release
of hazardous materials during construction and operation phases of development projects that would be
accommodated by the Crossroads Specific Plan are applicable to implementation of the Crossroads Specific
Plan. The construction and operation phases of development projects under the Crossroads Specific Plan
would be subject to the same laws and regulations, policies, and mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures
HAZ-1 through HAZ-3) that are applicable to development projects under the Mid-Century Plan.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Page 5.6-26 PlaceWorks
Additionally, future development projects accommodated by the Crossroads Specific Plan would be subject to
the City’s development review process upon a formal request for a development permit. The City’s
development review process would include verification of land use compatibility compliance in accordance
with the development standards and regulations of the City’s Zoning Regulations and Crossroads Specific
Plan. Furthermore, the Crossroads Specific Plan provides a list of allowable uses that are customized for
highly urbanized areas of the City, such as the Specific Plan Area, thereby minimizing the exposure of future
residents to potential impacts. For example, uses permitted by right in a mixed-use development are
considered compatible with residential uses on the same development site.
Therefore, with adherence to existing laws and regulations and implementation of the Mid-Century Plan
policies and Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3, impacts arising from the potential of encountering
contaminated soils onsite during project grading activities would not occur. Compliance with these laws,
regulations, and mitigation measures would be ensured through the City’s development review and building
plan check process.
Impact 5.6-2: Various properties within the Plan Area are on a list of hazardous materials sites; implementation of the Proposed Project could result in an impact to properties listed. [Threshold H-4]
Impact Analysis: Following is a discussion of the potential significant hazards to the public or environment
as a result of future development projects that would be accommodated under each component of the
Proposed Project.
Mid-Century Plan
Listed hazardous materials sites on or within one mile of the Plan Area are summarized in Table 5.6-1,
Environmental Database Listings, by site type and mapped on Figures 5.6-1a and 5.6-1b, Hazardous Materials Sites
Map; open cases listed on the GeoTracker and/or EnviroStor databases are described in Table 5.6-2,
GeoTracker and EnviroStor: Open Cases in the Search Area. Development projects in accordance with the Mid-
Century Plan would result in the demolition of existing buildings; disturbance of soils; and an increase in the
number of residents and workers on and near listed hazardous materials sites.
Due to the fact that there are numerous sites within and in proximity of the Plan Area that have been listed in
a hazardous materials database, the potential for impacts exists from hazardous substance contamination.
Individual development projects accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan could impact areas of hazardous
substance contamination existing or remaining from historical operations, resulting in a significant impact on
the environment. Impacting these areas may also pose a significant health risk to existing and future residents
and/or workers.
Hazardous substance-contaminated properties are regulated at the federal, state, and local level, and are
subject to compliance with stringent laws and regulations for investigation and remediation. For example,
compliance with the CERCLA, RCRA, California Code of Regulations, Title 22, and related requirements
would remedy any potential impacts caused by hazardous substance contamination. Future development
projects under the Mid-Century Plan would be required to comply with these existing laws and regulations.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
June 2017 Page 5.6-27
Additionally, as outlined in Mitigation Measure HAZ-3, the project applicant/developer of a development
application for a project on a site identified in the environmental database search conducted for the Plan Area
is required to submit a Phase I ESA to the City for review and approval. The Phase I ESA would identify any
potential environmental conditions of the development site and determine whether contamination is present
prior to any grading activities occurring on the site.
Furthermore, the Mid-Century Plan contains policies that would ensure that impacts to the environment and
residents and workers in and around the Plan Area due to listed hazardous materials sites would not occur.
For example, and Land Use and Hazards Elements set forth policies that relate to the disclosure,
transportation, and handling of hazardous waste and materials, as well as provide assurance of land use
compatibility with sensitive land uses (Lan Use Element Policies LU 4.1, 4.2, 4.5, and 15.5; Natural Resources
Element Policy NR 2.3; and Hazards Element Policies H 3.1 through H 3.7 and H 4.1 through H 4.5). Refer
to Section 5.6.3, Relevant General Plan Policies, for the complete listing of applicable policies.
Therefore, with compliance of existing laws and regulations and implementation of the Mid-Century Plan
policies and Mitigation Measure HAZ-3, impacts related to hazardous materials site listings are not
anticipated to be significant. Compliance with these laws, regulations, and mitigation measure would be
ensured through the City’s development review and building plan check process.
Crossroads Specific Plan
As noted above, listed hazardous materials sites on or within one mile of the Plan Area (which encompasses
the Specific Plan Area) are summarized by the type of site in Table 5.6-1, Environmental Database Listings, and
mapped on Figures 5.6-1a and 5.6-1b, Hazardous Materials Sites Map; open cases listed on the GeoTracker
and/or EnviroStor databases are described in Table 5.6-2, GeoTracker and EnviroStor: Open Cases in the Search
Area. Some of these listings occur within the Specific Plan Area.
Due to the fact that there are numerous sites within and in proximity of the Specific Plan Area that have been
listed in a hazardous materials database, the potential for impacts exists from hazardous substance
contamination. Individual development projects accommodated by the Crossroads Specific Plan could impact
areas of hazardous substance contamination existing or remaining from historical operations, resulting in a
significant impact on the environment. Impacting these areas may also pose a significant health risk to
existing and future residents and/or workers.
However, as with the Mid-Century Plan, development projects under the Crossroads Specific Plan would be
subject to the same laws and regulations, policies, and mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure HAZ-3) that
are applicable to development projects under the Mid-Century Plan.
Therefore, with compliance of existing laws and regulations and implementation of the Mid-Century Plan
policies and Mitigation Measure HAZ-3, impacts related to hazardous materials site listings are not
anticipated to be significant. Compliance with these laws, regulations, and mitigation measure would be
ensured through the City’s development review and building plan check process.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Page 5.6-28 PlaceWorks
5.6.5 Existing Regulations
Federal
United States Code Title 42, Sections 9601 et seq.: Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act and Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
United States Code Title 42, Sections 6901 et seq.: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
United States Code Title 42, Sections 11001 et seq.: Emergency Planning & Community Right to Know
Act
Code of Federal Regulations Title 49, Parts 101 et seq.: Regulations implementing the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act (United States Code Title 49 Sections 5101 et seq.)
United States Code Title 15, Sections 2601 et seq.: Toxic Substances Control Act
US Environmental Protection Agency Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, 40 CFR 763
State
California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 and 19 California Code of Regulations Section 2729:
Business Emergency Plans and chemical inventory reporting
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration Regulation 29, CFR Standard 1926.62
California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2: California Building Code
California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 9: California Fire Code
California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 1532.1, Lead in Construction Standard
California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 1529: Asbestos
Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1: Lead
Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403 Local
5.6.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Without mitigation, these impacts would be potentially significant:
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
June 2017 Page 5.6-29
Impact 5.6-1 Construction activities of development projects that would be accommodated by
the Proposed Project could result in the emission of hazardous materials into the
environment or exposure of workers and residents to hazardous materials.
Impact 5.6-2 Implementation of the Proposed Project could result in an impact to properties
listed on a hazardous materials site.
5.6.7 Mitigation Measures
Impact 5.6-1
HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of demolition permits for any buildings or structures (both residential
and nonresidential) constructed prior to 1995, the project applicant/developer shall conduct
the following inspections and assessments for all buildings and structures onsite and shall
provide the City of Temple City Community Development Department with a copy of the
final report of each investigation or assessment.
The project applicant/developer shall retain a California Certified Asbestos Consultant
(CAC) to perform abatement project planning, monitoring (including air monitoring),
oversight, and reporting of all asbestos-containing materials (ACM) encountered. The
abatement, containment, and disposal of all ACM shall be conducted in accordance with
the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1403 and California Code of
Regulation Title 8, Section 1529 (Asbestos).
The project applicant/developer shall retain a licensed or certified lead
inspector/assessor to conduct the abatement, containment, oversight, and disposal of all
lead waste encountered. The contracted lead inspector/assessor shall be certified by the
California Department of Public Health (CDPH). All lead abatement shall be
performed by a CDPH-certified lead supervisor or a CDPH-certified worker under the
direct supervision of a lead supervisor certified by CDPH. The abatement, containment,
and disposal of all lead waste encountered shall be conducted in accordance with the US
Occupational Safety and Health Administration Rule 29; CFR Part 1926; and California
Code of Regulation, Title 8, Section 1532.1 (Lead).
Evidence of the contracted professionals attained by the project applicant/developer shall
be provided to the City of Temple City Community Development Department.
HAZ-2 If soil is encountered during grading and construction activities that is suspected of being
impacted by hazardous materials, work at the subject construction activity area shall be
halted, and the suspect site conditions shall be evaluated by a qualified environmental
professional. The results of the evaluation shall be submitted to the Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC), or the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) or other applicable oversight agency, as appropriate, and the necessary
response/remedial measures shall be implemented—as directed by DTSC, RWQCB, or
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Page 5.6-30 PlaceWorks
other applicable oversight agency—until all specified requirements of the oversight agencies
are satisfied and a no further action status is attained. The results shall also be provided to
the City of Temple City Community Development Department.
HAZ-3 Concurrent with submittal of a development application for a project on a site identified in
the Environmental Data Resources report (provided as Appendix D to the Temple City
General Plan Update and Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan Draft Environmental
Impact Report; State Clearinghouse No. 2016091047), the project applicant/developer shall
submit a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to the City of Temple City
Community Development Department to identify environmental conditions of the
development site and determine whether contamination is present. The Phase I ESA shall be
prepared by an Environmental Professional in accordance with the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E 1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental
Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. If recognized
environmental conditions related to soils or groundwater are identified in the Phase I ESA,
the project applicant shall perform soil and soil gas sampling, as required, as a part of a
Phase II ESA. If contamination is found at significant levels based on the United Stated
Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 Regional Screening Levels, the project
applicant/developer shall remediate all contaminated soils with the oversight and in
accordance with state and local agency requirements (California Department of Toxic
Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles County Fire
Authority, etc.). All contaminated soils and/or material encountered shall be disposed of at a
regulated site and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations prior to the completion
of grading. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a report documenting the completion,
results, and follow-up remediation on the recommendations, if any, shall be provided to the
City of Temple City Community Development Department evidencing that all site
remediation activities have been completed.
Impact 5.6-2
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 applies here.
5.6.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with hazards and
hazardous materials to less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating
hazards have been identified.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
June 2017 Page 5.6-31
5.6.9 References
ASTM International. 2013. ASTM E-1527-13: Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Process. https://www.astm.org/Standards/E1527.htm.
California Department of Education (CDE). 2017, January 11. California School Directory.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/sd/.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2016a, August 12. EnviroStor.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
———. 2016b, August 12. Glossary of Environmental Terms.
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/InformationResources/Glossary_of_Environmental_Terms.cfm.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2016, August 11. Data Map Area Study for the Temple City
General Plan Area.
GreenInfo Network. 2017, January 11. California School Campus Database.
http://www.mapcollaborator.org/mapcollab_cscd/?base=map&y=34.10623&x=-
118.09011&z=14&layers=notes%2Cpolygons%2Cuploads%2Cschoolboundaries%2Ccities&opacs=
100%2C25%2C90%2C100%2C100.
Historic Resources Group (HRG). 2012, May. City of Temple City Historic Resources Survey.
http://www.templecity.us/DocumentCenter/View/839.
Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD). 2017, January 16. Health Hazardous Materials Division:
Los Angeles County Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA).
https://www.fire.lacounty.gov/hhmd/.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2016, August 12. GeoTracker.
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
Temple City, City of (Temple City). 2017. Household Hazardous Waste. http://www.ci.temple-
city.ca.us/859/Household-Hazardous-Waste .
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. Lead Compounds.
http://www.epa.gov/airtoxics/hlthef/lead.html.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Page 5.6-32 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2017 Page 5.7-1
5.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential impacts of the
Proposed Project, which includes the Temple City 2050 Mid-Century General Plan (Mid-Century Plan) and
Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan (Crossroads Specific Plan), to hydrology and water quality conditions in
the overall Plan Area. Hydrology deals with the distribution and circulation of water, both on land and
underground. Water quality deals with the quality of surface- and groundwater. Surface water includes lakes,
rivers, streams, and creeks; g roundwater is under the earth’s surface. The information in this Section is based
in part on the following technical study:
Fuscoe Engineering, Inc., Infrastructure Technical Report for Hydrology, Sewer, Water, and Water
Quality, February 8, 2017.
A complete copy of this technical report is included in Appendix E of this DEIR.
5.7.1 Environmental Setting
5.7.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal, state, and local laws, regulations, plans or guidelines that are applicable to the Proposed Project are
summarized below.
Federal
Safe Drinking Water Act
The federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulates drinking water quality nationwide and gives the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to set drinking water standards, such as the National
Primary Drinking Water regulations (NPDWRs or primary standards). The NPDWRs protect drinking water
by limiting the levels of specific contaminants that can adversely affect public health. All public water systems
that provide service to 25 or more individuals must meet these standards. Water purveyors must monitor for
contaminants on fixed schedules and report to EPA when a maximum contaminant level (MCL) is exceeded.
MCL is the maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water that is delivered to any user of a public
water system. Contaminants include organic and inorganic chemicals (e.g., minerals), substances that are
known to cause cancer, radionuclides (e.g., uranium and radon), and microbial contaminants (e.g., coliform
and E. coli). The MCL list typically changes every three years as EPA adds new contaminants or revises
MCLs. The California Department of Public Health’s Division of Drinking Water and Environmental
Management is responsible for implementation of the SDWA in California.
Clean Water Act
Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeks
to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. The statute
employs a variety of regulatory and nonregulatory tools to reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways,
finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. The CWA authorizes EPA to
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Page 5.7-2 PlaceWorks
implement water-quality regulations. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
program under Section 402(p) of the CWA controls water pollution by regulating stormwater discharges into
the waters of the US. California has an approved state NPDES program. The EPA has delegated authority
for water permitting to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which has nine regional boards.
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates water quality in Region 4, which
includes the Plan Area.
Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA are administered through the Regulatory Program of the US Army Corps
of Engineers (CORPS) and regulate the water quality of all discharges of fill or dredged material into waters
of the United States, including wetlands and intermittent stream channels. Section 401, Title 33, Section 1341
of the CWA sets forth water-quality certification requirements for “any applicant applying for a federal
license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of
facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters.” If there are ephemeral drainages and
wetlands identified within the City, construction and other activities may require the acquisition of a permit
from the Corps under Section 404 of the CWA and water-quality certification from the Los Angeles RWQCB
under Section 401 of the CWA. Section 401 certification is required from the RWQCB prior to final issuance
of Section 404 permits by the Corps.
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that each state identify water bodies or segments of water bodies that are
“impaired” (i.e., not meeting one or more of the water-quality standards established by the state). These
waters are identified in the Section 303(d) list as waters that are polluted and need further attention to support
their beneficial uses. Once the water body or segment is listed, the state is required to establish Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the pollutant causing the conditions of impairment. TMDL is the
maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water-quality standards.
Typically, TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and non-
point sources. The intent of the 303(d) list is to identify water bodies that require future development of a
TMDL to maintain water quality. In accordance with Section 303(d), RWQCB has identified impaired water
bodies within its jurisdiction, and the pollutants or stressors responsible for impairing the water quality.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The NPDES permit program was established by the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to
surface waters of the United States from their municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Under the
NPDES program, all facilities that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States are required to obtain
a NPDES permit. Requirements for stormwater discharges are also regulated under this program. In
California, the NPDES permit program is administered by SWRCB through the nine RWQCBs.
The Plan Area is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB (Region 4) and is subject to the waste-
discharge requirements of the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit (Order No. R4-2012-0175) and NPDES
Permit No. CAS004001. The County of Los Angeles, 84 incorporated cities in Los Angeles County excluding
Long Beach, and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District are co-permittees under the MS4 permit.
Pursuant to the MS4 permit, the co-permittees can develop Watershed Management Programs (WMPs)
applying control strategies and best management practices (BMPs) on a watershed scale. The MS4 permit also
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.7-3
requires municipalities to develop and implement low impact development (LID) ordinances and green street
policies in at least 50 percent of the area covered by a WMP. As a permittee under the General MS4 permit,
Temple City has legal authority to enforce the terms of the permit in its jurisdiction.
The MS4 permit requires that new development or significant redevelopment projects use BMPs and LID,
including site design planning, source control, and treatment measures, to ensure that the quality of receiving
waters is protected. These requirements are detailed in Los Angeles County’s LID Standards Manual. Within
the Plan Area, any new development project adding more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface or
redevelopment project adding 5,000 or more square feet of impervious surface is required to prepare a LID
Plan that specifies the BMPs and LID measures that would be implemented to minimize the effects of the
project on regional hydrology, runoff flow rates and/or velocities, and pollutant loads. In addition,
postconstruction treatment-control BMPs are required to mitigate stormwater runoff by infiltration,
filtration, or treatment and the BMP/LID feature must retain a specified volume of stormwater runoff on-
site from a design storm event.
State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Water Code sections 13000 et seq.) is the basic water-quality control
law for California. Under this Act, SWRCB has ultimate control over state water rights and water-quality
policy. In California, EPA has delegated authority to issue NPDES permits to SWRCB. The SWRCB, through
its nine RWQCBs, carries out the regulation, protection, and administration of water quality in each region.
Each regional board is required to adopt a Water Quality Control Plan, or Basin Plan, that recognizes and
reflects the regional differences in existing water quality, the beneficial uses of the region’s ground and surface
water, and local water-quality conditions and problems.
The Plan Area is in the Los Angeles River Basin (Region 4), within the Rio Hondo Watershed, which is in the
jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB. The Water Quality Control Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los
Angeles and Ventura County was adopted in 1995, with the latest amendments issued in 2014. This Basin
Plan gives direction on the beneficial uses of the state waters within Region 4; describes the water quality that
must be maintained to support such uses; and provides programs, projects, and other actions necessary to
achieve the standards established in the Basin Plan.
General Construction Permit and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans
The General Construction Permit (GCP; Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES Permit No. CAS000002), and
its subsequent revisions (Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ), regulates stormwater and non-stormwater discharges
associated with construction activities disturbing one acre or greater of soil. Construction sites that qualify
must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to gain permit coverage or otherwise be in violation of the CWA and
California Water Code.
The GCP requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) for each individual construction project greater than or equal to one acre of disturbed soil area
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Page 5.7-4 PlaceWorks
(regardless of the site’s Risk Level). The SWPPP must list Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the
discharger will use to control sediment and other pollutants in stormwater and non-stormwater runoff; the
BMPs must meet the BAT and BCT performance standards. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual
monitoring inspection program; a chemical monitoring program for sediment and other "non-visible"
pollutants to be implemented based on the Risk Level of the site, as well as inspection, reporting, training and
record-keeping requirements. Section XVI of the GCP describes the elements that must be contained in a
SWPPP.
In addition to the requirements above, the GCP contains requirements for construction sites based on the
sites risk of discharging construction-related pollutants, as well as additional monitoring and reporting
requirements. Each construction project must complete a risk assessment prior to commencement of
construction activities, which assigns a Risk Level to the site and determines the level of water quality
protection/requirements the site must comply with. The GCP also includes provisions for meeting specific
Numerical Effluent Limits and Action Levels for pollutants based on the sites’ Risk Level.
Since the Proposed Project would allow for redevelopment activities that would disturb greater than one acre
of land area, individual development projects within the Plan Area are subject to the storm water discharge
requirements of the GCP. The development projects will require submittal of an NOI, SWPPP, Risk
Assessment, and other Project Registration Documents (PRDs) required by the GCP prior to the
commencement of soil-disturbing activities. In the Los Angeles Region, SWRCB is the permitting authority,
while Los Angeles RWQCB provides local oversight and enforcement of the GCP.
Local
Los Angeles County Low Impact Development Standards Manual
Los Angeles County prepared the 2014 Low Impact Development Standards Manual (LID Manual) to
comply with the requirements of the NPDES MS4 permit for stormwater and non-stormwater discharges
within the coastal watersheds of Los Angeles County (CAS004001, Order No. R4-2012-0175). The LID
Manual is an update and compilation of the following documents:
Development Planning for Storm Water Management: A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water
Mitigation Plan (SUSMP Manual, September 2002)
Technical Manual for Stormwater Best Management Practices in the County of Los Angeles (2004
Design Manual, February 2004)
Stormwater Best Management Practice Design and Maintenance Manual (2010 Design Manual, August
2010)
Low Impact Development Standards Manual (2009 LID Manual, January 2009)
The LID Manual addresses the following objectives and goals:
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.7-5
Lessen the adverse impacts of stormwater runoff from development and urban runoff on natural
drainage systems, receiving waters, and other water bodies.
Minimize pollutant loadings from impervious surfaces by requiring development projects to incorporate
properly-designed, technically appropriate BMPs and other LID strategies.
Minimize erosion and other hydrologic impacts on all projects located within natural drainage systems
that have not been improved by requiring projects to incorporate properly designed, technically
appropriate hydromodification control development principles and technologies.
The use of LID Best Management Practices (BMPs) in project planning and design is intended to preserve a
site’s predevelopment hydrology by minimizing the loss of natural hydrologic processes such as infiltration,
evapotranspiration, and runoff detention. LID BMPs try to offset these losses by introducing structural and
non-structural design components that restore these water quality functions into the project’s land plan.
Groundwater Management
The two groundwater basins providing part of the water supply for the Plan Area – the Main San Gabriel and
Raymond Basins – are intensively managed by court-appointed agencies, the Main San Gabriel Basin
Waterm aster (Watermaster) and Raymond Basin Management Board. The Watermaster has the authority to
manage the Main San Gabriel Basin surface and groundwater supplies. The Watermaster prepares and
annually updates the Five-Year Water Quality and Supply Plan. The objective of the plan is to coordinate
groundwater-related activities so that both water supply and water quality in the Main San Gabriel Basin are
protected and improved. The Raymond Basin is managed by the Raymond Basin Management Board, which
was created when the basin was adjudicated in 1944 and manages the basin in a sustainable manner.
City of Temple City Low-Impact Development for Small Sites Technical Guidance Document
Temple City has prepared a technical guidance document (TGD) for certain types of projects disturbing 500
or more but less than 5,000 or 10,000 square feet of soil, depending on the type of project. The TGD sets
forth design criteria for several LID measures including flow-through planter boxes, vegetated swales, rain
gardens, Hollywood driveways, and “bottomless trenches”.
Applicability
New industrial or commercial developments 10,000 square feet or more; and restaurants, gas stations, or
parking lots 5,000 square feet or more; or projects creating or replacing 5,000 square feet or more of
impervious surfaces are subject to the Los Angeles County Low Impact Development Standards Manual and
not to the City’s TGD. Projects disturbing less than 500 square feet of soil are exempt from both the Temple
City and Los Angeles County LID requirements.
City of Temple City Zoning Code
The City requirements for permeable areas and landscaping in developed land uses are set forth in Title 9
(Zoning Regulations), Chapter 1 (Zoning Code) of the Temple City Municipal Code.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Page 5.7-6 PlaceWorks
5.7.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Regional Drainage
Plan Area
The Plan Area is within the Los Angeles River Watershed, which spans 834 square miles including the
southwestern San Gabriel Mountains, the southeastern Santa Susana Mountains, the northeastern Santa
Monica Mountains, and much of the central part of the Los Angeles Basin (see Figure 5.7-1, Los Angeles
Watershed). The Los Angeles River, the primary stream in the Los Angeles River Watershed, extends some 51
miles from the western San Gabriel Valley to its mouth in the City of Long Beach.
The Plan Area is within the Rio Hondo Watershed, which comprises 142 square miles of the Los Angeles
River Watershed (see Figure 5.7-1). The Rio Hondo Channel, an engineered channel, originates at Santa Fe
Dam on the San Gabriel River in the City of Irwindale; and continues some 16 miles southwest till
discharging into the Los Angeles River in the City of South Gate. The Rio Hondo Channel allows water to be
transferred from the San Gabriel River to the Los Angeles River during flood flows on the San Gabriel River.
The Rio Hondo Channel passes about 475 feet south of the southeast corner of the Mid-Century Plan Area.
Specific Plan Area
The foregoing description also applies to the Specific Plan Area.
Local Surface Waters and Drainage
Plan Area
The Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) operates and maintains flood control facilities in
the Plan Area. Within Temple City, approximately two-thirds of the City drains to Eaton Wash, located along
the western city boundary, and the remaining third drains to Arcadia Wash located in the eastern portion of
the City. The storm drain infrastructure within Temple City consists of a series of catch basins, storm drain
pipes ranging from 8-inches to 15 feet in diameter, and box culverts of varying sizes that collect storm runoff
and deliver it to county-owned and -operated flood control facilities. The larger storm drain systems (60
inches or greater) drain primarily from north to south with multiple laterals draining east to west or west to
east to join the larger north to south running storm drains.
Major existing storm drains within the City boundary are mapped in Figure 5.7-2, Existing Storm Drains, and
are described below.
Eaton Channel (Trunk A) – Within Temple City, Eaton Channel consists of an 11-foot by 35-foot box
structure that generally follows south along the western boundary of the City. Within the City limits, it
extends from Longden Avenue on the northern boundary, enlarges to 11 feet by 45 feet and flows out of
the City just south of Lower Azusa Road and Pitkin Street.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.7-7
BI24 (Trunk B) – Bond Improvement (BI) 24 is in Encinitas Avenue from the City limits on the north
(East Camino Real Avenue) and discharges to the Eaton Channel. The line ranges from 36 inches on the
north to a 7.5-foot by 10-foot box at Encinitas Avenue and the Eaton Channel.
Projects 524 and 8001 (Trunk C) – Trunk C, Projects 524 and 8001 are in Temple City Boulevard from
Garibaldi Avenue to Lower Azusa Road. This pipe ranges from 51 inches on the north to 108 inches on
the south, and discharges into Eaton Wash near the southern City limits.
Project 525 (Trunk D) – Trunk D, Project 525 is located in Golden West Avenue from Lemon Avenue
to Baldwin Avenue, and then along Baldwin Avenue to Lower Azusa Road (West Arcadia Drain). This
line varies from a 3-foot diameter pipe to a 9-foot by 7.5-foot box, and ultimately discharges into Eaton
Wash south of the City limits.
RDD 74 (Upper Trunk D) – Road Development District (RDD) 74 is aligned with Temple City
Boulevard between Lemon Avenue and Longden Avenue and then south along Golden West Avenue to
Garibaldi Avenue. The upper reach of Trunk D is a 3-foot diameter pipe.
Project 708 (Western Branch of Trunk E) – Project 708 consists of the western branch of Trunk E,
and is aligned with Gracewood to Daines to Arden to Olive Street. This is a 3-foot diameter pipe.
Arcadia Wash (Trunk E) – The Arcadia Wash within the City limits starts at Persimmon Avenue and W.
Live Oak Avenue to the Rio Hondo Channel. This line is a 12.5-foot by 32-foot box.
Project 521 (Trunk F) – County Project 521 is located in Santa Anita Avenue from E. Live Oak Avenue
to the Rio Hondo Channel. The pipe varies from 3 to 6 feet in diameter.
Existing Drainage System Deficiencies
The City prepared a Final Drainage Master Plan in 2008 (2008 Drainage Master Plan) to evaluate the capacity
of the City’s subsurface drainage system. The 2008 Drainage Master Plan evaluated hydraulic capacities and
flooding potential for existing facilities, and to prepare a plan for correcting hydraulic deficiencies in the
drainage system and prioritize these improvements by severity. The analyses used a 25-year storm event as
required by the Los Angeles County Hydrology Manual. The deficient storm drain segments are listed in
Table 5.7-1 and mapped in Figure 5.7-3, Storm Drain Deficiencies.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Page 5.7-8 PlaceWorks
Table 5.7-1 Existing Storm Drain Deficiencies (2008 Temple City Final Drainage Master Plan)
Priority ID Location Existing Size, inches Replacement Size, inches Total Pipe Length, feet Reason
1 C9 Southwest End of City at Lower
Azusa 60 96 984 Capacity limitation
2 B4
Western portion of City along
Hermosa at Encinita 36-48 72 2,600
Capacity limitation and
extension to flooded area
3 B6 Western portion of City along
Sultana and Broadway 36-48 54 3,200 Capacity limitation
4 C1 Western portion of City along Las
Tunas and Allesandro 36-48 60 1,780 Capacity limitation
5 C10 Southwest End of City at Lower
Azusa and Agnes to Golden West 36 48 810 Capacity limitation
Source: Fuscoe Engineering 2017.
Specific Plan Area
The Specific Plan Area is built out, and is currently about 91 percent impervious. Drainage from the Specific
Plan Area discharges via various county-owned storm drain lines ranging in size from 18 to 48 inches into the
Eaton Wash. A summary of the existing county facilities within the Specific Plan Area and brief descriptions
are provided below. Storm drains serving the Specific Plan Area are mapped in Figure 5.7-2, Existing Storm
Drains.
The Specific Plan Area north of Las Tunas Drive partially drains into a 33-inch county facility along
Sultana, which flows into a 48-inch line along Broadway Avenue. The flows ultimate drain into Eaton
Wash via a 108-inch facility along Encinita Avenue. Stormwater can also flow into Eaton Wash via
county-owned lines, which range in size from 18 to 42 inches along Las Tunas Drive or drain directly into
Eaton Wash.
The Specific Plan Area south of Las Tunas Drive and west of Rosemead Boulevard flows into Eaton
Wash via county-owned lines, which range in size from 18 to 42 inches along Las Tunas Drive or drain
directly into Eaton Wash.
The Specific Plan Area south of Las Tunas Drive and east of Rosemead Boulevard partially drains into a
33-inch county facility along Sultana, which flows into a 48-inch line along Broadway Avenue. The flows
ultimately drain into Eaton Wash via a 108-inch facility along Encinita Avenue. Flows can also drain
directly into Eaton Wash via catch basins along Rosemead Boulevard or along internal streets.
Existing Drainage System Deficiencies
Deficiency ID No. B4 listed in Table 5.7-1, Existing Storm Drain Deficiencies (2008 Temple City Final Drainage
Master Plan), extends in part along the northern Specific Plan Area boundary (see Figure 5.7-3); the other four
drainage system deficiencies are outside of the Specific Plan Area.
City of Temple City
Los Angeles River Watershed
X:\Projects\511\17\MXD\TempleCity_Exhibits_160622\10_LosAngelesRiverWatershed_160630.mxd
Figure 10
12/12/2016
0 105
MilesARCADIA WASHTemple City Boundary - 2,570 AC
Los Angeles River Watershed
Base Map Source: Fuscoe Engineering, 2016
PlaceWorks
Figure 5.7-1 - Los Angeles Watershed
0
Scale (Miles)
5
5. Environmental Analysis
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Temple City
Temple City Boundary (2,570 AC)Los Angeles River Watershed
Pacific Ocean
Specific Plan Boundary (72.5 AC)
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Page 5.7-10 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank
City of Temple City
Temple City Existing Storm Drain Systems
X:\Projects\511\17\MXD\TempleCity_Exhibits_160622\3_TempleCity_Existing_SD_Systems_160523.mxd
Figure 3
12/12/2016
0 3,0001,500
Feet
Temple City Boundary - 2,570 AC
Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5 AC
Storm Drain (LACFCD)EATON WASHARCADIA WASHRIO HONDO CHANNELBase Map Source: Fuscoe Engineering, 2016
PlaceWorks
Figure 5.7-2 - Existing Storm Drains
5. Environmental Analysis
Temple City
Temple City Boundary - 2,570 AC Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5 AC Storm Drain (LACFCD)City of Temple City
Temple City Existing Storm Drain Systems
X:\Projects\511\17\MXD\TempleCity_Exhibits_160622\3_TempleCity_Existing_SD_Systems_160523.mxd
Figure 3
12/12/2016
0 3,0001,500
Feet
Temple City Boundary - 2,570 AC
Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5 AC
Storm Drain (LACFCD)EATON WASHARCADIA WASHRIO HONDO CHANNELCity of Temple City
Temple City Existing Storm Drain Systems
X:\Projects\511\17\MXD\TempleCity_Exhibits_160622\3_TempleCity_Existing_SD_Systems_160523.mxd
Figure 3
12/12/2016
0 3,0001,500
Feet
Temple City Boundary - 2,570 AC
Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5 AC
Storm Drain (LACFCD)EATON WASHARCADIA WASHRIO HONDO CHANNELCity of Temple City
Temple City Existing Storm Drain Systems
X:\Projects\511\17\MXD\TempleCity_Exhibits_160622\3_TempleCity_Existing_SD_Systems_160523.mxd
Figure 3
12/12/2016
0 3,0001,500
Feet
Temple City Boundary - 2,570 AC
Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5 AC
Storm Drain (LACFCD)EATON WASHARCADIA WASHRIO HONDO CHANNELTEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
0
Scale (Feet)
1,500
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Page 5.7-12 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank
City of Temple City
Temple City Existing Storm Drain Deficiencies
X:\Projects\511\17\MXD\TempleCity_Exhibits_160622\5_TempleCity_Existing_SD_Deficiencies_160523.mxd
Figure 5
12/12/2016
0 3,0001,500
Feet
Temple City Boundary - 2,570 AC
Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5 AC
Areas Subject to Land Use Change
Storm Drain (LACFCD)EATON WASHARCADIA WASHRIO HONDO CHANNELB4 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
C1 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
C10 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
C9 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
B6 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
"C" Model Findings - 2008
Drainage Master Plan
"B" Model Findings - 2008
Drainage Master Plan
PlaceWorks
Figure 5.7-3 - Storm Drain Deficiencies
0
Scale (Feet)
1,500
Temple City
Temple City Boundary - 2,570 AC Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5 AC Areas Subject to Land Use Change
City of Temple City
Temple City Existing Storm Drain Deficiencies
X:\Projects\511\17\MXD\TempleCity_Exhibits_160622\5_TempleCity_Existing_SD_Deficiencies_160523.mxd
Figure 5
12/12/2016
0 3,0001,500
Feet
Temple City Boundary - 2,570 AC
Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5 AC
Areas Subject to Land Use Change
Storm Drain (LACFCD)EATON WASHARCADIA WASHRIO HONDO CHANNELB4 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
C1 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
C10 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
C9 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
B6 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
"C" Model Findings - 2008
Drainage Master Plan
"B" Model Findings - 2008
Drainage Master PlanCity of Temple City
Temple City Existing Storm Drain Deficiencies
X:\Projects\511\17\MXD\TempleCity_Exhibits_160622\5_TempleCity_Existing_SD_Deficiencies_160523.mxd
Figure 5
12/12/2016
0 3,0001,500
Feet
Temple City Boundary - 2,570 AC
Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5 AC
Areas Subject to Land Use Change
Storm Drain (LACFCD)EATON WASHARCADIA WASHRIO HONDO CHANNELB4 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
C1 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
C10 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
C9 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
B6 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
"C" Model Findings - 2008
Drainage Master Plan
"B" Model Findings - 2008
Drainage Master Plan
City of Temple City
Temple City Existing Storm Drain Deficiencies
X:\Projects\511\17\MXD\TempleCity_Exhibits_160622\5_TempleCity_Existing_SD_Deficiencies_160523.mxd
Figure 5
12/12/2016
0 3,0001,500
Feet
Temple City Boundary - 2,570 AC
Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5 AC
Areas Subject to Land Use Change
Storm Drain (LACFCD)EATON WASHARCADIA WASHRIO HONDO CHANNELB4 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
C1 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
C10 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
C9 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
B6 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
"C" Model Findings - 2008
Drainage Master Plan
"B" Model Findings - 2008
Drainage Master Plan
City of Temple City
Temple City Existing Storm Drain Deficiencies
X:\Projects\511\17\MXD\TempleCity_Exhibits_160622\5_TempleCity_Existing_SD_Deficiencies_160523.mxd
Figure 5
12/12/2016
0 3,0001,500
Feet
Temple City Boundary - 2,570 AC
Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5 AC
Areas Subject to Land Use Change
Storm Drain (LACFCD)EATON WASHARCADIA WASHRIO HONDO CHANNELB4 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
C1 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
C10 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
C9 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
B6 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
"C" Model Findings - 2008
Drainage Master Plan
"B" Model Findings - 2008
Drainage Master Plan
City of Temple City
Temple City Existing Storm Drain Deficiencies
X:\Projects\511\17\MXD\TempleCity_Exhibits_160622\5_TempleCity_Existing_SD_Deficiencies_160523.mxd
Figure 5
12/12/2016
0 3,0001,500
Feet
Temple City Boundary - 2,570 AC
Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5 AC
Areas Subject to Land Use Change
Storm Drain (LACFCD)EATON WASHARCADIA WASHRIO HONDO CHANNELB4 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
C1 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
C10 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
C9 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
B6 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
"C" Model Findings - 2008
Drainage Master Plan
"B" Model Findings - 2008
Drainage Master PlanCity of Temple City
Temple City Existing Storm Drain Deficiencies
X:\Projects\511\17\MXD\TempleCity_Exhibits_160622\5_TempleCity_Existing_SD_Deficiencies_160523.mxd
Figure 5
12/12/2016
0 3,0001,500
Feet
Temple City Boundary - 2,570 AC
Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5 AC
Areas Subject to Land Use Change
Storm Drain (LACFCD)EATON WASHARCADIA WASHRIO HONDO CHANNELB4 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
C1 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
C10 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
C9 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
B6 Model ID - Limited Capacity
(2008 Drainage Master Plan)
"C" Model Findings - 2008
Drainage Master Plan
"B" Model Findings - 2008
Drainage Master PlanStorm Drain (LACFCD)“B” Model Findings - 2008
Drainage Master Plan
“C” Model Findings - 2008
Drainage Master Plan
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Base Map Source: Fuscoe Engineering, 2016
5. Environmental Analysis
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Page 5.7-14 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.7-15
Surface Water Quality
Plan Area
Reach 2 of the Rio Hondo Channel – that is, from Interstate 5 to spreading grounds in the City of Pico
Rivera – is listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments for coliform
bacteria and cyanide. A TMDL for coliform bacteria was scheduled for completion in 2009, and a TMDL for
cyanide is scheduled for completion in 2021. Reach 1 of the Rio Hondo Channel – from Interstate 5 south to
its confluence with the Los Angeles River – is listed for coliform bacteria, copper, lead, pH, toxicity, trash,
and zinc. TMDLs for copper, lead, pH, trash, and zinc were approved between 2005 and 2008. A TMDL for
coliform bacteria is scheduled for completion in 2019, and a TMDL for toxicity is scheduled for completion
in 2021 (SWRCB 2016).
Specific Plan Area
The foregoing description also applies to the Specific Plan Area.
Groundwater
Plan Area
The Plan Area overlies part of the Main San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin, which underlies
approximately 255 square miles of the San Gabriel Valley (see Figure 5.7-4, Main San Gabriel Valley
Groundwater Basin). Depth to groundwater under the Plan Area in July 2014 was approximately 425 feet below
ground surface (bgs) under the north Plan Area boundary, and approximately 140 feet bgs under the south
Plan Area boundary (MSGBW 2015).
Specific Plan Area
The foregoing description also applies to the Specific Plan Area.
Groundwater Quality
Plan Area
Approximately 65 acres in the southwestern portion of the Plan Area, mainly between Temple City
Boulevard on the east and Encinita Avenue on the west, is in the El Monte Superfund Site. Approximately 18
acres of the Specific Plan Area portion of the Plan Area, west of Rosemead Boulevard and mostly south of
Las Tunas Drive, is above the Area 3 Superfund Site. The two Superfund sites underlying parts of the Plan
Area are shown in Figure 5.6-1, Hazardous Materials Sites Map.
Area 3 Superfund Site
The Area 3 Superfund Site, encompassing 19 square miles in the western San Gabriel Valley and underlying
portions of six cities including Temple City, is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
perchlorate. EPA is currently working on a supplemental Remedial Investigation and a Feasibility Study of
regional groundwater contamination in Area 3 to identify and evaluate cleanup options
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Page 5.7-16 PlaceWorks
El Monte Superfund Site
The El Monte Superfund Site, spanning 10 square miles of the Main San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin
under portions of the cities of El Monte, South El Monte, Rosemead, and Temple City, is contaminated with
VOCs, including perchloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), perchlorate, n-nitrosodimethylamine
(NDMA), and 1,4-dioxane. Construction of cleanup systems for VOCs was ongoing in 2013 (USEPA 2013).
Specific Plan Area
The foregoing description also applies to the Specific Plan Area.
Local Groundwater Quality Concerns
Plan Area
The GeoTracker database maintained by SWRCB lists 20 hazardous materials release sites affecting
groundwater in the Plan Area, and a one-mile-wide buffer surrounding the Plan Area, which are open cases
under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB. Three of the sites – one within the Specific Plan Area of
the Plan Area and the other two in the balance of the search area – are leaking underground storage tank
sites; the other 17 cases – five in the Specific Plan Area and the remaining 12 in the balance of the search area
- are Cleanup Program sites. The sites are described in Table 5.6-2, GeoTracker and EnviroStor: Open Cases in the
Search Area, in Section 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this DEIR.
Specific Plan Area
The foregoing description also applies to the Specific Plan Area.
Flood Hazards
Dam Inundation Areas
Plan Area
The portion of the Plan Area east of Arcadia Wash is in the dam inundation area of Big Santa Anita Dam,
which is located on the Santa Anita Wash approximately five miles north of the Plan Area (OES 2016). The
Big Santa Anita Dam, a concrete-arch dam completed in 1927, is 225 feet high and 612 feet long, and is
owned and operated by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (DPW). A Santa Anita
Stormwater Flood Management and Seismic Strengthening Project is underway by DPW; seismic
strengthening of the dam is scheduled to begin in Fall 2017 (DPW 2016). In addition, the dam is inspected
periodically by the California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams.
Specific Plan Area
The Specific Plan Area is outside the aforementioned dam inundation area.
PlaceWorks
Base Map Source: ESRI, USGS, NOAA, 2017
Figure 5.7-4 - Main San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
0
Scale (Miles)
5
5
10
210
605
60
210
605
60
10
5
2
134
71
57
Main San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Page 5.7-18 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.7-19
5.7.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
HYD-1 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
HYD-2 Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted.
HYD-3 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
HYD-4 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site.
HYD-5 Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
HYD-6 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
HYD-7 Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.
HYD-8 Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows.
HYD-9 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
HYD-10 Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds
would be less than significant:
Threshold HYD-3
Threshold HYD-4
Threshold HYD-7
Threshold HYD-8
Threshold HYD-10
These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Page 5.7-20 PlaceWorks
5.7.3 Relevant General Plan Policies
The following are relevant policies of the Mid-Century Plan Community Services and Hazards Elements,
which are designed to reduce potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality from implementation
of the Proposed Project.
Community Services Element
CS 13.1: Adequate Storm Drainage Infrastructure. Ensure that the City’s storm drainage systems are
adequately sized, maintained, and upgraded to adequately convey stormwater runoff in an
environmentally sustainable method and prevent flooding for existing and new development.
CS 13.2: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. Require new
development and redevelopment to minimize stormwater runoff and pollutants consistent with Temple
City’s NPDES Permit.
CS 13.3: Illegal Connections. Continue to enforce the prohibition of illegal connections and discharges
into the storm drain system.
CS 13.4: Public Outreach. Develop educational awareness information on the impact of downstream
stormwater pollution, stormwater pollution prevention, and water quality educational programs.
Hazards Element
H 2.1: Flood Hazard Zones. Require new development and substantial renovations located in the Santa
Fe Dam and Reservoir flood inundation area, displayed in Figure 7-1 Flood Hazards to be constructed in
accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations including compliance with the minimum
standards of FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Act to avoid or minimize the risk of flood damage and
to protect life and property.
H 2.2: City Storm Drains. Ensure that City-owned storm drains are designed, constructed, operated,
and maintained per Los Angeles County Public Works’ (LADPW) standards to allow for maximum
capacity of the system.
H 2.3: Sustainable Flood Control Practices. Work with LADPW in incorporating improvements in
Eaton Wash and Arcadia Wash that provide opportunities for stormwater detention and groundwater
recharge when major upgrades and/or reconstruction may be required, when feasible.
H 2.4: Agency Coordination. Establish cooperative working relationships among local, regional, state,
and federal agencies with responsibility for flood protection to minimize flood hazards and improve
safety.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.7-21
H 2.6: On-Site Stormwater. Promote the on-site capture, storage, and use of stormwater to reduce
runoff into the Eaton Wash and Arcadia Wash.
H 2.7: Green Streets. Increase the permeability of the City’s roadways by incorporating landscaping,
bioswales, to divert stormwater from the sewer system and filter and reduce the amount of polluted
water entering downstream waterbodies.
5.7.4 Environmental Impacts
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 5.7-1: Development pursuant to the Proposed Project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces in certain areas of the Plan Area and would therefore, increase surface water flows into drainage systems within the watershed. [Thresholds HYD-4 and HYD-5 (part)]
Impact Analysis: Following is a discussion of the potential drainage impacts as a result of development that
would be accommodated under each component of the Proposed Project.
Mid-Century Plan
Based on the relatively high, existing impervious conditions of the Plan Area (which includes the Specific
Plan Area) and development that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan (which includes
development under the Crossroads Specific Plan), which generally would have proportional impervious areas
equal to existing conditions, runoff resulting from future development under the Mid-Century Plan is not
anticipated to increase over existing conditions. The majority of the existing storm drain system serving the
Plan Area is adequately sized to accommodate the existing- and proposed-condition runoff. The 2008
Drainage Master Plan recommended five Los Angeles County storm drain improvements, which are listed in
Table 5.7-1, Existing Storm Drain Deficiencies (2008 Temple City Final Drainage Master Plan), and mapped
in Figure 5.7-3, Storm Drain Deficiencies. Implementation of improvements to the Los Angeles County storm
drain deficiencies would occur as funding becomes available. These deficiencies do not pose immediate risk
to the Plan Area as impacts to the system will be controlled by “allowable peak flow discharges” issued by the
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (DPW) for each individual development project. These
allowable discharges would result in a reduction of peak flow discharges as compared to existing conditions
(Fuscoe 2017).
In addition to the recommendations from the 2008 Drainage Master Plan to eliminate any concerns regarding
storm drain deficiencies with associated land use changes of the Mid-Century Plan, the following existing and
established requirements under LA County Department of Public Works are applicable to individual
development projects that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan:
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Page 5.7-22 PlaceWorks
Individual development projects would require that site-specific hydrology and hydraulic studies be
conducted of the onsite and immediate offsite storm drain systems to determine capacity and integrity of
the existing systems prior to approval by Temple City and DPW.
Conformance with site specific “allowable discharge rates” as identified by DPW, which limits peak flow
discharges as compared to existing conditions based on regional flood control constraints. Individual
development projects accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan that connects to a Los Angeles County
storm drain line will have to request the “allowable discharge rate” from DPW if there is potential impact
to the storm drain line.
Incorporation of LID BMPs within individual development projects would be required to provide water
quality treatment and runoff reduction and/or detention in accordance with local stormwater permit
requirements. Implementation of LID BMPs would also serve to minimize increase in runoff and would
reduce runoff as compared to existing conditions.
Furthermore, individual development projects would be required to adhere to the provisions of the City’s
requirements for permeable areas and landscaping in developed land uses, as set forth in Title 9, Chapter 1
(Zoning Code) of the Temple City Municipal Code. The City’s TGD would also apply to certain types of
projects disturbing 500 or more but less than 5,000 or 10,000 square feet of soil, depending on the type of
project. The TGD sets forth design criteria for several LID measures including flow-through planter boxes,
vegetated swales, rain gardens, Hollywood driveways, and “bottomless trenches”.
Finally, the Mid-Century Plan contains policies designed to minimize impacts on storm drain systems. The
detailed list of applicable policies is provided in Section 5.15.3.3, Relevant General Plan Policies, above.
Therefore, development that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan would not substantially alter
the existing drainage pattern of the Plan Area or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff
in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site, nor would it create or contribute r unoff water that
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Deficiency ID No. B4 of the 2008 Master Drainage Plan, which is listed in Table 5.7-1, Existing Storm Drain
Deficiencies (2008 Temple City Final Drainage Master Plan), extends in part along the northern Specific Plan Area
boundary (see Figure 5.7-3, Storm Drain Deficiencies). As with development that would be accommodated by
the Mid-Century Plan, runoff resulting from future development under the Crossroads Specific Plan is not
anticipated to increase over existing conditions. Additionally, all additional requirements applicable to the Plan
Area would also apply to the Specific Plan Area. Regarding allowable discharge rates, for the Specific Plan
Area, DPW has assigned two separate “Q-allowable” discharge limits. The majority of the Specific Plan Area
south of Las Tunas Drive along the Rosemead Boulevard corridor is allowed to discharge no more than 1.48
cubic foot per second per acre (cfs/acre), which is less than existing conditions. Therefore, when individual
development projects under the Crossroads Specific Plan come on board, they will be required to provide
onsite retention/detention to meet the allowed rates. The other area north of Las Tunas Drive has a slightly
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.7-23
higher Q-allowable rate (2.46 cfs/acre), which will still result in a slight reduction of proposed discharges as
compared to existing discharges. Q-allowable discharges within the Specific Plan Area were provided by
DPW.
In addition to the recommendations from the 2008 Drainage Master Plan, to eliminate any concerns
regarding storm drain deficiencies with associated land use changes of the Crossroads Specific Plan, the
existing and established requirements under LA County Department of Public Works (listed in detail above)
are applicable to individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Crossroads Specific
Plan: requirement for site specific hydrology and hydraulic studies to be conducted, conformance with site
specific “allowable discharge rates” as identified by DPW, and incorporation of LID BMPs within individual
development projects.
Furthermore, individual development projects would be required to adhere to the provisions of the City’s
requirements for permeable areas and landscaping in developed land uses, as set forth in Chapter 1 (Zoning
Code) of the Temple City Municipal Code. The City’s TGD would also apply to certain types of projects
disturbing 500 or more but less than 5,000 or 10,000 square feet of soil, depending on the type of project.
The TGD sets forth design criteria for several LID measures including flow-through planter boxes, vegetated
swales, rain gardens, Hollywood driveways, and “bottomless trenches”.
Therefore, development that would be accommodated by the Crossroads Specific Plan would not
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Specific Plan Area or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site, nor would it create or
contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems.
Impact 5.7-2: Development pursuant to the Proposed Project would increase the amount of impervious
surfaces in certain areas of the Plan Area and could therefore impact opportunities for groundwater recharge. [Threshold HYD-2]
Impact Analysis: Following is a discussion of the potential groundwater impacts as a result of development
that would be accommodated under each component of the Proposed Project.
Mid-Century Plan
A total of 33 production wells serving the Plan Area are located in the Main San Gabriel Basin and Raymond
Basin. All four local water purveyors operate wells within the Main San Gabriel Basin utilizing approximately
9 percent of the annual production volume. Three local purveyors also have wells in the Raymond Basin
including Sunny Slope Water Company, California American and East Pasadena Water , which utilizes
approximately 10 percent of the annual ground water production volume in the Raymond Basin.
There is one existing San Gabriel Basin groundwater recharge area in the Plan Area, which is next to the east
side of Eaton Wash between Huntington Drive and Duarte Road. This recharge area is designated as Flood
Control Channel & Open Space in the current Temple City General Plan land use diagram (see Figure 4-2,
Current General Plan Land Use Diagram), and would be designated Flood Control/Wash in the Mid-Century
Plan land use diagram (see Figure 3-4, Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram). The proposed land use
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Page 5.7-24 PlaceWorks
designation would ensure that the Flood Control Channel and associated groundwater recharge area will
remain in their existing condition and continue to be used for regional drainage and groundwater recharge
purposes. Additionally, development throughout the remainder of the Plan Area would have a minimal effect
on usable groundwater reserves because the Plan Area is largely developed (see Figure 3-2, Aerial Photograph)
and is not used for groundwater recharge.
Other groundwater recharge facilities outside of the Plan Area would also not be impacted due to
implementation of the Mid-Century Plan as the groundwater basins serving the Plan Area are intensively
managed by the Watermaster and Raymond Basin Management Board. Groundwater recharge at these
facilities also occurs quite a way from the Plan Area.
Furthermore, the Plan Area is entirely built out and is mostly impervious. During storm events in existing
conditions, most runoff does not infiltrate and recharge groundwater. Under the proposed condition, the
combination of enhanced landscaping, self-treating areas for water quality treatment and permeable
pavements for infiltration are some examples of features that are required with new developments that would
inevitably increase perviousness compared to existing conditions. Also, onsite storm drainage systems would
be upgraded to include water quality LID features, which would likely increase infiltration compared to
existing conditions.
Therefore, interference or a reduction of groundwater recharge and associated impacts are not anticipated
due to implementation of the Mid-Century Plan.
Crossroads Specific Plan
The preceding analysis applies to the Crossroads Specific Plan.
Impact 5.7-3: During the construction phase of development projects that would be accommodated by the Proposed Project, there is the potential for short-term unquantifiable increases in pollutant
concentrations from a development site. After project development, the quality of storm runoff (sediment, nutrients, metals, pesticides, pathogens, and hydrocarbons) may be
altered. [Thresholds HYD-1, HYD-6, and HYD-5 (part)]
Impact Analysis: Impacts to water quality generally range over three different phases of a development
project:
During the earthwork and construction phase, when the potential for erosion, siltation, and
sedimentation would be the greatest.
Following construction and before the establishment of ground cover, when the erosion potential may
remain relatively high.
Following project completion, when impacts related to sedimentation would decrease markedly, but those
associated with urban runoff (stormwater and non‐stormwater) would increase.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.7-25
Development that would be accommodated by the Proposed Project may cause deterioration of water quality
of downstream receiving waters if construction- and operation-related sediment or pollutants wash into the
storm drain system and facilities, which eventually drain into receiving waters.
Following is a discussion of the potential water quality impacts as a result of development (under both
construction and operational phases) that would be accommodated under each component of the Proposed
Project.
Mid-Century Plan
Construction Phase
Construction-related runoff pollutants are typically generated from waste and hazardous materials handling
or storage areas; outdoor work areas; material storage areas; and general maintenance areas (e.g., vehicle or
equipment fueling and maintenance, including washing). Runoff during the construction-phase of individual
development projects may cause deterioration of water quality of downstream receiving waters if
construction-related sediment or pollutants wash into the storm drain system and facilities. Construction
activities could result in the generation of bacteria, metals, nutrients, oil and grease, organics, pesticides,
sediment, trash, and oxygen demanding substances.
Clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities could also impact water quality of downstream
receiving waters due to sheet erosion of exposed soils and subsequent deposit of particulates in local
drainages. Grading activities in particular lead to exposed areas of loose soil and sediment stockpiles that are
susceptible to uncontrolled sheet flow. Although erosion occurs naturally in the environment, primarily from
weathering by water and wind, improperly managed construction activities can substantially accelerate
erosion. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, applicants of individual development projects of one acre
or greater of soil disturbance are required to comply with the most current GCP and associated local NPDES
regulations to ensure that the potential for soil erosion is minimized on a project-by-project basis. In
accordance with the GCP, the following Permit Registration Documents are required to be submitted by
project applicants to SWRCB prior to commencement of construction activities:
Notice of Intent
Risk Assessment (standard or site specific)
Particle Size Analysis (if site-specific risk assessment is performed)
Site Map
SWPPP
Active Treatment System Design Documentation (if determined necessary)
Annual Fee and Certification
The GCP uses a risk-based approach for controlling erosion and sediment discharges from construction sites,
since the rates of erosion and sedimentation can vary from site to site depending on factors such as duration
of construction activities, climate, topography, soil condition, and proximity to receiving water bodies. The
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Page 5.7-26 PlaceWorks
GCP identifies three levels of risk with differing requirements, designated as Risk Levels 1, 2 and 3, with Risk
Level 1 having the fewest permit requirements and Risk Level 3 having the most-stringent requirements.
Requirements for sediment control for each of the three risk levels are described in the Infrastructure
Technical Report prepared for the Proposed Project (see Appendix E). The Temple City Municipal Code
requires standard erosion control practices to be implemented for all construction within the City.
Additionally, in accordance with the GCP, a construction SWPPP must be prepared and implemented at all
construction sites disturbing one acre or more of soil and revised as necessary as administrative or physical
conditions change. The SWPPP must be made available for review upon request, describe construction BMPs
that address pollutant source reduction, and provide measures/controls necessary to mitigate potential
pollutant sources. These include, but are not limited to: erosion controls, sediment controls, tracking controls,
non-storm water management, materials and waste management, and good housekeeping practices, which are
briefly discussed below.
Erosion controls cover and/or bind soil surface, to prevent soil particles from being detached and
transported by water or wind; examples include mulch, geotextiles, mats, hydroseeding, earth dikes, and
swales.
Sediment controls filter out soil particles that have been detached and transported in water; examples
include barriers such as straw bales, sandbags, fiber rolls, and gravel bag berms; desilting basins; and
cleaning measures such as street sweeping.
Tracking controls minimize the tracking of soil offsite by vehicles; examples include stabilized
construction roadways and construction entrances/exits, and entrance/outlet tire washes.
Non-Storm Water Management Controls prohibit discharge of materials other than stormwater, such
as discharges from the cleaning, maintenance, and fueling of vehicles and equipment. Examples include
BMPs for specifying methods for: paving and grinding operations; cleaning, fueling, and maintenance of
vehicles and equipment; and concrete curing and finishing.
Waste Management and Controls include spill prevention and control, stockpile management, and
management of solid wastes and hazardous wastes (CASQA 2003).
Prior to commencement of construction activities by development projects under the Mid-Century Plan, a
project-specific SWPPP(s) will be prepared in accordance with the site-specific sediment risk analyses based
on the grading plans, with erosion and sediment controls proposed for each phase of construction. The
phases of construction will define the maximum amount of soil disturbed, the appropriate sized sediment
basins, and other control measures to accommodate all active soil disturbance areas and the appropriate
monitoring and sampling plans.
SWPPPs require development projects to plan BMPs for four general phases of construction:
grading and land development (that is, mass grading & rough grading)
utility and road installation
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.7-27
finish grading and building construction
final stabilization and landscaping
Therefore, BMP implementation for new construction activities under the Mid-Century Plan can be evaluated
in this general context. Site-specific details on individual BMPs would be dependent on the scope and breadth
of each development project, which are not known at this time.
With compliance of the most current GCP and associated local NPDES regulations, water quality and waste-
discharge impacts from project-related grading and construction activities are not anticipated to occur.
Post-Construction Phase
Mid-Century Plan buildout may result in long-term impacts to the quality of storm water and urban runoff,
subsequently impacting water quality of downstream receiving waters. Buildout can potentially create new
sources for runoff contamination through changing land uses. Thus, Mid-Century Plan implementation could
increase the post-construction pollutant loadings of certain constituent pollutants associated with the
proposed land uses and their associated features. Some common pollutants associated with development that
would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan include bacteria/pathogens, metals, nutrients, oil/grease,
sediment, organic compounds, trash/debris, oxygen demanding substances and pesticides.
To help prevent long-term impacts associated with land use changes and in accordance with the requirements
of the County of Los Angeles and its MS4 permit (Order No. R4-2012-0175), new development and
significant redevelopment projects must incorporate LID/site design and source control BMPs to address
post-construction storm water runoff management. In addition, projects that are identified as Designated
Projects are required to implement site design/LID and source control BMPs applicable to their specific
priority project categories, as well as implement treatment control BMPs where necessary. Designated
projects include new industrial or commercial developments 10,000 square feet or more; restaurants, gas
stations, or parking lots 5,000 square feet or more; and projects creating or replacing 5,000 square feet or
more of impervious surfaces. Selection of LID and additional treatment control BMPs is based on the
pollutants of concern for the specific project site and the BMP’s ability to effectively treat those pollutants, in
consideration of site conditions and constraints. Further, projects must develop project-specific LID Design
Plans that describe the menu of BMPs chosen for the project, and include operation and maintenance
requirements for all structural and any treatment control BMPs.
Since the Mid-Century Plan does not include a specific or detailed development plan, project-specific LID
Design Plans have not yet been developed for such projects. Future project-specific reports, preliminary
and/or final, will be prepared consistent with the prevailing terms and conditions of the LID Standards
Manual at the time of project application (the current LID Standards Manual was issued in 2014). Moreover,
LID and water quality treatment solutions prescribed in project-specific reports will be designed to support
or enhance the regional BMPs and efforts implemented by Temple City as part of their City-wide efforts to
improve water quality.
Consistent with regulatory requirements and design guidelines for water quality protection, the following
principles shall be followed by projects in accordance with the Mid-Century Plan and would be supported by
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Page 5.7-28 PlaceWorks
construction level documents in the final LID Design Plans prior to grading permit(s) issuance by Temple
City:
Where required, LID features would be sized for water quality treatment according to local Regional
Board sizing criteria as defined in the 2012 MS4 Permit for either flow-based or volume-based BMPs.
There must be a significant effort to integrate LID techniques within the internal development areas (site
design objectives), thereby providing treatment of low-flow runoff on the affected project sites and
reduction of small storm event runoff. In most instances, LID features would be sized by volume-based
analyses to demonstrate compliance with the required design capture volume for the project, which is
runoff from a storm yielding one inch of rainfall in 24 hours.
Detailed field investigations, drainage calculations, grading, and BMP sizing shall occur during the
detailed design phase and future project-specific LID Design Plan documentation.
Where feasible, LID features will be designed to infiltrate and/or reuse treated runoff on-site in
accordance with feasibility criteria defined in the 2014 LID Standards Manual.
For those areas of the project where infiltration is not recommended or acceptable and harvest/reuse
landscaping demands are insufficient, biotreatment LID features would be designed to treat runoff and
discharge controlled effluent flows to downstream receiving waters.
Unlike flood control measures that are designed to handle peak storm flows, LID BMPs and treatment
control BMPs are designed to retain, filter or treat more frequent, low-flow (or “first-flush”) runoff. In
accordance with the MS4 Permit for the County of Los Angeles, the LID BMPs are required to be sized and
designed to ensure onsite retention of the volume of runoff produced from a 24-hour 85th percentile storm
event, as determined from the 85th Percentile Precipitation Map in the Los Angeles County’ Hydrology
Manual. This is termed the “design capture volume”, or DCV. The 85th Percentile storm for Temple City
yields one inch of rainfall. The County’s LID Standards Manual provides design criteria, hydrologic methods
and calculations for combining use of infiltration, retention, and biofiltration BMPs to meet on-site volume
retention requirements.
Within the Plan Area, there are opportunities for LID features within mixed-use land uses (which would
occur mainly within the Specific Plan Area). Mixed-use projects tend to be higher density with limited surface
parking and often include parking structures that may include subterranean parking facilities. Although these
are considered limitations, LID measures can be integrated within the common areas, landscape perimeters
and subterranean locations. Following the prescribed LID hierarchy, in certain areas of the Plan Area,
infiltration may be feasible depending on site-specific geologic characteristics. If infiltration proves to be
infeasible, harvest and use cisterns could be implemented to capture rain water and reuse for landscaping and
internal building demands (toilet flushing and laundry services). With this option, recent technology has
increased the viability of gray water systems which collect shower and sink water and then treat and disinfect
to reusable standards for internal or external reuse.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.7-29
Additionally, g ray water systems can be combined with storm water harvest and reuse systems to provide
sustainable solutions to reducing potable water usage by reusing water more than once. Lastly, incorporating
storm water treatment within the proposed landscaping (i.e. biofiltration flow through planter) is potentially
feasible based upon the proposed grading. In addition, proprietary biotreatment BMPs designed at the
allowable flow-through rates may be suitable for certain projects or specific locations within projects. In
addition, parkway planters may be used within the public right of way for those streets that may be
redesigned.
Furthermore, as part of the state-wide mandate to reduce trash within receiving waters, Temple City is
required to adhere to the requirements of the amended California Trash Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
effective July 2016. The requirements include the installation and maintenance of trash screening devices at
all public curb inlets, grate inlets and catch basin inlets based on specific land uses and “hot spot” criteria
defined in the TMDL. The trash screening devices must be approved by the local agency and consistent with
the minimum standards of the TMDL. The trash screening device retrofit project will be implemented
through the City’s stormwater program.
Based on the preceding, long-term surface water quality of runoff from the Plan Area would be expected to
improve over existing conditions as more LID BMPs are implemented throughout the Plan Area. This is
considered an overall beneficial effect of the Mid-Century Pan and no significant adverse water quality
impacts are anticipated to occur.
Crossroads Specific Plan
The preceding analysis applies to the Crossroads Specific Plan.
Impact 5.7-4: A portion of the Plan Area is within the inundation area of the Big Santa Anita Dam. [Threshold HYD-9]
Impact Analysis: Loss of life and damage to structures, roads, and utilities may result from a dam or
reservoir failure. The dam in the region that could pose a risk for future residents and employees of the Plan
Area is the Big Santa Anita Dam. Areas downstream from this dam have high potential for inundation in the
unlikely event of catastrophic dam failure. Following is a discussion of the flooding impacts that could occur
as a result of development that would be accommodated under each component of the Proposed Project
Mid-Century Plan
The part of the Mid-Century Plan Area east of Arcadia Wash is within the inundation area of the Big Santa
Anita Dam, which is on Santa Anita Wash approximately five miles north of the Plan Area (OES 2016).
Therefore, this portion of the Plan Area could face the danger of inundation if this dam failed with heavy
rainfall, for engineering/design reasons, or as a result of a catastrophic event (e.g., large earthquake).
Big Santa Anita Dam is owned and operated by DPW; the dam was constructed for the primary purpose of
providing protection from floods for the metropolitan areas in Los Angeles County. Given seismic safety
requirements for dams (e.g., design, frequent inspections, and monitoring) outlined in the California State
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Page 5.7-30 PlaceWorks
Water Code, the minimum amount of water that is commonly behind the dam (the dam does not impound a
full reservoir most of the time), and the capacity of channels below the dam, dam failure is very unlikely. The
inundation areas for the Big Santa Anita Dam also reflect events of an extremely remote nature.
Additionally, a Santa Anita Stormwater Flood Management and Seismic Strengthening Project is underway by
DPW; seismic strengthening of the dam is scheduled to begin in Fall 2017 (DPW 2016). Furthermore,
because dam failure can have severe consequences, the Federal Emergency Management Agency requires that
all dam owners develop emergency action plans for warning, evacuation, and postflood actions. The
responsibility for facilitation of emergency response is also the responsibility of the owner. As part of their
dam safety program, DPW conducts routine inspections and operation of the dam and has developed an
emergency action plan for Big Santa Anita Dam in coordination with local emergency management officials.
Finally, in the unlikely event of a Big Santa Anita Dam failure, DPW will contact a number of agencies that
would assist with dam failure response efforts, including the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department,
Emergency Preparedness and Response Division (a division of the Los Angeles County Department of
Public Health), and Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, Sacramento. Once contacted, these agencies
notify all pertinent federal, state, county, and local agencies through the state’s National Warning System and
all applicable Los Angeles County communications systems.
Based on the preceding, development that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan would not
expose people or structures to significant impacts involving flooding as a result of a failure of a dam.
Crossroads Specific Plan
The Specific Plan Area is outside of the aforementioned dam inundation area; therefore, no impact would
occur.
5.7.5 Existing Regulations
Federal
United States Code, Title 33, Sections 1251 et seq.: Clean Water Act
United States Code Title 42, Sections 300f et seq.: Safe Drinking Water Act
Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Parts 122 et seq.: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)
State
California Water Code Sections 13000 et seq.: Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ, Statewide General Construction Permit, State Water Resources Control
Board
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
June 2017 Page 5.7-31
Regional
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, Order No. R4-2012-0175: Municipal Stormwater
(MS4) Permit
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Low Impact Development Standards Manual
Local
City of Temple City, Low-Impact Development for Small Sites Technical Guidance Document
Chapter 1 (Zoning Code) of the Temple City Municipal Code
5.7.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon adherence to regulatory requirements, implementation of the policies contained in the Mid-Century
Plan, and compliance with the provisions of the Crossroads Specific Plan, the following impacts would be
less than significant: 5.7-1, 5.7-2, 5.7-3, and 5.7-4.
5.7.7 Mitigation Measures
No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary.
5.7.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No significant adverse impacts related to hydrology and water quality were identified
5.7.9 References
California Office of Emergency Services (OES). 2016, February 23. DVD. Dam Inundation Maps.
California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA). 2003, January. Stormwater Best Management Practice
Handbook: Construction.
Department of Public Works of Los Angeles County (DPW). 2016, June 14. Santa Anita Stormwater Flood
Management and Seismic Strengthening Project.
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/Projects/SantaAnita/index.cfm.
Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. 2017, February 8. Infrastructure Technical Report for Hydrology, Sewer, Water, and
Water Quality.
Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (MSGBW). 2015, July 1. Groundwater Contour Map for Main San
Gabriel Basin – July 2014.
http://media.wix.com/ugd/af1ff8_7d44a94512ca4640bec2094d2ccd2021.pdf.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Page 5.7-32 PlaceWorks
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2013, August 5. Impaired Water Bodies.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2013, September 11. First Five-Year Review Report for the
San Gabriel Valley Area 1 Superfund Site.
https://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/96f47aa28
570d68188257bf00001f9bf/$FILE/Final_Signed_SGV_Superfund_Area1_FYR_091113_web.pdf.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
C ITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2017 Page 5.8-1
5.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential impacts to land use
in the Plan Area and in the Specific Plan Area from implementation of the Proposed Project, which includes
the Temple City 2050 Mid-Century General Plan (Mid-Century Plan) and the proposed Temple City
Crossroads Specific Plan (Crossroads Specific Plan). The analysis in this section is based on the proposed
land use diagram, which is described in Chapter 3, Project Description, and shown in Figure 3-4, Proposed General
Plan Land Use Diagram. The compatibility of proposed land use changes with existing land uses in overall Plan
Area and its surroundings is discussed in this section. The Proposed Project is also evaluated for consistency
with the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).
Land use impacts can be either direct or indirect. Direct impacts are those that result in land use
incompatibilities, division of neighborhoods or communities, or interference with other land use plans,
including habitat or wildlife conservation plans. This section focuses on direct land use impacts. Indirect
impacts are secondary effects resulting from land use policy implementation, such as an increase in demand
for public utilities or services, or increased traffic on roadways. Indirect impacts are addressed in other
sections of this DEIR.
5.8.1 Environmental Setting
5.8.1.1 REGULATORY SETTING
State and regional laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the Proposed Project
are summarized below.
State
State Planning Law and Complete Streets Act
State planning law (California Government Code Section 65300) requires every city in California to adopt a
comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the city and of any land outside its
boundaries (sphere of influence; SOI) that—in the planning agency's judgment—bears relation to its
planning. A general plan should consist of an integrated and internally consistent set of goals and policies
that are grouped by topic into a set of elements and are guided by a citywide vision. State law requires that a
general plan address seven elements or topics (land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise,
and safety), but allows some discretion on the arrangement and content. Additionally, each of the specific and
applicable requirements in the state planning law (California Government Code § 65300) should be examined
to determine if there are environmental issues within the community that the general plan should address,
including hazards and flooding.
On September 30, 2008, Assembly Bill 1358 (AB 1358), the California Complete Streets Act, was signed into
law and became effective January 1, 2011. AB 1358 requires jurisdictions to amend their circulation elements
to plan for multimodal transportation networks.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
C ITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Page 5.8-2 PlaceWorks
The Proposed Project’s consistency with state planning law and the California Complete Streets Act is
provided in the analysis for Impact 5.8-1, below. Section 5.13, Transportation, and Traffic, provides further
information regarding the Proposed Project’s consistency with the California Complete Streets Act.
Regional
Southern California Association of Governments
Refer to Section 4.2.2, Regional Planning Considerations, of Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, for a detailed
summary of SCAG and its 2016–2040 RTP/SCS.
Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan
El Monte/San Gabriel Valley Airport is approximately 0.25 mile southeast of the Plan Area. However, the
Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan shows that the planning boundary/airport influence area for the
airport is nearly coterminous with the airport property and does not extend into the Plan Area or Specific
Plan Area (Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission 2004).
5.8.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Temple City, which spans 2,043 acres (or approximately 3.2 square miles), is a built-out city surrounded by the
City of San Gabriel to the west; Rosemead and El Monte to the south; El Monte and unincorporated Los
Angeles County to the east; and Arcadia to the north (see Figure 3-2, Citywide Aerial Photograph). Temple City’s
SOI spans 527 acres (or approximately 0.8 square mile) in areas of unincorporated Los Angeles County. The
bulk of Temple City’s SOI is north of the City in the unincorporated community of East Pasadena-East San
Gabriel. Smaller areas are located east of the City in the unincorporated community of North El Monte and
west of the southwest City boundary (see Figure 3-2).
Existing Land Uses
Plan Area
The Plan Area is a heavily urbanized, built-out portion of the San Gabriel Valley with a mixture of urban and
suburban land uses. Approximately 85 percent of the land area of the Plan Area is developed with residential
uses totaling 15,300 dwelling units. Approximately 75 percent of the nonresidential land uses in the Plan Area
are commercial, and the balance is industrial, public and education. Most the nonresidential uses in the Plan
Area are in two corridors—one east-west centered along Las Tunas Drive, and one north-south centered
along Rosemead Boulevard. Public school campuses are evenly distributed throughout Temple City. The Plan
area contains no large undeveloped or open space areas.
Table 4 -1, Existing Land Use Statistical Summary, in Chapter 4 identifies statistics for existing land uses in the
Plan Area, which are also shown in Figure 4-1, Existing Land Uses.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
June 2017 Page 5.8-3
Specific Plan Area
The Specific Plan Area spans 72.55 acres along a key corridor in the western end of the City. The Specific
Plan is centered on the intersection of Las Tunas Drive and Rosemead Boulevard and generally bounded by
Hermosa Drive to the north, Muscatel Avenue and the Eaton Wash Flood Control Channel to the west, Olive
Street and the Eaton Wash Flood Control Channel to the west and south, and Sultana Avenue to the east (see
Figure 3-3, Aerial Photograph of Specific Plan Area).
As shown in Figure 3-3, the Specific Plan Area is currently developed with a mix of commercial, general
service, office, and residential uses. As shown Table 3 -4, Land Use Projections for Specific Plan Area, there are
currently 50 dwelling units and 627,348 square feet of commercial building square footage within the
boundary of the Specific Plan Area.
Existing Surrounding Land Uses
Plan Area
Adjacent neighborhoods in the surrounding cities (i.e., Arcadia, El Monte, Rosemead, San Gabriel, and
portions of unincorporated of Los Angeles County) are generally built-out, heavily urbanized, and dominated
by residential land uses. In many cases, the community character of Temple City is seamless with that of
surrounding neighborhoods and boundaries between jurisdictions are often not obvious. A notable exception
to this is a concentration of industrial uses south of Lower Azusa Road in the City of El Monte, which are
adjacent to low-density residential uses in the Plan Area.
The San Gabriel Valley Airport is approximately 0.2 mile southeast of the southeast corner of the Plan Area.
The Rio Hondo Channel passes approximately 475 feet southeast of the southeast corner of the Plan Area.
Specific Plan Area
The Specific Plan Area is surrounded by built-out urban uses, most of which are residential; commercial and
institutional uses also surround portions of the Specific Plan Area, but to a much lesser extent. Eaton Wash
abuts the majority of the wester n boundary of the Specific Plan Area.
Adopted General Plan Land Use Designations
Plan Area
Table 4-3, Current General Plan Land Use Designations, in Chapter 4 presents a breakdown of current Temple
City General Plan land use designations in the Plan Area. As shown in the table, Temple City is currently
divided into seven land use designations, and the predominant land use designation within the City limits is
residential, comprising approximately 85 percent of the land in the City. Figure 4-2, Current General Plan Land
Use Diagram, illustrates the distribution and location of the current land use designations of the Plan Area.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
C ITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Page 5.8-4 PlaceWorks
Specific Plan Area
Approximately 94 percent of the Specific Plan Area is designated for commercial use in the current Temple
City General Plan, with the balance being designated for residential and public/semi-public uses (see Figure
4-2).
Adopted Zoning
Plan Area
The majority of the Temple City portion of the Plan Area is comprised of residential zoning designations,
including: R-1 (Single-Family Residential), R-2 (Light Multiple Residential), R-2/IC (R-2/Infill Community
Overlay District), R-3 (Heavy Multiple Residential), and RPD (Residential Planned Development).
Commercial zoning designations make up the second largest, consisting of C-2 (General Commercial) and C-
3 (Heavy Commercial)—manufacturing zoning designations consists of M-1 (Light Manufacturing) and M-2
(Heavy Manufacturing). Zoning designations related to the downtown area of the City include: DSP-CC
(DSP-City Center Commercial District), DSP-WC (DSP-Las Tunas West Commercial District), DSP-EC
(DSP-Las Tunas East Commercial District), DSP-GC (DSP-Gateway Commercial District), DSP-TC (DSP-
Temple City Blvd Commercial District), and DSP-RC (DSP-Residential-Commercial District). A very small
portion of the City zoned OS (Open Space)—other limited areas are not zoned and consist of flood control
and rail facilities.
As with Temple City, the majority of the SOI portion of the Plan Area is comprised of residential zoning
designations, including: R-1 (Single Family Residence), R-2 (Two Family Residence), R-3 (Limited Multiple
Residence), R-A (Residential Agriculture). The remaining zoning designations that make up the SOI include
A-1 (Light Agriculture), C-1: Restricted Business, and C-2 (Neighborhood Business).
Specific Plan Area
Approximately 32 percent of the Specific Plan Area is zoned for C-2 (General Commercial) and 43 percent
zoned for C-3 (Heavy Commercial), with the remaining 21 percent zoned for residential uses ranging in
density from single-family residential (R1) to duplex (R2) to multifamily residential (R3). The remaining 4
percent is not zoned and consists of the Eaton Wash Flood Control Channel.
5.8.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
LU-1 Physically divide an established community.
LU-2 Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
June 2017 Page 5.8-5
LU-3 Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds
would be less than significant:
Threshold LU-1
Threshold LU-3
These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis.
5.8.3 Relevant General Plan Policies
The following are relevant policies of the Mid-Century Plan that are designed to reduce potential impacts of
the Proposed Project related to land use. While almost all policies of the Mid-Century Plan would indirectly
impact land use in the community, the following policies directly address land use patterns and land use
compatibility.
Land Use Element
LU 1.1 Basic Growth Policy. Accommodate growth that is consistent with community values, character,
and scale and complements and enhances existing uses.
LU 1.2 Targeted Growth. Target primary growth as adaptive re-use and new construction in the
downtown Las Tunas Drive/Temple City Boulevard core, commercial centers at major arterial
intersections including properties southwest of the Las Tunas Drive/Rosemead Boulevard intersection,
and underutilized industrial properties.
LU 1.3 Development Capacity. Accommodate the type and density of land uses depicted on the Land
Use Diagram to a cumulative (existing and new) maximum of 20,523 housing units and 3,854,533 square
feet of commercial square feet.
LU 1.4 Growth and Change Evaluation. Review the General Plan’s residential, commercial, and
industrial capacities every ten years and adjust as necessary to reflect development that has occurred, its
impacts, changes in market and economic conditions, and consistency with community values.
LU 1.5 Growth Exceeding Development Capacities. Allow for development exceeding the limitations
specified by Policy 1.2 provided that their environmental impacts do not change the findings described in
the certified Mid-Century General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report
LU 1.8 Annexation. Ensure that annexations of any properties in Temple City’s Sphere of Influence
(SOI) are consistent with the goals and policies of the Mid-Century General Plan and do not adversely
affect the City’s fiscal viability, infrastructure and services, community character, or quality of life.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
C ITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Page 5.8-6 PlaceWorks
LU 2.1 Complete Community. Allow for the development of uses contributing a complete and self-
sustaining community, containing a mix of uses that minimize the need for residents to travel outside of
the City for retail goods and services, employment, entertainment, and recreation.
LU 2.2 Places to Live. Provide opportunities for a full range of housing types, densities, locations, and
affordability levels to address the community’s fair share of regional, senior, and workforce housing needs
and provide a strong customer base sustaining the economic vitality of Temple City’s commercial
businesses.
LU 2.3 Places to Shop. Provide for and encourage the development of a diversity of uses in Temple
City’s downtown core, commercial centers, and corridors to enable residents and business persons to
shop locally and reduce the need to travel to adjoining communities.
LU 2.4 Places to Work. Provide opportunities for the development of a broad range of land uses that
offer job opportunities, including knowledge-based and local serving jobs that are commensurate with
the education, skills, and occupations of Temple City residents.
LU 2.5 Places to Live and Work. Provide for the development of projects integrating housing with
commercial uses enabling residents to reduce automobile travel, air pollution, and greenhouse gas
emissions.
LU 2.6 Places that Support Resident Needs. Provide uses and services supporting the needs of
Temple City’s residents such as facilities for civic governance and administration, public safety, seniors
and youth, health facilities, and comparable activities.
LU 2.7 Places for Recreation and Celebration. Provide parks, open spaces, venues for community
events, and similar uses enabling residents to participate in healthy lifestyles and celebrate the community.
LU 2.8 Places to Enrich Personal Lives. Accommodate the development of education, religious,
libraries, arts exhibition and performance, and cultural uses that enrich the lives of Temple City’s
residents.
LU 3.1 Development Pattern and Urban Form. Maintain and enhance Temple City’s urban form with
distinct, compact, and walkable residential neighborhoods and business districts containing a diversity of
uses, densities, and physical characteristics.
LU 3.2 Complete and Livable Neighborhoods. Maintain the pattern of distinct residential
neighborhoods oriented around parks, schools, and community facilities that are connected to and
walkable from neighborhood-serving businesses.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
June 2017 Page 5.8-7
LU 3.3 Vibrant Downtown. Provide for the development of a mix of uses and activities that enhance
and build upon downtown as the pedestrian-oriented, economic, cultural, and social heart of Temple
City.
LU 3.4 Arterial Nodes. Cluster higher density, pedestrian-oriented mixed uses at key intersections, such
as Las Tunas Drive and Rosemead Boulevard, and Las Tunas Drive and Temple City Boulevard, to create
an active, vibrant, and prosperous commercial environment.
LU 4.1 Development Compatibility. Require that development is located and designed to assure
compatibility among land uses, addressing such elements as building orientation and setbacks, buffering,
visibility and privacy, automobile and truck access, impacts of noise and lighting, landscape quality, and
aesthetics.
LU 4.2 High-Impact Uses. Avoid the overconcentration of uses and facilities in any neighborhood or
district where their intensities, operations, and/or traffic would adversely impact the character, safety,
health, and/or quality of life.
LU 4.7 Development that is Compatible. Require that development demonstrates a contextual
relationship with neighboring structures and sites addressing such elements as building scale, massing,
orientation, setbacks, buffering, arrangement of shared and private open spaces, visibility, privacy,
automobile and truck access, impacts of noise and lighting, landscape quality, infrastructure, and
aesthetics.
LU 6.1 Land Use and Urban Design. Regulate the distribution of land uses and implement urban
design practices that promote and prioritize physical activity, access to healthy food, social interaction,
mental well-being, and an overall commitment to the health and wellness of Temple City residents.
LU 8.1 Equitable Distribution of Uses and Amenities. Strive to ensure that desirable uses,
neighborhood amenities, services, public facilities, and improvements are distributed equitably
throughout the City.
LU 9.8 Incompatible Uses. Prohibit the development of uses, structures, or infrastructure that are
incompatible with or physically divide residential neighborhoods.
LU 13.7 Cohesive Development. Discourage the piecemeal development of commercial sites and
corridors.
LU 14.1 Mix of Uses. Accommodate development integrating commercial and residential land uses in
mixed -use designated areas that establish places that are economically vital and pedestrian-active
contributing to resident health and community sustainability.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
C ITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Page 5.8-8 PlaceWorks
LU 14.3 Compatibility of Residential and Non-residential Uses. Require that buildings and sites
integrating residential and non-residential uses are designed to assure compatibility between uses and
public safety features, including separate accesses, fire suppression barriers, secured resident parking,
noise insulation, and other similar elements.
LU 15.1 Diversity of Uses. Provide for the continued use of properties generally south of Lower Azusa
Road for a variety of industrial, research and development, high-tech, digital, entertainment, and creative
uses that offer quality job opportunities for Temple City’s residents and revenues to the City without
compromising environmental quality.
LU 16.2 Land Use Mix. Provide for the development of retail, office, restaurant, and other commercial
uses along the street frontages, integrated with multi-family housing on abutting properties or on upper
level at key intersections designated on the Land Use Diagram, which expand the customer base for local
businesses, enable residents to live close to jobs, and create an active, walkable environment.
LU 17.1 Concentrated Development. Promote the efficient and intensified economic vitality of
commercially-developed properties in proximity to the Las Tunas Drive/Rosemead Boulevard
intersection by constructing new buildings on surface parking lots and allowing increased building density
for commercial, office, and/or multi-family housing. It may contain any single use, multiple use
distributed horizontally on the property, or multiple uses in a structure with the ground floor occupied by
retail or office uses and housing on the upper floors.
Mobility Element
M 1.1 Complete Streets. Require that the planning, design, and construction of all transportation
projects consider the needs of all modes of travel to create safe, livable, and inviting environments for
pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and public transit users of all ages and abilities.
M 1.2 Transportation System Impacts. Evaluate transportation and development projects to account
for the full benefits and impacts on all modes of transportation, not just automobiles.
M 1.3 Transportation Improvements. Require that the City consider improvements to add roadway or
intersection capacity only after evaluating improvements to other modes of travel.
M 1.4 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety. Balance the safety concerns of pedestrians and cyclists with
motor vehicles to ensure that the safety of all users of the transportation system is considered.
M 1.6 Traffic Management. Manage the construction and operations of streets, intersections, and
traffic signals so that motorists adhere to intended speeds on all City roadways and limit intrusion into
neighborhood streets.
M 1.7 System Efficiency. Prioritize traffic signal coordination and traffic signal retiming efforts to
accommodate changes in travel patterns and traffic flows to limit unnecessary delay and congestion.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
June 2017 Page 5.8-9
M 5.4 Transit Supportive Development. Encourage mixed-use development in areas with high levels
of transit accessibility.
Economic Development Element
ED 5.1 Key Infill and Opportunity Areas. Facilitate and promote economic development projects in
key infill and opportunity areas, including parcels located along Las Tunas Drive in the downtown core, at
the Las Tunas Drive/Rosemead Boulevard intersection, and in mixed-use parcels south of Gidley Street
and along the City’s southern border.
ED 5.2 Land Supply Inventory. Maintain adequate developable sites to meet projected business
opportunities and employment needs, including land to satisfy retail, office, and industrial demands.
Natural Resources Element
NR 2.1 Land Use and Urban Form. Encourage a compact, mixed-use, pedestrian and bike friendly
environment that reduces automobile use, improves air quality, and reduces the impacts of climate
change, as defined by the Land Use Element.
NR 2.2 Infill and Mixed-Use Development. Promote infill and mixed-use development in the
downtown core, along Las Tunas Drive, Temple City Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard, and south of
Lower Azusa Road along Gidley Street.
5.8.4 Environmental Impacts
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 5.8-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. [Threshold LU-2]
Impact Analysis: The Mid-Century Plan is intended to shape development within the Plan Area through
2035 and beyond. Buildout in accordance with the Mid-Century Plan would allow for up to 20,520 residential
dwelling units and approximately 3.8 million square feet of nonresidential uses (commercial, office, industrial,
and institutional). This would result in a net increase of up to 5,220 additional residential dwelling units and
just over a million square feet of nonresidential uses beyond existing conditions.
Changes in buildout capacity that would result from implementation of the Mid-Century Plan are largely due
to new and modified land use designations. The existing three residential land use categories would be
supplemented by two new mixed use designations that would allow development of housing: Mixed Use and
Mixed Use – Specific Plan (see Figure 3-4, Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram). These designations would
implement Goal LU 14 of the Mid-Century Plan, which encourages development of “well-designed and
cohesive districts and corridors containing an integrated mix of residential with commercial and/or office
uses.” Although buildout of areas designated for mixed uses would slightly alter the overall land pattern of
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
C ITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Page 5.8-10 PlaceWorks
the Plan Area, affected parcels are entirely concentrated in three locations: in the Specific Plan Area (see
discussion below); in downtown Temple City along Las Tunas Drive and Temple City Boulevard; and
between Lower Azusa Road and Eaton Wash. All three areas already function as transitions between
residential and nonresidential uses (commercial uses in the first two instances and industrial uses in the third);
therefore, the introduction of mixed uses would not represent a dramatic shift in land use pattern. Elsewhere,
proposed land use changes are minor and largely reflect existing land use patterns.
The Crossroads Specific Plan would establish a land use, development, and implementation framework to
allow for enhancement and redevelopment of the 72.55-acres covered under the Crossroads Specific Plan
(see Figure 3-3, Aerial Photograph of Specific Plan Area) in accordance with the vision, goals, and policies of the
Mid-Century Plan. As noted above, the Mid-Century Plan establishes a new land-use designation for the
Specific Plan Area, “Mixed-Use Specific Plan” (see Figure 3-4). The Crossroads Specific Plan would be
adopted by the Temple City City Council as an ordinance and function as the regulatory document serving as
the implementing zoning for the Specific Plan Area, thereby ensuring the orderly and systematic
implementation of the Mid-Century Plan. The Crossroads Specific Plan would act as a bridge between the
Mid-Century Plan and development activities that would occur throughout the Specific Plan Area.
As shown in Table 3-3, Land Use Projections for Specific Plan Area, buildout of the Specific Plan Area,
which is the reasonable buildout of the area through the year 2035, would increase the number of residential
units in the Specific Plan Area to approximately 1,887 dwelling units—roughly 1,837 more than existing
conditions. The Crossroads Specific Plan also increases potential commercial building square footage to
approximately 1,082,061 square feet–a net increase of approximately 454,713 square feet over existing
conditions. The proposed land use plan for the Specific Plan Area is shown in Figure 3-5 Specific Plan Land Use
Diagram.
The following is an analysis of the Mid-Century Plan’s and Specific Plan’s consistency with applicable state
and regional laws, regulations, plans, and guidelines adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
State Planning Law and California Complete Streets Act Consistency
Mid-Century Plan
The Mid-Century Plan is consistent with California Government Code Section 65302 as it is a general plan
update that covers the seven required elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space, Conservation,
Noise, and Safety. As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, state law does not require that the seven
mandated elements be organized in a particular fashion, and it allows for additional elements as the
jurisdiction deems necessary to address local needs and objectives. The Mid-Century Plan involves
reorganization of the current Temple City General Plan into six elements, which include and/or incorporate
six of the seven state-required General Plan elements (the Housing Element was updated by the City as part
of a previous effort), as well as an optional Economic Development element. A detailed description of the
elements of the Mid-Century Plan is provided in Section 3.3.2, Description of the Project. The proposed
elements include development goals and policies; exhibits and diagrams; and standards. The proposed land
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
June 2017 Page 5.8-11
use diagram (see Figure 3-4, Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram) and the goals and policies in the Mid-
Century Plan strive to preserve and ensure land-use compatibility throughout the Plan Area.
Various elements of the Mid-Century Plan contain policies that help the City implement AB 1358, the
California Complete Streets Act (see policies listed in Section 5.8.3, Relevant General Plan Policies, above). In
particular, Policy M 1.1 directly relates to the complete streets concept and advocates for multimodal
transportation corridors.
By implementing Complete Streets policies, the City would increase the number of trips made by alternative
modes of travel (e.g., transit, bicycling, and walking), correspondingly reducing the number of vehicle trips
and associated greenhouse gas emissions. An increase in transit trips, bicycling, and walking would thus help
the City meet the transportation needs of all residents and visitors while reducing traffic congestion and
helping meet the greenhouse gas reduction goals of AB 32, The Global Warming Solutions Act, and SB 375,
which are implemented through SCAG’s 2016–2040 RTP/SCS. Refer to Section 5.13, Transportation and Traffic,
for a detailed discussion of the Proposed Project’s consistency with AB 1358.
Each of the specific and applicable requirements in the state planning law have been examined and
considered to determine if there are environmental issues within the Plan Area that the Mid-Century Plan
should address, such as hazards and flooding. The various environmental issues associated with the Proposed
Project (air quality, hazards, flooding, traffic, etc.) are addressed in their respective elements of the Mid-
Century Plan and in their respective topical sections in Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis, of this DEIR.
Crossroads Specific Plan
The goals and policies in the Mid-Century Plan, as discussed above, would apply to the Specific Plan Area.
Furthermore, implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan would implement goals and policies related to
multimodal transportation by encouraging opportunities for complete streets-style improvements in the
Specific Plan Area. The Mobility Plan section of the Crossroads Specific Plan states that the Specific Plan
Area is intended to become a multimodal corridor that offers improved circulation and access for
“pedestrians, bicycles, transit uses, and vehicular travel.” The Specific Plan encourages improved internal
circulation, enhanced street crossings, new pedestrian amenities, new amenities such as bicycle storage and
parking, and a mix of land uses that is oriented to Metro bus routes. These provisions are aimed at
compliance with AB 1358, along with improving overall quality of life in the Specific Plan Area.
SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Consistency
A comparison of both components of the Proposed Project, the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific
Plan, with applicable goals of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS is provided in Table 5.8-1. The analysis in this table
concludes that the Proposed Project would be consistent with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. Therefore,
implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in significant land use impacts related to the 2016-
2040 RTP/SCS.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
C ITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Page 5.8-12 PlaceWorks
Table 5.8-1 Consistency with SCAG’s 2016–2040 RTP/SCS Goals
RTP/SCS Goal Project Compliance with Goal
RTP/SCS G1: Align the plan investments and
policies with improving regional economic
development and competitiveness.
Consistent:
Mid-Century Plan
Implementation of both components of the Proposed Project (Mid-Century Plan and
Crossroads Specific Plan) provides greater opportunities for economic development
in the region as a result of the commercial and mixed-use development that would be
accommodated by the Proposed Project. This is true not only for the City, but for the
greater San Gabriel Valley. The Mid-Century Plan also includes a number of policies
that are geared toward improving economic development and competitiveness—
specifically, the policies outlined in the Economic Development Element.
Crossroads Specific Plan
The above analysis applies to the Crossroads Specific Plan. Additionally, the
Crossroads Specific Plan outlines guiding principles (which are outlined in detail in
Subsection 3.3.2.2, Guiding Principles) that accompany the vision to guide future
development and improvements that would occur within the Specific Plan Area. One
of these principles (“Economic Vitality and Diversity”) supports the City’s effort in
meeting this SCAG goal. Specifically, the principle calls for the Specific Plan Area to
support a diverse and vibrant economic base to not only ensure the long-term fiscal
health and sustainability of the City, but of the greater San Gabriel Valley.
RTP/SCS G2: Maximize mobility and accessibility
for all people and goods in the region.
RTP/SCS G3: Ensure travel safety and reliability
for all people and goods in the region.
RTP/SCS G4: Preserve and ensure a sustainable
regional transportation system.
RTP/SCS G5: Maximize the productivity of our
transportation system.
Consistent:
Mid-Century Plan
Improvements to transportation networks in the Plan Area under the Mid-Century
Plan would be designed, developed, and maintained to meet the needs of local and
regional transportation and to ensure efficient mobility and accessibility. A number of
regional and local plans and programs would be used to guide development and
maintenance of transportation networks in the Plan Area, such as:
• Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program
• Caltrans Traffic Impact Studies Guidelines and Highway Capacity Manual
• SCAG’s 2016–2040 RTP/SCS
• Assembly Bill 1358 (The California Complete Streets Act)
Additionally, the City is required by the California Government Code to coordinate its
Circulation (Mobility) Element with regional transportation plans, including SCAG’s
2016–2040 RTP/SCS. The Mid-Century Plan Mobility Element is a comprehensive
transportation management strategy that addresses infrastructure capacity in the
Plan Area and contains numerous policies that provide specific guidance for
improving mobility in the Plan Area. These policies include those related to the
following topics:
• Livable streets (Policies M 1.1 through 1.8)
• Pedestrian networks (Policies M 3.1 through 3.6)
• Bicycle trail networks (Policies M 4.1 through 4.5)
• Transit supportive development patterns (Policies M 5.1 through 5.6)
• Sustainable transportation (Policies M 6.1 through 6.8)
• Transportation monitoring (Policies M 7.1 through 7.4)
• Regional connectivity (Policies M 8.1 through 8.5)
All modes of public (motorized and nonmotorized) and commercial transit throughout
the Plan Area would be required to follow safety standards established by
corresponding state, regional, and local regulatory documents, standards, and
regulations. For example, pedestrian walkways and bicycle routes must follow safety
precautions and standards established by local (e.g., City of Temple City, County of
Los Angeles) and regional (e.g., SCAG, Caltrans) agencies. Additionally, pedestrian
circulation systems are required to be designed and constructed for the use of people
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
June 2017 Page 5.8-13
Table 5.8-1 Consistency with SCAG’s 2016–2040 RTP/SCS Goals
RTP/SCS Goal Project Compliance with Goal
with disabilities, consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act and state
requirements. The City is also committed to ensuring that adequate pedestrian
circulation is provided and maintained throughout the Plan Area. Planning for
complete streets pays close attention to the needs of pedestrians in the planning of
new and redeveloped areas. Pedestrian circulation planned as an overall system is
important for assuring the safety of pedestrians and separating whenever possible
pedestrians from automobile traffic. The reduction of pedestrian/vehicle conflicts is
one of the most important goals of the complete streets concept.
The provision of safe and reliable modes of transit throughout the City would also be
ensured through the City’s development review and building plan check process.
Crossroads Specific Plan
All the aforementioned state and federal regulations, regional planning efforts, and
mobility and circulation policies in the Mid-Century Plan apply to all portions of the
Plan Area, including the Specific Plan Area.
Implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan would ensure that mobility,
accessibility, travel safety, and reliability for people and goods would be maximized.
The Crossroads Specific Plan calls for significant improvements to pedestrian
circulation and maximizes accessibility by improving internal circulation, enhancing
street crossings, and adding pedestrian amenities. The Crossroads Specific Plan also
embraces bicycle circulation and through designated pathways, amenities, and
storage allows for greater regional accessibility. By breaking up the existing “super
block”, it would improve internal street circulation and would create the opportunity for
a mix of land uses that are ideal for transit-oriented development.
All improvements to the existing traffic and transportation networks within the Specific
Plan Area must also be assessed with some level of traffic analysis (e.g., traffic
assessments, traffic impact studies) to determine how individual development
projects would impact existing multimodal traffic capacities and to determine the
needs for improving future multimodal traffic capacities. A transportation impact
analysis was prepared for the Proposed Project by Fehr & Peers and is included in its
entirety in Appendix F of this DEIR. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the analysis are provided in Section 5.13, Transportation and Traffic.
The Crossroads Specific Plan would also help ensure a sustainable transportation
system and help maximize the productivity of the transportation system. For example,
project implementation would lead to the development of an improved vehicular,
public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation system throughout the Specific Plan
Area and its surroundings. The existing and proposed improvements to nonvehicular
modes of transportation (e.g., sidewalks, bicycle facilities) would provide convenient,
efficient, and safe access to existing and future land uses, as well as to offsite
destinations. The Crossroads Specific Plan outlines bicycle parking and facility
requirements for residential and nonresidential uses.
Furthermore, the Crossroads Specific Plan recognizes the importance of pedestrian
access in encouraging transit ridership. For example, it requires construction of
enhanced pedestrian features that would encourage new transit users by providing
safe and convenient access. The Crossroads Specific Plan land use plan encourages
the development of mixed-use projects within proximity to transit stops and
encourages transit ridership by enhancing the user experience with increased access
to both residential and commercial services.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
C ITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Page 5.8-14 PlaceWorks
Table 5.8-1 Consistency with SCAG’s 2016–2040 RTP/SCS Goals
RTP/SCS Goal Project Compliance with Goal
RTP/SCS G6: Protect the environment and health
of our residents by improving air quality and
encouraging active transportation (e.g., bicycling
and walking).
Consistent:
Mid-Century Plan
The CEQA process ensures that plans at all levels of government consider all
environmental impacts. Various sections of this DEIR appropriately address the
potential environmental impacts related to implementation of the Mid-Century Plan
and outline mitigation measures and regulatory requirements to reduce any impacts,
as applicable and feasible. For example, Sections 5.2, Air Quality, and 5.5,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, address air quality, energy, and global climate impacts
that would occur as a result of implementation of the Mid-Century Plan, and apply
mitigation measures and regulatory requirements to reduce any impacts, as
applicable and feasible.
The reduction of energy use, improvement of air quality, and promotion of more
environmentally-sustainable development would be encouraged through the existing
and proposed alternative transportation modes, green design techniques for
buildings, and other energy-reducing techniques. For example, individual
development projects that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan would
be required to comply with the provisions of the 2016 Building and Energy Efficiency
Standards and the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code. Compliance with
these provisions would be ensured through the City’s development review and
building plan check process.
Project implementation would also strive to maximize the protection of the
environment and improvement of air quality by encouraging and improving the use of
the region’s public transportation system (i.e., bus, bicycle, light rail) for residents and
workers that would be generated by the Mid-Century Plan, as well as for existing
residents and workers of the Plan Area and its surroundings. As noted above under
RTP/SCS Goals G2 through G5, the Mid-Century Plan calls for the enhancement of
the existing pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit circulation system.
Crossroads Specific Plan
The aforementioned CEQA analysis in this DEIR, as well as the state energy and
building codes discussed above, are applicable to all portions of the Plan Area,
including the Specific Plan Area. Furthermore, like the Mid-Century Plan, the
Crossroads Specific Plan emphasizes the importance of active transportation and
multimodal transportation planning.
RTP/SCS G7: Actively encourage and create
incentives for energy efficiency, where possible. Consistent:
Mid-Century Plan
Through the Mid-Century Plan, the City actively encourages and creates incentives
for energy efficiency. For example, the City accomplishes this through a number of
policies outlined in the Mid-Century Plan, including but not limited to Land Use
Element Policies LU 1.2, LU 2.1, LU 2.5, LU 7.1, LU 7.2, and LU 14.1; Mobility
Element Policies M 1.1 and M 5.4; Community Services Element Policies CS 2.6, CS
11.5, CS-14.3 through CS 14.6; and Natural Resources Element Policies NR 2.1, NR
3.1 through NR 3.5, N 5.1, and N 5.2.
Crossroads Specific Plan
The above analysis applies to the Crossroads Specific Plan. Additionally, the
Crossroads Specific Plan includes policies, standards and guidelines that ensure that
development projects within the Specific Plan Area will be energy efficient. For
example, Crossroads Policy 4 requires new development to employ sustainable
building and site design practices that support pedestrian activity and
minimize water use and energy consumption.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
June 2017 Page 5.8-15
Table 5.8-1 Consistency with SCAG’s 2016–2040 RTP/SCS Goals
RTP/SCS Goal Project Compliance with Goal
Furthermore, the Crossroads Specific Plan outlines guiding principles (which are
outlined in detail in Subsection 3.2.1.2, Guiding Principles) that accompany the vision
to guide future development and improvements that would occur within the Specific
Plan Area. One of these principles (“Sustainability and Healthy Living”) supports the
City’s effort in creating incentives for energy efficiency. Specifically, the principle calls
for the Specific Plan Area to be a model of sustainable development through the
provision of buildings, landscaping, and infrastructure that are energy efficient.
RTP/SCS G8: Encourage land use and growth
patterns that facilitate transit and active
transportation.
Consistent:
Mid-Century Plan
As shown in Figure 3-4, Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram, and described in
Chapter 3, Project Description, one of the Mid-Century Plan’s overarching land use
strategies is to encourage growth through the development of mixed uses in existing
commercial corridors in order to connect residents with jobs and amenities such as
shopping, restaurants, and services. The plan aims to promote walking, bicycling,
and transit use by locating uses in proximity to each other and making the paths
between those uses more safe, convenient, and aesthetically pleasing. The Mid-
Century Plan includes numerous policies designed to achieve this outcome by
recognizing the relationship between mobility and land use patterns (see Subsection
5.8.3, above, including Policies LU 1.2, LU 2.3, LU 2.4, LU 2.5, LU 3.2, LU 3.4, LU
17.1, M 5.4, ED 5.1, ED 5.2, NR 2.1, and NR 2.2).
Crossroads Specific Plan
The proximity of existing and future housing units within the Specific Plan Area and
its surroundings to existing commercial and employment-generating uses, as well as
future commercial and employment-generating uses that would be accommodated
under the Crossroads Specific Plan, would reduce vehicle miles traveled by offering
alternate modes of traveling (e.g., walking, bicycling, public transit) throughout the
Specific Plan Area and beyond, thereby reducing air quality and traffic impacts and
greenhouse gas emissions.
Furthermore, the Crossroads Specific Plan is designed to create a sustainable
neighborhood focused on providing a blend of quality mixed-rate housing, a unique
mix of retail shops, services, restaurants, and entertainment options, as well as
ample recreation and open space areas that connect to a wide range of multi-modal
transportation opportunities. The Crossroads Specific Plan also outlines five guiding
principles (which are outlined in detail in Subsection 3.3.2.2, Guiding Principles) that
accompany the vision to guide future development and improvements that would
occur within the Specific Plan Area and support citywide efforts to increase non-
motorized transportation, promote healthy living options, and encourage social
interaction.
RTP/SCS G9: Maximize the security of regional
transportation system through improved system
monitoring, rapid recovery planning, and
coordination with other security agencies.
Not Applicable: This is not a project-specific goal and is therefore not applicable.
Source: 2016-2040 SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
C ITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Page 5.8-16 PlaceWorks
Airport Environs Land Use Plan Consistency
Mid-Century Plan
As discussed under Subsection, 5.8.1.1, Regulatory Setting, above, the Plan Area is outside of the airport
influence area for the El Monte/San Gabriel Valley Airport. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed
Project would not conflict with land use compatibility regulations related to that airport. Therefore, no land
use impacts related to El Monte/San Gabriel Valley Airport are anticipated to occur.
Crossroads Specific Plan
The Crossroads Specific Plan is a subset of the Plan Area and therefore is not in the airport influence area for
the El Monte/San Gabriel Valley Airport. As with the Mid-Century Plan, no land use impacts related to the
El Monte/San Gabriel Valley Airport are anticipated to occur from implementation of the Crossroad Specific
Plan.
5.8.5 Existing Regulations
State and Regional
State planning law (California Government Code Section 65300)
Assembly Bill 1358, the California Complete Streets Act
SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS
Local
City of Temple City Zoning Regulations, Title 9 of the City’s Municipal Code
5.8.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon adherence to regulatory requirements, implementation of the policies contained in the Mid-Century
Plan, and compliance with the provisions of the Crossroads Specific Plan, the following impacts would be
less than significant: Impact 5.8-1.
5.8.7 Mitigation Measures
No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary.
5.8.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No significant adverse impacts related to land use and planning were identified.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
June 2017 Page 5.8-17
5.8.9 References
Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission. 2004. Los Angeles County Airport Land Use
Commission Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/data/pd_alup.pdf.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016. Final 2016 RTP/SCS.
http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
C ITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Page 5.8-18 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2017 Page 5.9-1
5.9 NOISE
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for implementation
of the Proposed Project, which includes the Temple City 2050 Mid-Century General Plan Update (Mid-
Century Plan) and Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan (Crossroads Specific Plan), to result in noise impacts
in the Plan Area and Specific Plan Area. This section discusses the fundamentals of sound; examines federal,
state, and local noise guidelines, policies, and standards; reviews noise levels at existing receptor locations; and
evaluates potential noise impacts associated with the Proposed Project; and provides mitigation to reduce
noise impacts at sensitive residential locations. Th e evaluation in this section uses procedures and
methodologies as specified by the California Department of Transportation and Federal Highway
Administration.
Noise background data and modeling are included in Appendix F of this DEIR.
5.9.1 Environmental Setting
5.9.1.1 BACKGROUND
Noise Descriptors
Noise is most often defined as sounds that are loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.
Excessive noise is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep
interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the
federal government, state, and cities have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to
prevent the disruption of certain human activities. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of
noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impacts on people. People judge the
relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as “noisiness” or “loudness.”
The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this section:
Sound. A disturbance created by a vibrating object, which, when transmitted by pressure waves through a
medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a
microphone.
Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.
Intrusive. Noise that intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. Relative
intrusiveness depends on amplitude, duration, frequency, time of occurrence, and tonal or informational
content, as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.
Decibel (dB). A unit-less measure of sound, expressed on a logarithmic scale and with respect to a defined
reference sound pressure. The standard reference pressure is 20 micropascals.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-2 PlaceWorks
Vibration Decibel (VdB). A unit-less measure of vibration, expressed on a logarithmic scale and with
respect to a defined reference vibration velocity. In the United States, the standard reference velocity is 1
micro-inch per second (1x10-6 in/sec).
A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the
frequency response of the human ear.
Ambient Noise Level. The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level
of environmental noise at a given location.
Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq); also called the Energy-Equivalent Noise Level. The value
of an equivalent, steady sound level which, in a stated time-period (often over an hour) and at a stated
location, has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time-varying sound. Therefore, the Leq metric is a
single numerical value that represents the equivalent amount of variable sound energy received by a receptor
over the specified duration.
Statistical Sound Level (Ln). The sound level that is exceeded “n” percent of time during a given sample
period. For example, the L50 level is the statistical indicator of the time-varying noise signal that is exceeded
50 percent of the time (during each sampling period); that is, half of the sampling time, the changing noise
levels are above this value and half of the time they are below it. This is called the “median sound level.” The
L10 level, likewise, is the value that is exceeded 10 percent of the time (i.e., near the maximum) and this is
often known as the “intrusive sound level.” The L90 is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is
often considered the “effective background level” or “residual noise level.”
Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn or DNL). The energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring
during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m.
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels
occurring during a 24-hour period, with 5 dB added to the levels occurring during the period from 7:00 p.m.
to 10:00 p.m. and 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Note: For general community/environmental noise, CNEL and Ldn values rarely differ by more than 1 dB
(with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive, that is, higher than the Ldn value). As a matter of
practice, Ldn and CNEL values are interchangeable and are treated as equivalent in this assessment.
Characteristics of Sounds
When an object vibrates, it radiates part of its energy in the form of a pressure wave. Sound is that pressure
wave transmitted through the air. Technically, airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation or oscillation of air
pressure above and below atmospheric pressure that creates sound waves. Sound is described in terms of
amplitude or loudness, frequency or pitch, and time variations or duration.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
June 2017 Page 5.9-3
Sound Amplitude
The range of pressures that causes airborne vibrations (i.e., sound) is quite large and would be cumbersome
to measure lineally. Therefore, noise is measured on a logarithmic scale, which has a more manageable range
of numbers, and a decibel (dB) is the standard unit for measuring sound pressure amplitude.1
On a logarithmic scale, an increase of 10 dB is 10 times more intense than 0 dB, 20 dB is 100 times more
intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater
than 0 dB. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity
of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dBA (very
quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Changes of 1 to 3 dB are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions, and
changes of less than 1 dB are usually not discernible (even under ideal conditions). A 3 dB change in noise
levels is considered the minimum change that is detectable by human hearing in outside environments. A
change of 5 dB is readily discernible to most people in an exterior environment, and a 10 dB change is
perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the sound. These relationships are summarized in Table 5.9-1.
Table 5.9-1 Noise Perceptibility
± 3 dB Threshold of human perceptibility
± 5 dB Clearly noticeable change in noise level
± 10 dB Half or twice as loud
± 20 dB Much quieter or louder
Source: Bies and Hansen 2009.
Sound Frequency
The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hertz (Hz) are not heard at
all, but are “felt” more as a vibration. Similarly, though people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear
sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off
rapidly above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz.
When describing sound and its effect on a human population, A-weighted (dBA) sound levels are typically
used to approximate the response of the human ear. The term "A-weighted" refers to a filtering of the noise
signal in a manner corresponding to the way the human ear perceives sound. The A-weighted noise level has
been found to correlate well with people’s judgments of the “noisiness” of different sounds and has been
used for many years as a measure of community and industrial noise.
Since most people do not routinely work with decibels or A-weighted sound levels, it is often difficult to
appreciate what a given sound pressure level number means. To help relate noise level values to common
experience, Table 5.9-2 shows typical noise levels from familiar noise sources.
1 The commonly held threshold of audibility is 20 micropascals, and the threshold of pain is around 200 million micropascals, a ratio
of one to 10 million. By converting these pressures to a logarithmic scale (i.e., decibels), the range becomes a more convenient 0 dB
to 140 dB.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-4 PlaceWorks
Table 5.9-2 Typical Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities
Onset of physical discomfort 120+
110 Rock Band (near amplification system)
Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet
100
Gas Lawn Mower at three feet
90
Diesel Truck at 50 feet, at 50 mph Food Blender at 3 feet
80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet
Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet
Commercial Area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60
Large Business Office
Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room (background)
Quiet Suburban Nighttime
30 Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background)
20
Broadcast/Recording Studio
10
Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing
Source: Caltrans 2009.
Although the A-weighted scale and the energy-equivalent metric are commonly used to quantify the range of
human response to individual events or general community sound levels, the degree of annoyance or other
response also depends on several other perceptibility factors, including:
Ambient (background) sound level
General nature of the existing conditions (e.g., quiet rural or busy urban)
Difference between the magnitude of the sound event level and the ambient condition
Duration of the sound event
Number of events and their repetitiveness
Time of day
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
June 2017 Page 5.9-5
Time Variation of Sound
Time variation in noise exposure is typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the
energy content of the time varying period (called Leq), or alternately, as a statistical description of the sound
level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. For example, the L50 noise level
represents the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time; half the time the noise level exceeds this
level and half the time the noise level is less than this level. This level is also representative of the level that is
exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L2, L8 and L25 values represent the noise levels that are
exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour, respectively. These “n” values are
typically used to demonstrate compliance for stationary noise sources with many cities’ noise ordinances.
Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the Lmin and Lmax. These values represent the minimum
and maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over the measurement period, respectively.
Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night,
state law and many local jurisdictions use an adjusted 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL) or Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn). The CNEL descriptor requires that an artificial
increment (or “penalty”) of 5 dBA be added to the actual noise level for the hours from 7:00 PM to
10:00 PM and 10 dBA for the hours from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. The Ldn descriptor uses the same
methodology except that there is no artificial increment added to the hours between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM.
Both descriptors give roughly the same 24-hour level, with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive (i.e.,
higher). The CNEL or Ldn metrics are commonly applied to the assessment of roadway and airport-related
noise sources.
Sound Propagation
Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. This phenomenon is known as
“spreading loss.” For a single-point source, sound levels decrease by approximately 6 dB for each doubling of
distance from the source (conservatively neglecting ground attenuation effects, air absorption factors, and
barrier shielding). For example, if a backhoe at 50 feet generates 84 dBA, at 100 feet the noise level would be
79 dBA, and at 200 feet it would be 73 dBA. This drop-off rate is appropriate for noise generated by onsite
operations from stationary equipment or activity at a project site. If noise is produced by a line source, such
as highway traffic, the sound decreases by 3 dB for each doubling of distance over a reflective (“hard site”)
surface such as concrete or asphalt. Line source noise in a relatively flat environment with ground-level
absorptive vegetation decreases by 4.5 dB for each doubling of distance.
Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise
Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA.
Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA
increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system.
Extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage, which is the main
driver for employee hearing protection regulations in the workplace. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA,
an unpleasant “tickling” sensation occurs in the human ear; even with short-term exposure. This level of
noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-6 PlaceWorks
the feeling of pain in the ear. This is called the threshold of pain. A sound level of 160 to 165 dBA will result
in dizziness or loss of equilibrium. In comparison, for community environments, the ambient or background
noise problem is widespread, though generally worse in urban areas than in outlying, less-developed areas.
Elevated ambient noise levels can result in noise interference (e.g., speech interruption/masking, sleep
disturbance, disturbance of concentration) and cause annoyance.
Loud noise can be annoying and it can have negative health effects (EPA, 1978). The effects of noise on
people can be listed in three general categories:
Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction.
Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, learning.
Physiological effects such as startling and hearing loss (both temporary and permanent).
In most cases, environmental noise produces effects in the first two categories only. However, unprotected
workers in some industrial work settings may experience noise effects in the last category.
5.9.1.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF VIBRATION
Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s amplitude can be described
in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration is normally associated with activities stemming
from operations of railroads or vibration-intensive stationary sources, but can also be associated with
construction equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and hydraulic hammers.
Like noise, vibration is transmitted in waves, but through the earth or solid objects. Unlike noise, vibration is
typically of a frequency that is felt, rather than heard. As with noise, vibration can be described by both its
amplitude and frequency.
Vibration Amplitude
Amplitude may be characterized in three ways: displacement, velocity, and acceleration. Vibration
displacement is the distance that a point on a surface moves away from its original static position. The
instantaneous speed that a point on a surface moves is the velocity, and the rate of change of the speed is the
acceleration. Each of these descriptors can be used to correlate vibration to human response, building
damage, and acceptable equipment vibration levels. During construction, the operation of construction
equipment can cause groundborne vibration. During the operational phase of a project, receptors may be
subject to levels of vibration that can cause annoyance due to noise generated from vibration of a structure or
items within a structure.
Vibration amplitudes are usually described in terms of either the peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root
mean square (RMS) velocity. PPV is the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal, and RMS is the
square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. PPV is more appropriate for evaluating
potential building damage, and RMS is typically more suitable for evaluating human response.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
June 2017 Page 5.9-7
The units for PPV and RMS velocity are normally inches per second (in/sec). However, vibration is often
presented and discussed in dB units in order to compress the range of numbers. In this analysis, PPV and
RMS velocities are in in/sec, and vibration levels are in dB relative to 1 micro-inch per second (abbreviated as
VdB). Typically, groundborne vibration generated by human activities attenuates rapidly with distance from
the source of the vibration. Man-made vibration problems are therefore usually confined to relatively short
distances from the source (500 to 600 feet or less).
Vibration Frequency
Vibrations also vary in frequency and this affects perception. Typical construction vibrations fall in the 10 to
30 Hz range and usually occur around 15 Hz. Traffic vibrations exhibit a similar range of frequencies;
however, due to their suspension systems, buses often generate frequencies around 3 Hz at high vehicle
speeds. It is less common, but possible, to measure traffic frequencies above 30 Hz.
Vibration Propagation
The way in which vibration is transmitted through the earth is called propagation. Propagation of
groundborne vibrations is complicated and difficult to predict because of the endless variations in the soil and
rock through which waves travel. There are three main types of vibration propagation: surface, compression
and shear waves. Surface waves, or Raleigh waves, travel along the ground’s surface. These waves carry most
of their energy along an expanding circular wave front, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a
pool of water. Compression waves, or P-waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding
spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e. in a “push-pull” fashion). P-
waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. Shear waves, or S-waves, are also body waves that carry energy
along an expanding spherical wave front. However, unlike P-waves, the particle motion is transverse or “side-
to-side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation.” As vibration waves propagate from a source, the
energy is spread over an ever-increasing area such that the energy level striking a given point is reduced with
the distance from the energy source. This geometric spreading loss is inversely proportional to the square of
the distance. Wave energy is also reduced with distance as a result of material damping in the form of internal
friction, soil layering, and void spaces. The amount of attenuation provided by material damping varies with
soil type and condition as well as the frequency of the wave.
Psychological and Physiological Effects of Vibration
As with airborne sound, annoyance with vibrational energy is a subjective measure, depending on the level of
activity and the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of
perception can be annoying. Persons accustomed to elevated ambient vibration levels, such as in an urban
environment, may tolerate higher vibration levels. Table 5.9-3 displays the human response and the effects on
buildings resulting from continuous vibration (in terms of various levels of PPV).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-8 PlaceWorks
Tabl e 5.9-3 Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels
Vibration Level, PPV (in/sec) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0.006–0.019 Threshold of perception, possibility of intrusion Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type
0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible Recommended upper level of vibration to which ruins
and ancient monuments should be subjected
0.10 Level at which continuous vibration begins to annoy
people
Virtually no risk of “architectural” (i.e. not structural)
damage to normal buildings
0.20 Vibrations annoying to people in buildings
Threshold at which there is a risk to “architectural”
damage to normal dwelling – houses with plastered
walls and ceilings
0.4–0.6
Vibrations considered unpleasant by people
subjected to continuous vibrations and
unacceptable to some people walking on bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than normally expected
from traffic, but would cause “architectural” damage
and possibly minor structural damage
Source: Caltrans 2004.
Human response to ground vibration has been correlated best with the velocity of the ground, typically
expressed in terms of the vibration decibel of VdB.2 The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has
developed rational vibration limits that can be used to evaluate human annoyance to groundborne vibration.
These criteria are primarily based on experience with rapid transit and commuter rail systems (FTA 2006).
Railroad and transit operations are potential sources of substantial ground vibration depending on distance,
the type and the speed of trains, and the type of track. Trains generate substantial vibration due to their
engines, steel wheels, heavy loads, and wheel-rail interactions.
Similarly, construction operations generally include a wide range of activities that can generate groundborne
vibration, which varies in intensity. In general, blasting and demolition as well as pile driving and vibratory
compaction equipment generate the highest vibrations. Because of the impulsive nature of such activities,
PPV is used to measure and assess groundborne vibration and assess the potential of vibration to induce
structural damage and annoyance for humans. Vibratory compactors or rollers, pile drivers, and pavement
breakers can generate perceptible amounts of vibration at up to 200 feet. Heavy trucks can also generate
groundborne vibrations, which can vary, depending on vehicle type, weight, and pavement conditions.
Potholes, pavement joints, discontinuities, differential settlement of pavement, all increase the vibration levels
from vehicles passing over a road surface. Construction vibration is normally of greater concern than
vibration from normal traffic flows on streets and freeways with smooth pavement conditions (Caltrans
2004).
Physical Effects of Vibration
“Architectural” damage can be classified as cosmetic only, such as minor cracking of building elements, while
“structural” damage may threaten the integrity of a building. Safe vibration limits that can be applied to assess
the potential for damaging a str ucture vary by researcher and there is no general consensus as to what amount
of vibration may pose a threat for structural damage to a building. Construction-induced vibration that can
be detrimental to the building is very rare and has only been observed in instances where the structure is in a
2 The reference velocity is 1 x 10-6 in/sec RMS, which equals 0 VdB, and 1 in/sec equals 120 VdB.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
June 2017 Page 5.9-9
high state of disrepair and the construction activity occurs immediately adjacent to the structure. Table 5.9-4
shows the criteria established by FTA for the likelihood of structural damage due to vibration.
Table 5.9-4 Groundborne Vibration Criteria: Architectural Damage
Building Category PPV (in/sec) Lv (VdB)1
I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102
II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98
III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006.
1. RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of one micro-inch/second.
Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Receptors
Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration. These uses include residential, schools,
libraries, churches, nursing homes, hospitals, and open space/recreation areas where quiet environments are
necessary for enjoyment, public health, and safety. Commercial and industrial uses are generally not
considered noise- and vibration-sensitive uses, unless noise and vibration would interfere with their normal
operations and business activities. Sensitive land uses in the Plan Area includes residences, schools, libraries,
churches, and recreational areas.
5.9.1.3 REGULATORY SETTING
To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels,
the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the
state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. This section describes the regulatory
framework related to noise and vibration in the Plan Area.
California State Regulations
The State of California, through its General Plan Guidelines, discusses how ambient noise should influence
land use and development decisions and includes a table of ‘normally acceptable’, ‘conditionally acceptable’,
‘normally unacceptable’, and ‘clearly unacceptable’ uses in ranges of noise levels; expressed in CNEL. These
land use compatibility guidelines are shown in Table 5.9-5.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-10 PlaceWorks
Table 5.9-5 Community Noise and Land Use Compatibility
Land Uses
CNEL (dBA)
55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential-Low Density
Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes
Residential- Multiple Family
Transient Lodging: Hotels and Motels
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters
Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports
Playground, Neighborhood Parks
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Businesses, Commercial and Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agricultural
Explanatory Notes
Normally Acceptable:
With no special noise reduction requirements
assuming standard construction.
Normally Unacceptable:
New construction is discouraged. If new construction
does not proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise
reduction requirements must be made and needed
noise insulation features included in the design.
Conditionally Acceptable:
New construction or development should be
undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the
noise reduction requirement is made and needed
noise insulation features included in the design.
Clearly Unacceptable:
New construction or development should generally
not be undertaken.
Source: California Office of Noise Control. Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of Noise Elements of the General Plan. February 1976. Adapted from the US EPA Office of Noise Abatement Control, Washington D.C. Community Noise. Prepared by Wyle Laboratories. December 1971.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
June 2017 Page 5.9-11
State of California Building Code
The State of California’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title
24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards are
applied to new construction in California for the purpose of ensuring that the level of exterior noise
transmitted to and received within the interior living spaces of buildings is compatible with their comfortable
use. For new residential dwellings, hotels, motels, dormitories, and school classrooms, the acceptable interior
noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL or Ldn. Title 24 requires acoustical studies for development
in areas exposed to more than 60 dBA CNEL to demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit
interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. Where exterior noise levels are projected to
exceed 60 dBA CNEL or Ldn at the façade of a building, a report must be submitted with the building plans
describing the noise control measures that have been incorporated into the design of the project to meet the
45 dBA noise limit.
Temple City Noise Standards
Current General Plan Noise Element
The current General Plan Noise Element includes goals and policies to protect residents from noise that
might affect their health and welfare. It discusses noise sources in the City, including El Monte Airport,
roadway traffic, industrial uses, and commercial uses. Table 5.9-5, Community Noise and Land Use Compatibility,
presents California’s land use compatibility chart for community noise; which Temple City adopted through
the current Noise Element. This land use compatibility matrix provides urban planners with a tool to gauge
the compatibility of new land uses relative to existing and future exterior noise exposure levels (with an
inferred relationship to interior noise environments). The following goals and policies are included in the
current Noise Element:
Goal 1: Provide a suitable environment free of excessive sounds and noise.
Policy 1a – Establish appropriate standards and criteria for desirable sound levels in various land use
categories (as shown in Table 5.9-5).
Policy 1b – In accordance with State standards, any new multi-family construction located in areas
with noise levels greater than 60 dB shall use sound attenuation measures that reduce interior noise
levels to 45 dB.3
Policy 1c – Establish mitigation techniques for all construction where noise levels exceed compatible
use standards.
Goal 2: Reduce noise level from all sources in the community and prevent noise intrusions into presently
quiet areas.
Policy 2a – Pursue a policy of an effective enforcement program in noise abatement.
3 It is assumed that this notation refers to the dBA CNEL noise level metric.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-12 PlaceWorks
Policy 2b – Pursue a policy designed to increase community awareness and participation in the
reduction of noise in the City.
Policy 2c – New commercial or manufacturing developments abutting or adjoining residential uses
shall construct some form of noise barrier to shield the residential use from excessive noise.
Policy 2d – New medium- and high-density residential development abutting or adjoining single-
family residential uses shall include some form of noise barrier to shield the single-family residential
use from excessive noise.
Policy 2e – Consider noise impacts and mitigation measures in designing improvements to primary
roadways.
Policy 2f – Continue to monitor and enforce existing speed limits on Primary and Secondary roads
throughout the City.
Policy 2g - Encourage enforcement of Motor Vehicle Codes that require adequate mufflers on all
vehicles traveling within the City.
Goal 3: Establish compatible land use adjacent to major transportation routes.
Policy 3a – Regularly update the noise contour map that will identify the major sources of noise in
the City.
Goal 4: Make recommendations to the County, State, and other governmental agencies relative to the
reduction or containment of the level of noise in the City.
Policy 4a – Maintain communications with other agencies which call for joint efforts to study and
control noise.
Municipal Code
The City of Temple City regulates noise through Article I (Regulation of Excessive Noise) of the City’s
Municipal Code, and through the compatibility standards in the current General Plan Noise Element. Section
9-1I-0 (Intent) of Article I states that Article I is “intended to establish citywide standards regulating noise.”
However, it goes on to state that the (noise) article “is not intended to establish thresholds of significance for
the purpose of any analysis required by the California Environmental Quality Act and no such thresholds are
hereby established.” Regardless, the following standards are included in order to establish a threshold of
significance for future land use compatibility needs.
General Sound Level Standards
Noise regulations are based on quantitative limits listed in Section 9-1I-3 (General Sound Level Standards) of
the City’s Municipal Code. This section states that no person shall create any sound, or allow the creation of
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
June 2017 Page 5.9-13
any sound, on any property that causes the exterior sound level on any other occupied property to exceed the
sound level standards set forth by the standards shown in Table 5.9-6.
Table 5.9-6 General Sound Level Standards
Zone
Noise Limit (Lmax)
7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.
Residential 55 dBA 45 dBA
Commercial 65 dBA 55 dBA
Industrial 75 dBA 75 dBA
Source: Temple City Municipal Code, Section 9-1I-3 (General Sound Level Standards).
At the boundary line between two of the above zones, the noise level of the quieter zone shall be used. (Temple City Ordinance 08-920)
Other Noise Standards
The City’s Municipal Code also includes noise standards for specific sound sources in Section 9-1I-5 (Special
Sound Sources Standards). These standards are less applicable to the Proposed Project than the previously
stated standards; therefore, they are summarized here. This section of the City’s Municipal Code states that
off-highway vehicles shall be equipped with the proper spark arrester and muffler (as described in the
section), and that off-highway vehicles should not emit greater than 96 dBA for vehicles manufactured on or
after January 1, 1986, or 101 dBA for vehicles manufactured before January 1, 19864. This section also limits
noise generation of various sources to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M., such that if the noise emitted is
audible to another human ear inside another inhabited dwelling. The limit applies to the following sources:
motor vehicle sound systems, power tools and equipment, audio equipment, and sound amplifying equipment
and live music.
Exemptions
Section 9-1I-1 (Exemptions) of the City’s Municipal Code exempts the following noise sources from the
provisions in Article 9-1 (Regulation of Excessive Noise):
Facilities owned or operated by or for a governmental agency.
Capital improvement projects of a governmental agency.
The maintenance or repair of public properties.
Construction operation, maintenance, and repairs of equipment, apparatus, or facilities of the parks and
recreation department, public works projects, or essential public services and facilities, including those of
public utilities subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the California public utilities commission.
4 Per the City’s Municipal Code, emitted noise shall be measured at a distance of twenty inches from the vehicle tailpipe using test
procedures established by the Society of Automotive Engineers under standard J-1287.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-14 PlaceWorks
Public safety personnel in the course of executing their official duties, including, but not limited to, sworn
peace officers, emergency personnel and public utility personnel. This exemption includes, without
limitation, sound emanating from all equipment used by such personnel, whether stationary or mobile.
Public or private schools and school sponsored activities.
Private construction projects located one-fourth of a mile or more from an inhabited dwelling.
Private construction projects located within one-fourth of a mile from an inhabited dwelling, provided
that construction does not occur between the hours of seven o'clock (7:00) P.M. and seven o'clock (7:00)
A.M.
Property maintenance, including, but not limited to, the operation of lawn mowers, leaf blowers, etc.,
provided such maintenance occurs between the hours of seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. and seven o'clock
(7:00) P.M.
Motor vehicles, other than off highway vehicles. This exemption does not include sound emanating from
motor vehicle sound systems.
Heating and air conditioning equipment.
Safety, warning and alarm devices, including, but not limited to, house and car alarms, and other warning
devices that are designed to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
The discharge of firearms consistent with all state and federal laws.
Any activity as to which the city council or planning commission has issued an exception based on
hardship, or to execute phase-in requirements.
Involuntary noise.
Isolated singular noises (not exceeding 2 seconds) not repeated within sixty (60) minutes.
Matters preempted by state or federal law.
Matters involving the reasonable exercise of constitutional guarantees unless outweighed by compelling
governmental interests or appropriate exercise of the police power.
"Emergency work" as defined under section 9-1I-2 of this article.
Noise as to which there is specific consent from all affected persons. (Ord. 08-920).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
June 2017 Page 5.9-15
Enforcement
Article 9-1I (Regulation of Excessive Noise) of the City’s Municipal Code includes provisions regarding
enforcement, duty to cooperate, and violations and penalties. To summarize, Section 9-1I-6 (Enforcement)
states that the City’s code enforcement personnel and the Los Angeles County Sheriff shall have the primary
responsibility for enforcing the provisions of Article 1; provided, however, code enforcement personnel and
the sheriff may be assisted by the public health department.
Construction
According to Section 9-1I-1 (Exemptions) of the City’s Municipal Code, construction activities are exempt
from the noise standards if they take place 0.25 miles or more from a residence. If they take place within 0.25
miles of a residence, activities are only allowed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM.
Vibration Standards
The City does not have specific limits or thresholds for vibration. In lieu of damage or annoyance standards
in either the City’s Municipal Code or Noise Element, The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides
criteria for acceptable levels of groundborne vibration for various types of special buildings that are sensitive
to vibration.
Vibration Annoyance
Table 5.9-7 shows FTA’s vibration criteria to evaluate vibration-related annoyance due to resonances of the
structural components of a building. These criteria are based on extensive research that suggests humans are
sensitive to vibration velocities in the range of 8 to 80 Hertz (Hz).
Table 5.9-7 Groundborne Vibration Criteria: Human Annoyance
Land Use Category Max Lv (VdB)1 Description
Workshop 90 Distinctly felt vibration. Appropriate to workshops and non-sensitive areas
Office 84 Felt vibration. Appropriate to offices and non-sensitive areas.
Residential – Daytime 78 Barely felt vibration. Adequate for computer equipment.
Residential – Nighttime 72 Vibration not felt, but groundborne noise may be audible inside quiet rooms.
Source: FTA 2006.
1 Lv is the velocity level in decibels, as measured in 1/3-octave bands of frequency over the frequency ranges of 8 to 80 Hz.
Vibration-Related Architectural Damage
Structures amplify groundborne vibration, and wood-frame buildings – such as typical residential structures –
are more affected by ground vibration than heavier buildings. The level at which groundborne vibration is
strong enough to cause architectural damage has not been determined conclusively. The most conservative
estimates are reflected in the FTA standards, shown in Table 5.9-8. Generally, homes of typical wood-framed
construction can be evaluated against the 0.2 inches per second (in/sec) standard, while historic buildings are
evaluated at the stricter standard of 0.12 in/sec to account for the potentially more sensitive and fragile
nature of the structure.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-16 PlaceWorks
Table 5.9-8 Groundborne Vibration Criteria: Architectural Damage
Building Category PPV (in/sec) Lv (VdB)1
I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102
II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98
III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90
Source: FTA 2006.
1 Lv is the velocity level in decibels, as measured in 1/3-octave bands of frequency over the frequency ranges of 8 to 80 Hz. These levels are approximately equivalent to the associated PPV values under the assumption of a crest factor of 4.
5.9.1.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Plan Area
The Plan Area is impacted by various noise sources, including mobile, air craft, train, and stationary—each of
these noise sources is discussed below.
Mobile-Source Noise
Mobile sources of noise, especially cars and trucks, are the most common and significant sources of noise in
most communities. Major roadways traversing the Plan Area include State Route 19 (SR-19) Rosemead
Boulevard, Las Tunas Drive, Longden Avenue, and Baldwin Avenue. High traffic volumes on major city roads
generate traffic noise.
In order to assess the potential for traffic noise impacts, it is necessary to determine the noise currently
generated by vehicles traveling through the study area. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were based on the
existing daily traffic volumes provided by Fehr & Peers. The traffic noise levels and contours were estimated
using a version of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model.
The FHWA model predicts noise levels through a series of adjustments to a reference sound level. These
adjustments account for distances from the roadway, traffic flows, vehicle speeds, car/truck mix, length of
exposed roadway, and road width. However, the model does not account for potential noise attenuation
provided by intervening structures or topographical barriers. These roadway noise modeling calculations are
included in Appendix F to this DEIR.
Noise levels for existing conditions along City roadways are presented in Table 5.9-9. The results presented in
Table 5.9-9 are shown graphically in Figure 5.9-1 Existing Conditions Noise Level Contour Map. The results of the
modeling indicate that average noise levels along local arterial segments currently range from approximately
60 dBA to 74 dBA CNEL ; all calculated at a standard distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
June 2017 Page 5.9-17
Table 5.9-9 Existing Traffic Noise Levels and Contours
Roadway Segment ADT
CNEL (50 ft. from centerline)
Distance to CNEL Contour (Feet from Centerline)
70 (dBA CNEL) 65 (dBA CNEL) 60 (dBA CNEL)
Baldwin Ave Live Oak to Olive 28,725 72.8 154 332 716
Baldwin Ave Olive to Lower Azusa 26,471 72.5 146 315 678
Las Tunas Dr Muscatel to Rosemead 30,121 73.5 170 367 790
Las Tunas Dr Rosemead to Cloverly 25,594 72.3 143 308 663
Las Tunas Dr Cloverly to Baldwin 24,348 72.1 138 297 641
Lower Azusa Rd Encinita to Cloverly 17,458 70.7 111 238 513
Lower Azusa Rd Cloverly to Goldenwest 23,411 71.9 135 290 624
Lower Azusa Rd Goldenwest to El Monte 26,004 72.4 144 311 670
Rosemead Blvd Callita to Garibaldi 34,711 73.6 175 377 812
Rosemead Blvd Garibaldi to Broadway 33,617 73.5 171 369 795
Rosemead Blvd Broadway to Lower Azusa 36,193 73.8 180 387 835
Santa Anita Ave Live Oak to Grand 22,654 71.8 132 284 611
Temple City Blvd El Camino Real to Garibaldi 29,119 71.5 126 272 586
Temple City Blvd Garibaldi to Live Oak 29,734 71.6 128 276 594
Temple City Blvd Live Oak to Olive 22,579 70.4 107 229 494
Temple City Blvd Olive to La Rosa 23,329 70.6 109 235 505
Temple City Blvd La Rosa to Ellis 18,493 69.5 93 201 433
El Monte Ave Live Oak to Freer 7,806 65.7 52 112 241
El Monte Ave Freer to Lower Azusa 7,123 65.3 49 105 227
Live Oak Ave Encinita to Cloverly 3,194 61.8 28 61 132
Live Oak Ave Cloverly to Goldenwest 5,075 63.8 39 84 180
Live Oak Ave Goldenwest to El Monte 9,536 66.6 59 127 274
Longden Ave Bion to Reno 7,022 65.2 48 104 224
Longden Ave Reno to Oak 6,634 65.0 46 100 215
Longden Ave Oak to Baldwin 6,183 64.7 44 95 205
Broadway Walnut Grove to Encinita 12,377 67.8 71 154 331
Broadway Encinita to Baldwin 5,692 62.9 34 73 157
Olive St Rosemead to Cloverly 2,682 59.7 20 44 95
Olive St Cloverly to Goldenwest 3,974 61.4 27 57 123
Olive St Goldenwest to El Monte 2,669 59.6 20 44 95
Notes: Based on traffic data provided by Fehr & Peers (2016). Traffic noise calculations are included in Appendix F.
Aircraft Noise
Some portions of the Plan Area are also exposed to aircraft noise. The San Gabriel Valley Airport (formerly
known as El Monte Airport) is a public airport in the City of El Monte and is approximately one-quarter mile
southeast of the boundary of the Plan Area. People living and working in certain areas of the Plan Area are
exposed to regular noise events resulting from aircraft take-offs and landings, as well as noise from
maintenance and other noise generating activities at the airport.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-18 PlaceWorks
Rail Noise
There are no commuter rail lines or transit stations within the Plan Area limits. However, a Union Pacific
railroad (UPRR) line passes along the southeastern-most edge of the Plan Area between Temple City
Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard. This rain line serves the industrial area near the southern end of the
Plan Area. The San Bernardino branch of the Metrolink system also runs along portions of this rail line, but
Metrolink trains divert to another rail line near the border of the Cities of Rosemead and El Monte; thus, not
passing close to any portions of the Plan Area. The remaining Union Pacific (UP) freight operations (along
the rail segment at the southern border of the Plan Area) are relatively infrequent, with an estimated daily
average of four daytime and four nighttime train pass-bys, according to the Federal Railroad Administration’s
Crossing Inventory.5
Noise generated by the train traffic contributes to the ambient noise environment along this transportation
route. Noise from trains on the UPRR is generated by warning horns and crossing bells at at-grade crossings,
engines, exhaust systems, cooling fans, and other mechanical noise. The interaction of steel wheels and rails
generates rolling noise; impact noise when a wheel encounters a discontinuity, such as a rail joint, turnout, or
crossover; and squeals generated by friction on tight curves. Trains are required by the Federal Railroad
Administration to sound a warning horn at one-quarter mile from all at-grade crossings and at a maximum
110 dBA, as measured at 100 feet, except those that have established a Quiet Zone. A Quiet Zone is a
segment of rail line where locomotive horns are not routinely sounded. There are no Quiet Zones established
for the City of Temple City.
Train noise is infrequent but of high magnitude. Based on data obtained from the noise monitoring, a single
train event would produce noise levels that range from 75 to 86 dBA Leq (76 to 94 dBA Lmax) at the nearest
noise-sensitive uses, which are residential uses adjacent to the UPRR right-of-way.6 While individual train
pass-bys would temporarily elevate noise levels in the vicinity of the rain line, relatively few people within the
Plan Area limits are notably affected by the associated, individual train movements along this rail line.
However, from a broader viewpoint – looking at the 24-hour CNEL noise metric – rail-related noise does
reach into the southernmost portion of the Plan Area. From information taken from environmental noise
documents for the adjoining Cities of San Gabriel and El Monte, the existing rail-generated 65 dBA CNEL
contour line is approximately 590 feet from the rail centerline. This noise level, along with the underlying
existing land uses, are shown in Figure 5.9-2 Rail-specific Existing Conditions Noise Level Contour Map. Most of the
areas within the Plan Area that are greater than 65 dBA CNEL and that are south of Lower Azusa Road are
within commercial land uses (with the exception of the aforementioned Linden Walk neighborhood). The
vast majority of the areas within the City that are greater than 65 dBA CNEL and that are north of Lower
Azusa Road are within single-family residential land uses. Given that this residential area is approximately 47
acres – or less than 2 percent for the total land area within the Plan Area 7 – rail noise contributes minimally to
the overall ambient noise environment in the Plan Area.
5 See additional information in Appendix F.
6 Primarily the single row of houses within the Linden Walk neighborhood (between the rail line and the flood control channel at the
southern border of the Plan Area).
7 That is, 47/2570 acres is 1.8 percent.
Base Map Source: ESRI, USGS, NOAA, 2017
PlaceWorks
Figure 5.9-1 - Existing Conditions Noise Level Contour Map
0
Scale (Miles)
0.5
5. Environmental Analysis
Temple City Boundary
Temple City SOI
60 CNEL
65 CNEL
70 CNEL
Specific Plan Boundary
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-20 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
Base Map Source: Google Earth Pro, 2017
PlaceWorks
Figure 5.9-2 - Rail-Specific Existing Conditions Noise Level Contour Map
0
Scale (Feet)
800
5. Environmental Analysis
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Rosemead BlvdLower Azusa Rd
E Valley Blvd
Missi
o
n
D
r Encinita AveLower Azusa Rd
La Rosa Dr
Sparklett StEncinita AveTemple City BlvdGidley St
Bisby StSereno DrSultana AveLa Rosa Dr
Sparklett St Heleo AveRio Hondo AveFra
tus
D
r Cloverly AveFiesta AveArdsley DrAlessandro AveCamellia AveKauffman AveGolden W AveAgnes AveWillmonte AveBaldwin AveHallwood Dr
Key W StBarela AveMiloann St Wilmonte AveArdenel AveBlackley St
Blackley St
Pentland St
Kennerly St
Kennerly St
Key W St Alessandro AveFratus DrLoma AveNoel DrOlive St Buttons AveCloverly AveAlessandro AveSultana AveRosemead BlvdIva AveBentel Ave
Newby Ave
Lawrence Ave
Ivar AveLawrence AveFendyke AvePitkin
S
t
Rose St
Rio Dell St
Rio Honda AveArica AveClaudia AveEvans
p
o
r
t
D
r
Mead AveDarlow AveSultana AveMerwin C. Gill WyEasy
S
t
Lorica
S
t
Abilen
e
S
t
Rose
A
v
eTemple City BlvdRowland AveEucnie AveShirley AveGibson RdBaldwin AveRowland AveTemple City Boundary
Temple City SOI
Existing Rail-Only 65 dBA CNEL
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Education
Public/Semi-Public
Flood
Railroad
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-22 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
June 2017 Page 5.9-23
Stationary-Source Noise
Other sources of noise in the Plan Area include those of the various land uses (i.e., residential, commercial,
institutional, and recreational and parks activities) throughout the Plan Area, which generate noise from
stationary sources. Stationary sources of noises may occur from all types of land uses. For example,
residential uses typically generate noise from landscaping, maintenance activities, and air conditioning systems.
Commercial uses typically generate noise from heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) systems, loading
docks, trash compactors, and other sources. Industrial uses may generate noise from HVAC systems, loading
docks, and possibly machinery. Noise generated by residential or commercial uses are generally short and
intermittent. Industrial uses may generate noise on a more continual basis due to the nature of their activities.
Although commercial land uses are dispersed throughout the Plan Area, the majority are concentrated in the
western portion of the City (Specific Plan Area) along Rosemead Boulevard near Las Tunas Drive.
Vibration
The primary existing sources of vibration in the Plan Area are rail and truck traffic. Perceptible vibration
levels may be caused by heavy trucks hitting discontinuities in the pavement, such as gaps and potholes, and
by heavy trains in service along railroads. Under normal conditions with well-maintained asphalt, vibration
levels are usually not perceptible beyond the road right-of-way. Likewise, railway-generated vibration from
commuter, rapid transit, and/or light-rail systems is generally not perceptible beyond the right-of-way under
normal conditions. Heavy freight rail lines can, however, generate notable groundborne vibration beyond the
railway property; depending on the conditions of the train equipment, the railway, and the underlying track
bed/foundation.8 Lastly, there are no known major stationary sources of vibration in the Plan Area, such as
heavy industrial equipment, which are capable of creating substantial levels of vibration to nearby sensitive
uses.
Specific Plan Area
The same sources of noise that affect the Plan Area and described above are applicable to the Specific Plan
Area, with the exception of the rail-related noise and vibration sources, which will not affect the Specific Plan
Area due to large distances between the area and the rail sources.
5.9.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would result in:
N-1 Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
8 Note that no commuter or transit rail uses the rail line that abuts the southern Plan Area boundary. Rather, the Metrolink trains
run from the El Monte bus and rail station and then curve southward near Santa Anita Avenue to proceed to downtown Los
Angeles (i.e., Union Station) along the I-10 corridor.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-24 PlaceWorks
N-2 Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels.
N-3 A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project.
N-4 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project.
N-5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels.
N-6 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working the
project area to excessive noise levels.
The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds
would be less than significant:
Threshold N-6
This impact will not be addressed in the following analysis.
5.9.3 Relevant General Plan Policies
The following are relevant policies of the Mid-Century Plan, which are designed to reduce potential noise-
related impacts from implementation of the Proposed Project.
Land Use Element
LU 4.1 Development Compatibility. Require that development is located and designed to assure
compatibility among land uses, addressing such elements as building orientation and setbacks, buffering,
visibility and privacy, automobile and truck access, impacts of noise and lighting, landscape quality, and
aesthetics.
LU 4.4 Assembly Facilities. Require that assembly facilities for social, cultural, educational, and
religious organizations be located, designed, and managed to ensure compatibility and avoid traffic, noise,
and other negative impacts with adjoining uses.
LU 4.7 Development that is Compatible. Require that development demonstrates a contextual
relationship with neighboring structures and sites addressing such elements as building scale, massing,
orientation, setbacks, buffering, arrangement of shared and private open spaces, visibility, privacy,
automobile and truck access, impacts of noise and lighting, landscape quality, infrastructure, and
aesthetics.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
June 2017 Page 5.9-25
LU 7.1 Sustainable Land Development. Promote land use and urban design development practices
that reduce energy and water consumption, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste and noise
generation.
Hazards Element
H 5.1 Noise Standards. Require noise attenuation for new development where the projected exterior or
interior noise levels exceed those shown in Figure 7-2 Future Noise Level Contours (need data from e-
team) and Figure 7-3 Land Use Compatibility with Community Noise Environments.
H 5.2 Compatible Uses. Restrict the development of sensitive receptors in areas where current or
future noise levels (mobile or stationary source) exceed regulatory standards.
H 5.3 Acoustical Study. Require an acoustical study for all new sensitive receptors located in areas
within the 65 dBA noise contour based on projections of future noise conditions resulting from the
Plan’s traffic increases to ensure indoor levels will not exceed City standards.
H 5.4 Noise Attenuation. Require measures which attenuate exterior and interior noise to acceptable
levels be incorporated into all development projects where current or future noise levels may be
unacceptable, and consider noise attenuation in the City’s Site Plan Review process.
H 5.5 Mixed-Use and Residential Noise Isolation. Require that mixed-use buildings that demonstrate
adequate isolation of noise between residential and non-residential uses through building design and
construction materials and techniques.
H 5.6 Noise Generating Uses. Require that high-noise generating uses, such as bars, nightclubs,
entertainment venues and other uses characterized by high levels of patronage and activity be designed
and constructed consistent with the City’s noise standards to isolate noise to the interiors and limit
perceptible exterior noise.
H 6.1 Excessive Motor Vehicle Noise. Encourage traffic-calming road design, engineering, and
construction methods, where appropriate, to decrease excessive motor vehicle noise on major corridors.
H 6.2 Non-motorized Transportation. Encourage non-motorized transportation alternatives for local
trips to reduce peak traffic volume and transportation-related noise sources.
H 6.3 Mobile Noise Standard Enforcement. Work with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
(LASD) and California Highway Patrol (CHP) to enforce motor vehicle noise standards for cars, trucks,
motorcycles, and other motor vehicles.
H 7.1 Recreation Related Noise. Limit the hours of operation of recreation and open space,
education, church, and other institutional uses in or adjacent to residential areas and sensitive receptors.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-26 PlaceWorks
H 7.2 Sound-Amplifying Equipment. Continue to regulate the use of sound amplifying equipment to
prevent impacts on sensitive receptors.
H 7.3 Construction Hours. Continue to enforce restrictions on the hours of construction activity to
minimize impacts of noise and vibration on adjoining uses.
H 7.4 Construction Noise. Require construction and development projects to assess potential
construction noise and vibration impacts on nearby uses and mitigate impacts on the community.
5.9.4 Environmental Impacts
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 5.9-1 Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in long-term operation-related noise that would exceed local standards. [Thresholds N-1 and N-3]
Impact Analysis: Following is a discussion of the potential long-term, operation-related noise impacts
resulting from development that would be accommodated under each component of the Proposed Project.
Traffic Noise
Future development in accordance with both components of the Proposed Project, the Mid-Century Plan
and Crossroads Specific Plan, would cause increases in traffic along local roadways. There would be an
associated incremental increase in traffic-generated noise along these roadways. For the purpose of assessing
the compatibility of new development under the Proposed Project with the anticipated, future noise
conditions, the City utilizes the State’s Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines (presented in Table 5.9-
5, Community Noise and Land Use Compatibility). These compatibility guidelines go hand-in-glove with the
exterior noise level standards presented in Table 5.9-6, General Sound Level Standards, for on-going control of
noise on a parcel level.
A significant impact could occur if the Proposed Project causes a substantial increase in noise levels at noise-
sensitive land uses in areas where the ambient noise level clearly exceeds levels that are compatible for the
designated land use. A substantial increase is defined as a noise increase greater than 3 dB over existing
conditions. An impact would occur if a substantial increase (i.e., +3 dB) drove the receiving land use from a
‘normally acceptable’ to a ‘conditionally acceptable’ classification. Sensitive land uses include residential,
schools, churches, nursing homes, hospitals, and open space/recreation areas. Commercial and industrial areas
are not considered noise sensitive and have much higher tolerances for exterior noise levels.
The traffic noise levels were estimated using a version of the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction
Model. The FHWA traffic noise model predicts noise levels through a series of adjustments to a reference
sound level. These adjustments account for distances from the roadway, traffic flows, vehicle speeds,
car/truck mix, length of exposed roadway, and road width. The distances to the 70, 65, and 60 CNEL
contours for selected roadway segments in the vicinity of Plan Area are included in Appendix F.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
June 2017 Page 5.9-27
Mid-Century Plan
Table 5.9-10 presents the noise level increases on roadways over existing conditions at 50 feet from the
centerline of each roadway segment due to development that would be accommodated under the Mid-
Century Plan. The “Future Plus Project” traffic noise levels include effects of future regional ambient growth
and growth due to the Mid-Century Plan. The results presented in Table 5.9-10 are shown graphically in
Figure 5.9-3, Future Plus Project Noise Level Contour Map.
Table 5.9-10 shows that traffic noise increases due to implementation of the Mid-Century Plan, coupled with
the implementation of the circulation plan and regional growth, would range from 0.0 to 1.1 dB CNEL. No
roadway segments would experience substantial noise increases greater than 3 dB over existing conditions
such that the resulting noise levels would be greater than the pertinent CNEL compatibility threshold. The
noise increases shown in Table 5.9-10 are related to increases in traffic volumes due to population and
employment growth in the Plan Area as a result of the Mid-Century Plan, as well as the addition of regional
growth. These increases would not be readily discernible because traffic and noise would increase steadily, but
in small increments, over a relatively long time frame.
Table 5.9-10 General Plan Buildout Traffic Noise Contributions
Roadway Segment
dBA CNEL @ 50 feet
Existing Future Plus General Plan General Plan Contribution
Baldwin Ave Live Oak to Olive 72.8 72.9 0.1
Baldwin Ave Olive to Lower Azusa 72.5 72.7 0.3
Las Tunas Dr Muscatel to Rosemead 73.5 74.2 0.8
Las Tunas Dr Rosemead to Cloverly 72.3 72.8 0.5
Las Tunas Dr Cloverly to Baldwin 72.1 72.6 0.4
Lower Azusa Rd Encinita to Cloverly 70.7 71.0 0.3
Lower Azusa Rd Cloverly to Goldenwest 71.9 72.3 0.4
Lower Azusa Rd Goldenwest to El Monte 72.4 72.4 0.0
Rosemead Blvd Callita to Garibaldi 73.6 73.9 0.3
Rosemead Blvd Garibaldi to Broadway 73.5 73.8 0.3
Rosemead Blvd Broadway to Lower Azusa 73.8 74.1 0.2
Santa Anita Ave Live Oak to Grand 71.8 72.1 0.3
Temple City Blvd El Camino Real to Garibaldi 71.5 71.7 0.2
Temple City Blvd Garibaldi to Live Oak 71.6 71.6 0.0
Temple City Blvd Live Oak to Olive 70.4 70.5 0.1
Temple City Blvd Olive to La Rosa 70.6 70.6 0.0
Temple City Blvd La Rosa to Ellis 69.5 69.9 0.4
El Monte Ave Live Oak to Freer 65.7 65.8 0.1
El Monte Ave Freer to Lower Azusa 65.3 65.4 0.0
Live Oak Ave Encinita to Cloverly 61.8 63.1 1.3
Live Oak Ave Cloverly to Goldenwest 63.8 64.7 0.9
Live Oak Ave Goldenwest to El Monte 66.6 66.8 0.2
Longden Ave Bion to Reno 65.2 65.7 0.5
Longden Ave Reno to Oak 65.0 65.7 0.7
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-28 PlaceWorks
Table 5.9-10 General Plan Buildout Traffic Noise Contributions
Roadway Segment
dBA CNEL @ 50 feet
Existing Future Plus General Plan General Plan Contribution
Longden Ave Oak to Baldwin 64.7 65.3 0.6
Broadway Walnut Grove to Encinita 67.8 68.9 1.1
Broadway Encinita to Baldwin 62.9 62.9 0.0
Olive St Rosemead to Cloverly 59.7 59.7 0.0
Olive St Cloverly to Goldenwest 61.4 61.4 0.0
Olive St Goldenwest to El Monte 59.6 59.7 0.1
Notes: Traffic Noise Model Calculations included in Appendix F.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Table 5.9-11 presents the noise level increases on roadways over existing conditions at 50 feet from the
centerline of each roadway segment due to implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan. The “Existing
Plus Specific Plan” traffic noise levels include traffic that would be generated due to implementation of the
Crossroads Specific Plan.
Table 5.9-11 Crossroads Specific Plan Buildout Traffic Noise Contributions
Roadway Segment
dBA CNEL @ 50 feet
Existing Existing Plus Specific Plan Specific Plan Contribution
Baldwin Ave Live Oak to Olive 72.8 72.8 0.0
Baldwin Ave Olive to Lower Azusa 72.5 72.5 0.0
Las Tunas Dr Muscatel to Rosemead 73.5 73.9 0.4
Las Tunas Dr Rosemead to Cloverly 72.3 72.5 0.2
Las Tunas Dr Cloverly to Baldwin 72.1 72.3 0.2
Lower Azusa Rd Encinita to Cloverly 70.7 70.7 0.0
Lower Azusa Rd Cloverly to Goldenwest 71.9 71.9 0.0
Lower Azusa Rd Goldenwest to El Monte 72.4 72.4 0.0
Rosemead Blvd Callita to Garibaldi 73.6 73.7 0.1
Rosemead Blvd Garibaldi to Broadway 73.5 73.6 0.1
Rosemead Blvd Broadway to Lower Azusa 73.8 74.0 0.2
Santa Anita Ave Live Oak to Grand 71.8 71.8 0.0
Temple City Blvd El Camino Real to Garibaldi 71.5 71.5 0.0
Temple City Blvd Garibaldi to Live Oak 71.6 71.6 0.0
Temple City Blvd Live Oak to Olive 70.4 70.5 0.1
Temple City Blvd Olive to La Rosa 70.6 70.7 0.1
Temple City Blvd La Rosa to Ellis 69.5 69.6 0.1
El Monte Ave Live Oak to Freer 65.7 65.8 0.1
El Monte Ave Freer to Lower Azusa 65.3 65.6 0.3
Live Oak Ave Encinita to Cloverly 61.8 62.0 0.2
Live Oak Ave Cloverly to Goldenwest 63.8 63.9 0.1
Live Oak Ave Goldenwest to El Monte 66.6 66.6 0.0
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
June 2017 Page 5.9-29
Table 5.9-11 Crossroads Specific Plan Buildout Traffic Noise Contributions
Roadway Segment
dBA CNEL @ 50 feet
Existing Existing Plus Specific Plan Specific Plan Contribution
Longden Ave Bion to Reno 65.2 65.3 0.1
Longden Ave Reno to Oak 65.0 65.2 0.2
Longden Ave Oak to Baldwin 64.7 64.7 0.0
Broadway Walnut Grove to Encinita 67.8 68.9 1.1
Broadway Encinita to Baldwin 62.9 63.3 0.4
Olive St Rosemead to Cloverly 59.7 59.7 0.0
Olive St Cloverly to Goldenwest 61.4 61.7 0.3
Olive St Goldenwest to El Monte 59.6 59.7 0.1
Notes: Traffic Noise Model Calculations included in Appendix F.
The results in Table 5.9-11 show that traffic noise increases resulting from implementation of the Crossroads
Specific Plan would range from 0.0 to 1.1 dBA CNEL. No roadway segments would experience noise
increases greater than 3 dB over existing conditions such that the resulting noise levels would be greater than
pertinent CNEL compatibility threshold. The noise increases shown in Table 5.9-11 are related to increases in
traffic volumes due to changes in land use and developments within the Crossroads Specific Plan Area. These
increases would not be readily discernible because the Specific Plan Area would be built out over a relatively-
long time frame; traffic and noise would increase steadily, but in small increments.
Summary
As demonstrated above, for both the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan, future ambient noise
would not be substantially higher than existing conditions at receptors along the roadway segments identified
above.
The Mid-Century Plan also includes policies to ensure that new development minimizes traffic noise
intrusions into the surrounding residential communities and other noise-sensitive receptors, such as hospitals
and schools. Applicable policies include:
H 6.1 Excessive Motor Vehicle Noise. Encourage traffic-calming road design, engineering, and
construction methods, where appropriate, to decrease excessive motor vehicle noise on major corridors.
H 6.2 Non-motorized Transportation. Encourage non-motorized transportation alternatives for local
trips to reduce peak traffic volume and transportation-related noise sources.
H 6.3 Mobile Noise Standard Enforcement. Work with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
(LASD) and California Highway Patrol (CHP) to enforce motor vehicle noise standards for cars, trucks,
motorcycles, and other motor vehicles.
Therefore, traffic-related noise impacts are not anticipated to be significant.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-30 PlaceWorks
Stationary Noise
Mid-Century Plan
Noise-sensitive land uses include residential, hospitals and schools. Noise is regulated by numerous codes and
ordinances across federal, state, and local agencies. In addition, the City regulates stationary-source noise
through the Temple City Municipal Code. Buildout under the Mid-Century Plan would result in an increase in
residential, commercial, and industrial development in the Plan Area. The primary noise sources from
residential, commercial, and industrial land uses are landscaping services, maintenance activities, and air
conditioning systems. In addition, future commercial and/or industrial uses may include greater noise-
generating elements, such as loading docks.
However, noise generated by residential or commercial uses is generally short them and intermittent; these
uses are also not considered a substantial source of noise. Additionally, Temple City requires that noise from
new stationary sources in the City comply with the noise standards set forth in Section 9-1I-3 (General Sound
Level Standards) of the City’s Municipal Code—summarized in Table 5.9-6, General Sound Level Standards—
which limits the acceptable noise at the property line of the impacted property to reduce nuisances to
sensitive land uses. With compliance with the City’s noise standards, stationary-source noise from future land
uses would not result in a substantial increase in the noise environment.
The siting of new industrial and large commercial developments may increase noise levels at nearby
residential uses. This can be due to the continual presence of heavy trucks used for the pick-up and delivery
of goods and supplies, or from the use of noisy equipment used in the manufacturing or machining process.
For purposes of the planning process, vehicle noise on private property may be regulated as stationary-source
noise, including movements around loading docks, stationary idling, back-up alarms, and air-brake pressure
releases. Likewise, process equipment and the use of pneumatic tools could generate elevated noise levels at
and around industrial/commercial developments, but this equipment is typically housed in buildings or
enclosures. To prevent stationary-source noise created by onsite vehicle movements, machinery/tools,
and/or industrial processes from affecting sensitive land uses, Temple City requires industrial and commercial
operations to limit noise to residential properties to no greater than the maximum allowable noise levels
outlined in Section 9-1I-3 of the City’s Municipal Code.
The Mid-Century Plan also includes policies to ensure that new development minimizes noise intrusions into
the surrounding residential communities and other noise-sensitive receptors, such as hospitals and schools.
Applicable policies include:
H 7.1 Recreation Related Noise. Limit the hours of operation of recreation and open space,
education, church, and other institutional uses in or adjacent to residential areas and sensitive receptors.
H 7.2 Sound-Amplifying Equipment. Continue to regulate the use of sound amplifying equipment to
prevent impacts on sensitive receptors.
Therefore, with compliance of the City’s noise standards and implementation of the Mid-Century Plan
policies, significant noise impacts from new stationary sources of noise are not anticipated to occur.
Unincorporated
San Gabriel
Unincorporated
Arcadia
Unincorporated
Temple CityTemple City BlvdOl i ve St
E Live Oak A
v
e
Live Oak Ave
la Rosa Dr el Monte AveS Baldwin AveLower Azusa
R
d
E Longden Ave
Campus Dr
BroadwayE Broadway Freer St
Miss
i
o
n
D
r S Santa Anita AveLongden Ave
Duarte R
d
Grand Ave
E Las Tunas Dr
Huntington Dr
Holly AveLas Tunas DrS Sunset BlvdE Duarte Rd
WalnutGroveAv
eRosemead BlvdArdenDrBaldwin AveS antaAnitaAveST19
Fig. 7-3
FUTURE NOISE CONTOURS
Temple City Boundary
Temple City SOI
60 CNEL
65 CNEL
70 CNEL
6/14/2017
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125
Miles
TEMPLE CITY
Source: Input information from Fehr & Peers, Transportation Impact Analysis, City of Temple City General Plan, 2016.
Associated noise contour analyses by PlaceWorks, 2016.Base Map Source: ESRI, USGS, NOAA, 2017
PlaceWorks
Figure 5.9-3 - Future Plus Project Noise Level Contour Map
0
Scale (Miles)
0.5
5. Environmental Analysis
Temple City Boundary
Temple City SOI
60 CNEL
65 CNEL
70 CNEL
Specific Plan Boundary
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-32 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
June 2017 Page 5.9-33
Crossroads Specific Plan
The above analysis also applies to the Crossroads Specific Plan.
Rail Noise
Mid-Century Plan
A Union Pacific rail line passes along the southeastern-most edge of the Plan Area boundary. This rain line
serves the industrial area near the southern end of the Plan Area. Noise from trains is generated by crossing
bells, engines, exhaust noise, air turbulence generated by cooling fans, and other noise. The interaction of
steel wheels with rails generates (1) rolling noise; (2) impact noise from a discontinuity in the running
surfaces; and (3) squeals generated by friction on tight curves. Noise generated by a train passing is dominated
by the train horn initially and then by the train engines and passing cars. Train horns are required by the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to sound at a minimum of 100 dBA, as measured from 100 feet from
the train. As noted above, a single train event would produce noise levels that range from 75 to 86 dBA Leq
(76 to 94 dBA Lmax) at the nearest noise-sensitive uses, which are residential uses adjacent to the UPRR right-
of-way.
The Southern California Association of Governments published the Inland Empire Railroad Main Line
Study to determine the future freight and passenger needs in southern California. This Study evaluated four
track and station scenarios. As shown in Table 5.9-12, train movements occurring through the Plan Area are
highly dependent on the development of the rail corridor and the demand for increasing freight transport.
Projections for the year 2025 have a wide range of possible outcomes; depending on the underlying
assumptions for increased freight transport operations.
Table 5.9-12 Projections for Number of Trains on Union Pacific Railroad Corridor
Year City of Industry to San Gabriel Segment El Monte to Yuma Junction Segment
Status Quo Routing
2010 23.4 21.4
2025 55.1 47.1
Alternative 1a
2010 13.0 9.0
2025 19.0 11.0
Alternative 1b
2010 35.0 29.0
2025 55.0 45.0
Alternative 2
2010 65.9 61.9
2025 105.4 97.4
Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Inland Empire Railroad Main Line Study, June 30, 2005, Tables B-5 through B-12. Note: These are projections and not actual counts.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-34 PlaceWorks
Implementation of the Mid-Century Plan would not increase the magnitude of noise experienced for each
train movement at noise-sensitive uses proximate to the UPRR right-of-way. However, noise-sensitive uses are
likely to experience an increase in the number of train movements along this rail corridor, due to increased
goods movement primarily from the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports. While not increasing the noise levels
for any given pass-by event, the increased number of movements in any 24-hour period would tend to ‘push’
the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour line farther into the adjoining community areas. The projected, future rail-
generated 65 dBA CNEL contour line would be approximately 790 feet from the rail centerline, under year
2025 conditions with existing track and station infrastructure. This noise level, along with the underlying Mid-
Century Plan build-out land uses, are shown in Figure 5.9-4 Rail-specific Future Plus Project Conditions Noise Level
Contour Map.
The approximate additional width of rail noise contour lines (i.e., 590 feet from the rail centerline for existing
conditions to 790 feet for future conditions) would result in an increase in the area within the 65 dBA CNEL
contour line for rail operations. That is, the approximate 47 acres (for the overall Plan Area) for existing rail
noise conditions is projected to increase to approximately 65 acres (which is around 2.5 percent of the total
land area with the Plan Area).
However, it is important to note that although this area-within-the-contour would increase, it is envisioned
that the anticipated build-out of the Mid-Century Plan would result in fewer residents being affected by rail-
related noise. This is primarily due to two key aspects of the Mid-Century Plan vision (for the areas in the
very southern portion of the Plan Area). The first key aspect is that the Mid-Century Plan includes changes
to the land use designations for areas both north and south of Lower Azusa Road. For the former, the Mid-
Century Plan would change land use designations from Low-Density Residential (mostly single-family homes)
to Medium-Density Residential. For the latter, the Mid-Century Plan would change land use designations
from Low-Density Residential (mostly single-family homes) to Mixed-Use (a combination of residential and
commercial/retail).
The second key aspect is that for all such future developments under the Mid-Century Plan, the City’s
Community Development Department would require adherence to both the Mid-Century Plan Noise
Element and California Building Code with respect to land use compatibility, as well as the exterior-to-interior
sound insulation capabilities of any and all new developments. This demonstration of Noise Element and
Building Code compliance is typically accomplished through a project-specific acoustical study that would be
conducted near or at the time of submittal of a development application to the City (by each individual
developer). Therefore, this effective updating of residential sound insulation characteristics on a
development-by-development basis over the course of the Mid-Century Plan implementation would result in
new projects being constructed with notably improved sound insulation characteristics, as compared to
existing, older residences. With this turn-over of old residences to new, medium-density or mixed-use land
uses, the overall number of citizens that are affected by rail-related noise will decrease over time; even with
the projected increase in the overall number of rail operations on the UPRR line.
Base Map Source: Google Earth Pro, 2017
PlaceWorks
Figure 5.9-4 - Rail-Specific Future Plus Project Noise Level Contour Map
0
Scale (Feet)
800
5. Environmental Analysis
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Rosemead BlvdLower Azusa Rd
E Valley Blvd
Missi
o
n
D
r Encinita AveLower Azusa Rd
La Rosa Dr
Sparklett StEncinita AveTemple City BlvdGidley St
Bisby StSereno DrSultana AveLa Rosa Dr
Sparklett St Heleo AveRio Hondo AveFra
tus
D
r Cloverly AveFiesta AveArdsley DrAlessandro AveCamellia AveKauffman AveGolden W AveAgnes AveWillmonte AveBaldwin AveHallwood Dr
Key W StBarela AveMiloann St Wilmonte AveArdenel AveBlackley St
Blackley St
Pentland St
Kennerly St
Kennerly St
Key W St Alessandro AveFratus DrLoma AveNoel DrOlive St Buttons AveCloverly AveAlessandro AveSultana AveRosemead BlvdIva AveBentel Ave
Newby Ave
Lawrence Ave
Ivar AveLawrence AveFendyke AvePitkin
S
t
Rose St
Rio Dell St
Rio Honda AveArica AveClaudia AveEvans
p
o
r
t
D
r
Mead AveDarlow AveSultana AveMerwin C. Gill WyEasy
S
t
Lorica
S
t
Abilen
e
S
t
Rose
A
v
eTemple City BlvdRowland AveEucnie AveShirley AveGibson RdBaldwin AveRowland AveTemple City Boundary
Temple City SOI
Future Rail-Only 65 dBA CNEL
Low Density Residential (0-6 du/acre)
Medium Density Residential (7-12 du/acre)
High Density Residential (13-36 du/acre)
Commercial (0.5 FAR)
Industrial (1.0 FAR)
Institutional
Flood Control/Wash
Mixed Use
Mixed-Use: 2.0 FAR (minimum of 0.5 FAR commercial);
13-36 du/acre Commercial Only: 0.5 FAR
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-36 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
June 2017 Page 5.9-37
Last, and from a procedural viewpoint, rail noise within the Plan Area is not under the control of the City
and is not determined by the Mid-Century Plan (either the current or the proposed general plans). Further, it
is a portion of the outside environment that is potentially impacting the Plan Area. As such, it is important to
note that with the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the assessment of the environment’s impacts
onto proposed projects (CBIA v BAAQMD, issued December 17, 2015)9, it is not the purview of the CEQA
process to evaluate the impact of existing (or future) environmental conditions onto any given project; with
limited exceptions.10 For noise, the application of this ruling means that the analysis of traffic, rail, aircraft,
and long-term stationary noise effects at a project site is no longer part of CEQA. Therefore, exterior noise
effects from nearby offsite sources onto a development project is not a topic for impact evaluation under
CEQA and no statement of impact significance is germane.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Rail-related noise and vibration sources will not notably affect the Plan Area or change from existing
conditions due to large distances between the area and the rail sources.
Impact 5.9-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project could result in short- and long-term groundborne vibration impacts. [Threshold N-2]
Impact Analysis: CEQA does not specify quantitative thresholds for what is considered “excessive”
vibration or groundborne noise. Likewise, Temple City does not establish such vibration-related thresholds.
Since perception of vibration effects would be subjective and would vary between individuals, it is necessary
to establish a quantitative threshold that reflects levels of vibration typically capable of causing perception,
annoyance, and/or damage. Therefore, based on criteria from the FTA, a significant impact would occur if:
Implementation of the project would result in ongoing exceedance of the criteria for annoyance
presented in Table 5.9-3, Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels.
Implementation of the project would result in vibration exceeding the criteria presented in Table 5.9-4,
Groundborne Vibration Criteria: Architectural Damage, that could cause buildings architectural damage.
The following discusses potential vibration impacts generated by short-term construction and long-term
operations that may occur under implementation of each component of the Proposed Project.
Short-Term Construction-Related Vibration Impacts
Mid-Century Plan
The effect on buildings in the vicinity of a construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and
receptor-building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest
9 California Supreme Court. California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) [Case No.
S213478]
10 Exceptions to this rule apply to airport (§ 21096), school construction projects (§ 21151.8), and housing development projects
(§§ 21159.21, subds. (f), (h), 21159.22, subds. (a), (b)(3), 21159.23, subd. (a)(2)(A), 21159.24, subd. (a)(1), (3), 21155.1, subd. (a)(4),
(6)).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-38 PlaceWorks
vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural
damage at the highest levels. Vibration from construction activities rarely reaches the levels that can damage
structures, but groundborne vibration and groundborne noise can reach perceptible and audible levels in
buildings that are close to the construction site. Table 5.9-13 lists vibration levels for typical, common
construction equipment items.
Table 5.9-13 Groundborne Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment
Approximate Velocity Level at 25 Feet (VdB)
Approximate RMSa Velocity at 25 Feet (inch/sec)
Pile Driver (Impact) Upper Range 112 1.518
Pile Driver (Impact) Lower Range 104 0.644
Pile Driver (Sonic) Upper Range 105 0.734
Pile Driver (Sonic) Lower Range 93 0.170
Large Bulldozer 87 0.089
Caisson Drilling 87 0.089
Jackhammer 79 0.035
Small Bulldozer 58 0.003
Loaded Trucks 86 0.076
FTA Criteria – Human Annoyance (Daytime) 78 to 90b —
FTA Criteria – Structural Damage — 0.2 to 0.5c
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise, and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006.
a. RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of 1 micro-inch/second.
b. Depending on affected land use. For residential 78 VdB, for offices 84 VdB, workshops 90 VdB. c. Depending on affected building structure, for timber and masonry buildings 0.2 in/sec, for reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber 0.5 in/sec.
As shown in Table 5.9-13, vibration generated by construction equipment has the potential to be substantial.
Grading and demolition activity typically generate the highest vibration levels during construction. Except for
pile driving, maximum vibration levels measured at a distance of 25 feet from an individual piece of typical
construction equipment do not exceed the thresholds for human annoyance for industrial uses or the
thresholds for architectural damage, as defined in Tables 5.9-3 and 5.9-4.
Nonetheless, significant vibration impacts may occur from construction activities associated with new
development under the Mid-Century Plan. While there is an absence of information about specific
development proposals, implementation of the Mid-Century Plan anticipates an increase in development
intensity in certain areas of the Plan Area—the greatest amount of development would occur in the Specific
Plan Area. However, without specific development details, it is not possible to quantify potential construction
vibration impacts for the potential developments and at specific sensitive receptors. Such quantification would
need to be conducted on a project-by-project basis, taking into account the specifics of each situation.
Overall, vibration impacts related to construction would be short term, temporary, and generally restricted to
the areas in the immediate vicinity of active construction equipment. Also, construction would be localized
and would occur intermittently for varying periods of time.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
June 2017 Page 5.9-39
Methods to reduce vibration during construction would include the use of smaller equipment, use of well-
maintained equipment, use of static rollers (instead of vibratory rollers), and the drilling of piles (as opposed
to the use of impact driving techniques). Additionally, other vibration-reduction methods could include
limitations on construction hours and/or guidelines for the positioning of vibration-generating construction
equipment.
According to Section 9-1I-1 (Exemptions) of the City’s Municipal Code, construction activities within 0.25
mile of residential uses are exempt from the City’s standards between the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, and
activities located 0.25 mile or farther from residential uses are exempt during any time of day. While this
portion of the City’s Municipal Code is aimed at construction noise effects, enforcement of the City’s
Municipal Code would also reduce the potential for construction vibration annoyance by limiting non-
emergency construction hours to the daytime when people are less sensitive to elevated noise and/or
vibration levels, or areas away from sensitive uses. Nevertheless, the restrictions in the City’s Municipal Code
would not reduce the potential for vibration-induced architectural damage.
The Hazards Element of the Mid-Century Plan also includes the following policies to reduce vibration
impacts resulting from construction activities.
H 7.3 Construction Hours. Continue to enforce restrictions on the hours of construction activity to
minimize impacts of noise and vibration on adjoining uses.
H 7.4 Construction Noise. Require construction and development projects to assess potential
construction noise and vibration impacts on nearby uses and mitigate impacts on the community.
Furthermore, Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-2 requires applicants for individual development projects that
involve vibration-intensive construction activities—such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers—
within 25 feet of sensitive receptors (e.g., residences and historic structures), to prepare and submit to the
City an acoustical study to evaluate potential construction-related vibration damage and annoyance impacts.
Also, future development projects subject to CEQA review would be required to include an evaluation of
potential construction-related vibration impacts and may include site-specific mitigation measures to reduce
vibration impacts during construction.
However, even with compliance with the City’s Municipal Code standards and implementation of the Mid-
Century policies and mitigation measures, construction vibration impacts would be potentially significant.
Crossroads Specific Plan
The above analysis also applies to the Crossroads Specific Plan.
Long-Term Vibration Impacts
The following discussion evaluates long-term vibration impacts from train operations along the Union Pacific
rail line and machinery used in industrial operations. As no industrial or rail operations are proposed, within
or adjacent to the Specific Plan Area, only impacts associated with the Mid-Century Plan are discussed below.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-40 PlaceWorks
Mid-Century Plan
Railroad Vibration Impacts
Under the Mid-Century Plan, medium-density residential land uses would be permitted within proximity of
the Union Pacific rail line along the City’s southern boundary (see Medium Density Residential land use
designation locations in Figure 3-4, Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram). In general, vibration levels
generated from trains are dependent on specific site conditions such as geology and the condition of the
railroad track and train wheels.
In general, future, vibration-sensitive uses would be placed a minimum of 50 feet from the existing rail line
tracks. Therefore, these uses would not be exposed to vibration that would exceed the FTA vibration
standards for vibration-induced architectural damage and vibration annoyance. Additionally, future
development projects proposed within proximity of the rail line would be analyzed by City staff on a project-
by-project basis to confirm vibration-related effects and their associated impacts. Therefore, vibration impacts
related to train operations are not anticipated to be significant.
Industrial Vibration Impacts
The use of heavy equipment associated with industrial operations can create elevated vibration levels in its
immediate proximity. Under the Mid-Century Plan, industrial uses could be sited near or adjacent to
vibration-sensitive land uses. Industrial uses in the Plan Area are located along Gidley Street in the southern
end of the Plan Area, adjacent to and in close proximity to existing residential uses and areas designated for
residential and mixed uses. However, Policy LU 4.1 (Development Compatibility) of the Mid-Century Plan
requires that development be located and designed to assure compatibility among land uses, addressing such
elements as building orientation and setbacks, buffering, visibility and privacy, automobile and truck access,
impacts of noise and lighting, landscape quality, and aesthetics.
The City has not adopted any vibration standards to regulate vibration impacts and Policy LU 4.1 does not
specify measures to reduce vibration from industrial uses to nearby sensitive uses. However, the industrial
uses of the sort that would continue to be permitted in the Plan Area under the Mid-Century Plan –
predominantly ‘light industrial’ uses 11 – are very rarely associated with vibration that is sufficiently intense or
sustained to cause either human discomfort or architectural/structural damage. Therefore, vibration impacts
related to industrial operations are not anticipated to be significant.
11 The Light Industrial land use designation accommodates a variety of industrial uses, including research and development, “clean
and green” tech, semi-conductor processing, and computer hardware/software and related technological services. This
designation would also include administrative, sales, and engineering facilities, auto repair/servicing, machine shops,
woodworking/carpentry shops, equipment rental and storage, small warehouse/delivery operations, self-storage facilities, printers,
small wholesalers, and other small-scale industrial operations. A limited number of office, commercial recreation, and group
assembly uses also occur within these areas.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
June 2017 Page 5.9-41
Crossroads Specific Plan
There are no rail lines in or adjacent to the Specific Plan area, therefore, no vibration analysis is necessary.
Impact 5.9-3 Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in temporary noise increases in the vicinity of project-specific development sites. [Threshold N-4]
Impact Analysis: The Mid-Century Plan is a regulatory document that sets up the framework for future
growth and development and does not directly result in development, in and of itself. However,
implementation of the Mid-Century Plan would help guide the direction of new residential, commercial,
institutional, and industrial uses throughout the Plan Area. Additionally, implementation of the Crossroads
Specific Plan would result in new public open spaces, streets and landscaping, and buildings within the
Specific Plan Area.
The following discusses potential impacts that may occur from temporary noise increases as a result of
implementation of each component of the Proposed Project.
Mid-Century Plan
Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction of future development projects
under the Mid-Century Plan (including development projects under the Crossroads Specific Plan, which is a
subset of the Mid-Century Plan). First, the transport of workers and movement of materials to and from a
construction site could incrementally increase vehicle flows along local roads; however, such flow increments
may or may not result in notable increases to the associated noise levels. The second type of short-term noise
impact is related to demolition, site preparation, grading, and/or physical construction. Construction is
performed in distinct steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and, consequently, its own noise
characteristics. Table 5.9-14 lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise-impact
assessments based on a reference distance of 50 feet between the equipment and noise receptor.
Table 5.9-14 Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels
Construction Equipment
Typical Maximum Noise Level (dBA Lmax) Construction Equipment Typical Noise Level1 (dBA Lmax)
Air Compressor 81 Pile Driver (Impact) 101
Backhoe 80 Pile Driver (Sonic) 96
Ballast Equalizer 82 Pneumatic Tool 85
Ballast Tamper 83 Pump 76
Compactor 82 Rail Saw 90
Concrete Mixer 85 Rock Drill 98
Concrete Pump 71 Roller 74
Concrete Vibrator 76 Saw 76
Crane, Derrick 88 Scarifier 83
Crane, Mobile 83 Scraper 89
Dozer 85 Shovel 82
Generator 81 Spike Driver 77
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-42 PlaceWorks
Table 5.9-14 Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels
Construction Equipment
Typical Maximum Noise Level (dBA Lmax) Construction Equipment Typical Noise Level1 (dBA Lmax)
Grader 85 Tie Cutter 84
Impact Wrench 85 Tie Handler 80
Jack Hammer 88 Tie Inserter 85
Loader 85 Truck 88
Paver 89
Source: FTA 2006.
1 Measured 50 feet from the source.
As shown in Table 5.9-14, construction equipment generates high levels of noise, ranging from 71 dBA to
101 dBA. Given these typical noise emissions levels for construction equipment, construction of individual
development projects that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan would temporarily increase the
ambient noise environment and would have the potential to affect noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of
individual development sites.
According to Section 9-1I-1 (Exemptions) of the City’s Municipal Code, construction activities within 0.25
mile of residential uses are exempt from the noise ordinance standards between the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00
PM, and activities located 0.25 mile or farther from residential uses are exempt during any time of day.
Enforcement of the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code would reduce construction noise by limiting
non-emergency construction hours to the daytime when people are less sensitive to elevated noise levels, or to
areas that are away from sensitive uses. Additionally, the Hazards Element of the Mid-Century Plan includes
the following policies to reduce noise impacts resulting from construction activities.
H 6.1 Excessive Motor Vehicle Noise. Encourage traffic-calming road design, engineering, and
construction methods, where appropriate, to decrease excessive motor vehicle noise on major corridors.
H 7.3 Construction Hours. Continue to enforce restrictions on the hours of construction activity to
minimize impacts of noise and vibration on adjoining uses.
H 7.4 Construction Noise. Require construction and development projects to assess potential
construction noise and vibration impacts on nearby uses and mitigate impacts on the community.
Furthermore, Mitigation Measure N-3 requires applicants for individual development projects within 500 feet
of noise-sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, hospitals, schools) to prepare construction-level noise analysis
and implement best management practices to reduce construction noise levels. Also, future development
projects subject to CEQA review would be required to include an evaluation of potential construction noise
impacts and may include site-specific mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts during construction.
However, even with compliance with the compliance of the City’s construction-related standards and
implementation of the Mid-Century Plan policies and mitigation measure, construction noise would result in
a potentially significant impact.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
June 2017 Page 5.9-43
Crossroads Specific Plan
The above analysis also applies to the Crossroads Specific Plan.
Impact 5.9-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not expose residents and workers to airport-related noise. [Threshold N-5]
Impact Analysis: The following discusses potential airport-related noise impacts that may occur under each
component of the Proposed Project.
Mid-Century Plan
The nearest airport to the Plan Area is the San Gabriel Valley Airport (which was known as the El Monte
Airport until September 2015) is approximately 750 feet south of the southeast boundary of the Plan Area. A
very small portion of the southeastern tip of the Plan Area lies within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour zone
of the airport (LACALUC 2016 and 2003). Specifically, according to on-line, interactive mapping at
http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/obj/anet/Main.html (accessed on 1/30/17), there are approximately two
households in the Plan Area (near the northwest intersection of Santa Anita Avenue and Grand Avenue) that
may be within the airport’s 65 dBA CNEL contour boundary. Given the understood accuracy of noise
contouring methods, as well as the graphical representations of modeling results, this area is considered as
insignificant regarding city-wide aircraft noise impacts. More importantly, aircraft-related noise within the
Plan Area boundaries will not change as a result of the implementation of the Mid-Century Plan and
buildout of the Mid-Century Plan would not result in any new noise-sensitive development in the vicinity of
the airport’s 65 dBA CNEL contour. Therefore, impacts due to aircraft-generated noise are not anticipated to
be significant.
Crossroads Specific Plan
The Specific Plan Area is not within the airport influence area or the noise contour zone of the airport
(LACALUC 2016 and 2003). Therefore, no potential impacts from airport noise would occur to people
residing or working in the Specific Plan Area.
5.9.5 Existing Regulations
State
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, California Building Code.
Temple City
Temple City Municipal Code, Chapter 9, Article 1: Regulation of Excessive Noise
Temple City General Plan Noise Element, 1987.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-44 PlaceWorks
5.9.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon adherence to regulatory requirements, implementation of the policies contained in the Mid-Century
Plan, and compliance with the provisions of the Crossroads Specific Plan, the following impacts would be
less than significant: 5.9-1 and 5.9-4.
Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant:
Impact 5.9-2 Construction activities associated with individual development projects under the
Proposed Project could expose sensitive uses to strong levels of short-term
groundborne vibration that exceed the FTA vibration annoyance criteria.
Impact 5.9-3 Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in temporary noise increases
due to construction activities in the vicinity of project-specific development sites.
5.9.7 Mitigation Measures
Impact 5.9-2
Mid-Century Plan
N-1 Prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, applicants for individual development
projects that are subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-
exempt projects) and that involve vibration-intensive construction activities—such as pile
drivers, vibratory rollers, hoe rams, and/or large bulldozers 12 (as examples)—within 25 feet
of sensitive receptors (e.g., residences and historic structures), shall prepare and submit to
the City of Temple City Community Development Department an acoustical study to
evaluate potential construction-related vibration damage impacts. The vibration assessment
shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and be based on the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) vibration-induced architectural damage criterion. If the acoustical
study determines a potential exceedance of the FTA thresholds, measures shall be identified
that ensure vibration levels are reduced to below the thresholds. Measures to reduce
vibration levels can include use of less-vibration-intensive equipment (e.g., drilled piles and
static rollers) and/or construction techniques (e.g., non-explosive rock blasting and use of
hand tools) and preparation of a pre-construction survey report to assess the condition of
the affected sensitive structure. Identified measures shall be included on all construction and
building documents and submitted for verification to the Community Development
Department.
N-2 Prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, applicants for individual development
projects that are subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-
12 A ‘large’ bulldozer is above an operating weight of 85,000 pounds (represented by a Caterpillar D8-class or larger); a ‘medium’
bulldozer has an operating weight range of 25,000 to 60,000 pounds (such as a Caterpillar D6- or D7-class); and a ‘small’ bulldozer
has an operating weight range of 15,000 to 20,000 pounds (such as a Caterpillar D3-, D4-, or D5-class).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
June 2017 Page 5.9-45
exempt projects) and that involve vibration-intensive construction activities—such as pile
drivers, vibratory rollers, hoe rams, and/or large bulldozers13 (as examples) —within 100 feet
of sensitive receptors (e.g., residences and historic structures) shall prepare and submit to the
City of Temple City Community Development Department an acoustical study to evaluate
potential construction-related vibration annoyance impacts. The study shall be prepared by a
qualified acoustical engineer and shall identify measures to reduce impacts to habitable
structures to below the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) vibration-induced annoyance
criterion. If construction-related vibration is determined in the acoustical study to be
perceptible at vibration-sensitive uses, additional requirements, such as use of less-vibration-
intensive equipment or construction techniques, shall be implemented during construction
(e.g., drilled piles, static rollers, and non-explosive rock blasting). Identified measures shall be
included on all construction and building documents and submitted for verification to the
Community Development Department. Prior to discretionary approval by the City of
Te mple City for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality
Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a
technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related”.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure’s N-1 and N-2 apply here.
Impact 5.9-3
Mid-Century Plan
N-3 Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading and/or construction permits, applicants for
individual development projects that are subject to CEQA (California Environmental
Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects) and that are within 500 feet of noise-sensitive
receptors (e.g., residences, hospitals, schools) shall conduct a construction-level noise analysis
to evaluate potential construction-related noise impacts on sensitive receptors. The analysis
shall be conducted once the final construction equipment list that will be used for
demolition and grading activities is determined. The construction-level noise analysis shall be
submitted to the City of Temple City Community Development Department for review and
approval. If the analysis determines that demolition and construction activities would result
in an impact to identified noise-sensitive receptors, then specific measures to attenuate the
noise impact shall be outlined in the analysis and reviewed and approved by Temple City.
Specific measures may include but are not limited to the following best management
practices:
Post a construction site notice near the construction site access point or in an area that
is clearly visible to the public. The notice shall include the following: job site address;
13 A ‘large’ bulldozer is above an operating weight of 85,000 pounds (represented by a Caterpillar D8-class or larger); a ‘medium’
bulldozer has an operating weight range of 25,000 to 60,000 pounds (such as a Caterpillar D6- or D7-class); and a ‘small’ bulldozer
has an operating weight range of 15,000 to 20,000 pounds (such as a Caterpillar D3-, D4-, or D5-class).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-46 PlaceWorks
permit number, name, and phone number of the contractor and owner; dates and
duration of construction activities; construction hours allowed; and the City of Temple
City and construction contractor phone numbers where noise complaints can be
reported and logged.
Consider the installation of temporary sound barriers for construction activities
immediately adjacent to occupied noise-sensitive structures.
Restrict haul routes and construction-related traffic to the least noise-sensitive times of
the day.
Reduce non-essential idling of construction equipment to no more than five minutes.
Ensure that all construction equipment is monitored and properly maintained in
accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to minimize noise.
Fit all construction equipment with properly-operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and
engine shrouds, no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer, to
minimize noise emissions.
If construction equipment is equipped with back-up alarm shut offs, switch off back-up
alarms and replace with human spotters, as feasible.
Stationary equipment (such as generators and air compressors) and equipment
maintenance and staging areas shall be located as far from existing noise-sensitive land
uses, as feasible.
To the extent feasible, use acoustic enclosures, shields, or shrouds for stationary
equipment such as compressors and pumps.
Shut off generators when generators are not needed.
Coordinate deliveries to reduce the potential of trucks waiting to unload and idling for
long periods of time.
Grade surface irregularities on construction sites to prevent potholes from causing
vehicular noise.
Minimize the use of impact devices such as jackhammers, pavement breakers, and hoe
rams. Where possible, use concrete crushers or pavement saws rather than hoe rams for
tasks such as concrete or asphalt demolition and removal.
The final noise-reduction measures to be implemented shall be determined by the
construction-level noise analysis. The final noise-reduction measures shall be included on all
construction and building documents and/or construction management plans and submitted
for verification to the City of Temple City Community Development Department;
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
June 2017 Page 5.9-47
implemented by the construction contractor through the duration of the construction phase;
and discussed at the pre-demolition, -grade, and/or -construction meetings.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure N-3 applies here.
5.9.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impact 5.9-2
Construction activities associated with development in accordance with the Proposed Project could expose
sensitive land uses to strong levels of short-term groundborne vibration that potentially exceed the FTA
vibration criteria for both damage and annoyance.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would minimize vibration-induced architectural impacts related
to construction activities and ensure that vibration levels at sensitive receptors are below the FTA vibration-
induced architectural damage significance criteria. Therefore, architectural damage impacts due to
construction-generated vibration would be reduced to less than significant
Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-2 would minimize vibration annoyance impacts related to
construction activities. However, due to the specific circumstances of future development projects,
construction-related vibration annoyance impacts may still occur. Therefore, while architectural damage
impacts would be reduced, Impact 5.9-2 would remain significant and unavoidable due to the potential for
vibration annoyance impacts.
Impact 5.9-3
Construction activities related to buildout of individual land uses associated with the Proposed Project could
substantially elevate noise levels in the vicinity of noise-sensitive land uses. It is anticipated that the majority
of future development projects would not result in significant construction-related noise impacts with
implementation of Mitigation Measure N-3. However, due to the unknown number of construction activities
that could occur at one time, proximity of construction activities to sensitive receptors, the length of
activities, and other factors that cannot be quantified at this time, construction-related noise impacts may not
be reduced to less than significant levels for some projects. Therefore, Impact 5.9-3 would remain significant
and unavoidable.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
NOISE
Page 5.9-48 PlaceWorks
5.9.9 References
Bies, David A. and Colin H. Hansen. 2003. Engineering Noise Control: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. New
York: Spon Press.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Environmental Analysis. 2002.
Transportation Related Earthborne Vibration: Caltrans Experiences. Technical Advisory, Vibration.
TAV-02-01-R9601. Prepared by Rudy Hendricks.
———. 2009, November. Technical Noise Supplement. Prepared by ICF International.
City of El Monte General Plan and Zoning Code Update Environmental Impact Report (SCH No
2008071012), Prepared by The Planning Center [now known as PlaceWorks], May 2011.
City of San Gabriel, The Comprehensive General Plan of the City of San Gabriel, California 2004.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1978, December. Federal Highway Traffic Noise Prediction
Model, U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Report No. FHWA-RD77-108.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. United
States Department of Transportation. FTA-VA -90-1003-06.
Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority/ Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension
Construction Authority (Metro). Gold Line Foothill Extension EIR. February 2007.
Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission (LACALUC). 2016. Los Angeles County Airports: San
Gabriel Valley Airport GIS Map. http://dpw.lacounty.gov/avi/airports/SGV.aspx#.
———.2003, May 13. San Gabriel Valley Airport Airport Influence Area.
http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/aluc_airport-el-monte.pdf.
———.2017, January 30 (access date). Interactive map at
http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/obj/anet/Main.html.
Southern California Association of Governments, Inland Empire Railroad Main Line Study, June 30, 2005
Thalheimer, E., 2000, Construction Noise Control Program and Mitigation Strategy at the Central
Artery/Tunnel Project. Institute of Noise Control Engineering.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2017 Page 5.10-1
5.10 POPULATION AND HOUSING
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) examines the potential for socioeconomic
impacts of the Proposed Project, which includes the Temple City 2050 Mid-Century General Plan (Mid-
Century Plan) and Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan (Crossroads Specific Plan), including changes in
population, employment, and demand for housing, particularly housing cost/rent ranges defined as
“affordable.” The relationship of the Proposed Project to the regional planning goals of the Southern
California Association of Governments and the current Temple City General Plan Housing Element are also
discussed.
The analysis in this section is based, in part, on sources of information from the following agencies:
United States Census Bureau
California Department of Finance
California Employment Development Department
Southern California Association of Governments
5.10.1 Environmental Setting
5.10.1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND
State and regional laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are applicable to the Proposed Project are
summarized below.
State
California Housing Element Law
California planning and zoning law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan for future growth
(Government Code § 65300). This plan must include a housing element that identifies housing needs for all
economic segments and provides opportunities for housing development to meet that need. At the state level,
the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) estimates the relative share of California’s
projected population growth that would occur in each county based on California Department of Finance
population projections and historical growth trends. These figures are compiled by HCD into a Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for each region of California. Where there is a regional council of
governments, HCD provides the RHNA to the council. The council assigns a share of the regional housing
need to each of its cities and counties. The process of assigning shares gives cities and counties the
opportunity to comment on the proposed allocations. HCD oversees the process to ensure that the council
of governments distributes its share of the state’s projected housing need.
State law recognizes the vital role local governments play in the supply and affordability of housing. To that
end, California Government Code requires that the housing element achieve legislative goals to:
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Page 5.10-2 PlaceWorks
Identify adequate sites to facilitate and encourage the development, maintenance, and improvement of
housing for households of all economic levels, including persons with disabilities.
Remove, as legally feasible and appropriate, governmental constraints to the production, maintenance,
and improvement of housing for persons of all incomes, including those with disabilities.
Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income
households.
Conserve and improve the condition of housing and neighborhoods, including existing affordable
housing. Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status,
ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability.
Preserve for lower income households the publicly assisted multifamily housing developments in each
community.
The California housing element laws (Government Code §§ 65580–65589) require each city and county to
identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs within its jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies,
and programs to further the development, improvement, and preservation of housing for all economic
segments of the community, commensurate with local housing needs.
Regional
Southern California Association of Governments
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) represents Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. SCAG is the federally recognized metropolitan planning
organization (MPO) for this region, which encompasses over 38,000 square miles. It is a regional planning
agency and serves as a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy,
community development, and the environment. SCAG develops, refines, and maintains SCAG's regional and
small area socio-economic forecasting/allocation models. The socio-economic estimates and projections are
used for federal and state mandated long-range planning efforts such as the Regional Transportation Plan
/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Air Quality Management Plan, Federal Transportation Improvement
Program, and Regional Housing Needs Assessment (SCAG 2017).
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) was adopted in
April 2016 (SCAG 2016). Major themes in the 2016 RTP/SCS include integrating strategies for land use and
transportation; striving for sustainability; protecting and preserving existing transportation infrastructure;
increasing capacity through improved systems managements; providing more transportation choices;
leveraging technology; responding to demographic and housing market changes; supporting commerce,
economic growth, and opportunity; promoting the links between public health, environmental protection,
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
June 2017 Page 5.10-3
and economic opportunity; and incorporating the principles of social equity and environmental justice into
the plan.
5.10.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project area’s demographics are examined in the context of existing and projected populations and
housing units for the Los Angeles County region and the City of Temple City. Information on population,
housing, and employment for the project area is available from several sources:
California Department of Finance. The Department of Finance prepares and administers California’s
annual budget. Other duties include estimating population demographics and enrollment projections.
Southern California Association of Governments. The 2016 RTP/SCS expresses policies; programs;
and employment, housing, and population projections adopted by SCAG to achieve regional objectives.
United States Census Bureau. The official US census is described in Article I, Section 2 of the US
Constitution. It calls for an actual enumeration of the people every 10 years to be used for
apportionment among the states of seats in the House of Representatives. The US Census Bureau
publishes population and household data gathered in the decennial census.
American Community Survey. The American Community Survey by the US Census Bureau provides
statistics about population, housing, household, economic, and transportation trends between decennial
censuses.
Population
Table 5.10-1 shows population and housing data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau for the San Gabriel
Valley (SGV) and Temple City during the last two decennial censuses.
Table 5.10-1 Census Data for San Gabriel Valley and City of Temple City, 2000–2010
2000 2010
Change, 2000–2010
Total Percent
San Gabriel Valley1
Population 1,817,026 1,846,796 29,770 1.6%
Dwelling Units 566,961 594,375 27,414 4.6%
City of Temple City2
Population 33,377 35,558 2,181 6.5%
Dwelling Units 11,338 11,606 268 2.4%
Source: U.S. Census 2016, 2016a.
1 Census data for the SGV was calculated using data for the four Census County Divisions that are roughly coterminous with SGVCOG’s definition of the region: the
East SGV, Pasadena, Southwest San SGV, and Upper SGV.
2 Note that U.S. Census data for the years 2000 and 2010 are for the City only and not the entire Plan Area or the City’s sphere of influence.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Page 5.10-4 PlaceWorks
As shown in Table 5.10-1, the SGV’s population grew 1.6 percent between 2000 and 2010, and Temple City’s
grew at a notably higher 6.5 percent. During the same period, the number of dwelling units in the SGV grew
by 4.6 percent between 2000 and 2010, and Temple City’s housing stock grew by only 2.4 percent.
Unlike Table 5.10-1, which shows overall positive growth in Temple City and the SGV between 2000 and
2010, Table 5.10-2 identifies yearly population figures between 2010 and the current (2016) population.
Table 5.10-2 Population Growth Trends in Temple City and the San Gabriel Valley
Year
City of Temple City1 San Gabriel Valley
Population2 Percent Change Population2,3 Percent Change
2010 35,558 N/A 1,491,404 N/A
2011 35,725 0.47 1,499,613 0.55%
2012 35,952 0.63 1,507,599 0.53%
2013 36,051 0.28 1,509,607 0.13%
2014 36,162 0.31 1.515.497 0.39%
2015 36,210 0.13 1,521,427 0.39%
2016 36,534 0.89 1,531,532 0.66%
Source: DOF 2016a and 2016b.
1 Note that DOF data for the years 2000 through 2016 are for the City only and not the entire Plan Area or the City’s sphere of influence.
2 Population counts for the year 2010 is derived from U.S. Census data; counts for other years consist of estimates calculated by DOF.
3 Population estimates for the SGV were calculated using estimates for the 31 cities that compose SGVCOG’s definition of the region and do not account for the
region’s unincorporated areas. This accounts for the difference between the 2010 population shown in Table 5.10-1 and the one shown in this table.
As shown in Table 4 -1, Existing Land Use Statistical Summary, Chapter 4 of this DEIR, there are currently
approximately 46,450 residents in the Plan Area when combining the population of Temple City (36,019)
with the population of 10,431 within the City’s SOI.
Population Forecasts
Population forecasts for the Temple City and SGV (excluding unincorporated areas) are listed in Table 5.10-3.
The 2020 and 2035 population forecasts are from the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS Regional Forecast.
Table 5.10-3 Adopted SCAG Growth Forecasts
Forecast
City of Temple City1 San Gabriel Valley2
Increase,
2020–2035
Percent Increase,
2020–2035
2020 2035 2020 2035
Temple
City SGV2 Temple City SGV2
Population 37,000 39,500 1,557,800 1,650,500 2,500 92,700 6.3% 5.6%
Households 12,300 13,200 495,800 523,100 900 27,300 6.8% 5.2%
Employment 7,500 8,100 735,000 784,200 600 49,200 7.4% 6.3%
Source: SCAG 2017.
1 Note that SCAG projections are for the City only and not the entire Plan Area or the City’s sphere of influence.
2 Population estimates for the SGV were calculated using estimates for the 31 cities that compose the SGVCOG’s definition of the region and do not include for the region’s unincorporated areas.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
June 2017 Page 5.10-5
As shown in the table, the population of the City is forecast to increase to 39,500 by 2035, an increase of
2,500 (or 6.3 percent) beyond its forecast 2020 population (SCAG 2017). The percentage increase forecast for
the City (6.3 percent) is slightly greater than the SGV’s projected population growth of 5.6 percent. The City
is projected to grow by an average of approximately 156 persons per year, and the SGV’s projected growth
rate is approximately 5,794 persons per year.
Housing Trends
Housing units and households as counted in the 2010 Census, 2016 DOF estimates, and SCAG forecasts for
2020 and 2035 for the City and SGV are shown in Tables 5.10-4 and 5.10-5. For clarification, households are
defined as occupied housing units. The existing housing units within the Temple City boundary identified in
the Census and DOF are close to the 11,813 existing housing units identified in Table 4-1, Existing Land Use
Statistical Summary, Chapter 4 of this DEIR.
Table 5.10-4 Existing Housing Units and Households in Temple City
2010 U.S. Census 2016 DOF Estimate
San Gabriel Valley1
Housing Units 488,279 494,121
Households 465,624 467,784
Vacant Housing Units 22,625 26,337
Vacancy Rate 4.6% 5.1%
City of Temple City2
Housing Units 12,117 12,196
Households 11,606 11,662
Vacant Housing Units 511 534
Vacancy Rate 4.2% 4.4%
Source: DOF 2016c, U.S. Census 2016.
1 Census and DOF 2013 estimates for the SGV were calculated using estimates for the 31 cities that compose the region and do not account for unincorporated areas.
2 Note that Census and DOF figures for Temple City are for the City only and not the entire planning area or the City’s sphere of influence.
As shown in Table 5.10-4, the housing vacancy rate in Temple City was 4.2 percent in 2010, as reported in the
2010 Census, and is at 4.4 percent as of 2016 as estimated by the DOF. Of the 511 vacant housing units
counted in the Census, 230 units—45 percent of the total—were for rent or rented but not occupied, and 85
or 17 percent of the total were for sale or sold but not occupied. Of the remaining vacant units, 33 were for
seasonal or recreational use and the balance, 163 units, were uncategorized. The SGV’s vacancy rate, at 4.6
percent, is slightly higher than the City’s rate (U.S. Census 2016).
As shown in Table 5.10-5, between existing and 2035 conditions, the number of households is forecast to
increase by 16.7 percent in Temple City, and increase by 5.9 percent in the SGV.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Page 5.10-6 PlaceWorks
Table 5.10-5 SCAG Household Forecasts
Existing Conditions
SCAG Forecasts Increase, Existing–2035
Percent Increase, Existing–2035 2020 2035
San Gabriel Valley 494,121 495,800 523,100 28,979 5.9%
Temple City 11,2931 12,300 13,200 1,883 16.7%
Source: SCAG 2017.
1 In order to provide a comparison of SCAG’s household projections for Temple City (Temple City only, not including the City’s SOI), the total number of households shown here was calculated by multiplying the total number of housing units currently within the City’s boundary (11,813, as provided in Table 4-1, Existing Land Use
Statistical Summary, Chapter 4 of this DEIR) by the current vacancy rate of 4.4 percent.
To compare existing (11,813, as shown in Table 4-1) and forecast housing units, the current vacancy rate of
the City (4.4%, as noted in Table 5.10-4) was applied to the 2035 household forecast for Temple City (13,200)
to generate the number housing units. Using this approach, the total number of projected housing units for
the City in 2035 would be approximately 13,808.
Housing Tenure
Tenure refers to whether a household owns or rents a home. As of the 2010 Census, 64 percent (7,435) of
households owned a home and 36 percent (4,153) rented a home in Temple City. Temple City’s rate of
homeownership is a similar rate to the 60 percent rate for the SGV (U.S. Census 2016).
Housing Unit Types
Housing units in Temple City are classified by unit type in Table 5.10-6. As shown in the table, existing
housing in Temple City consists of a substantially higher number of single-family units (88.9 percent) than
multifamily units (11.1 percent).
Table 5.10-6 Housing Units in Temple City by Unit Type
Number of Units Percent of Units
Single-Family Detached 9,845 80.7%
Single-Family Attached 890 7.3%
Multifamily (2 to 4 Units) 345 2.8%
Multifamily (5+ units) 1,009 8.3%
Mobile Homes 107 0.9%
Total Units 12,196 100%
Source: DOF 2016c.
Household Size
The average household size was reported as 3.03 persons in Temple City and 2.98 persons in Los Angeles
County in the 2010 U.S. Census.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
June 2017 Page 5.10-7
Current and Future Housing Needs
The 2014-2021 City of Temple City Housing Element, which was adopted on January 7, 2014, provides a
thorough discussion as well as goals and policies to address issues of housing affordability.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
The RHNA is mandated by state housing law as part of the periodic process of updating housing elements
of local general plans. State law requires that housing elements identify RHNA targets set by California’s
Department of Housing and Community Development to encourage each jurisdiction in the state to provide
its fair share of very low, low, moderate, and upper income housing. The RHNA does not promote growth,
but provides a long-term outline for housing within the context of local and regional trends and housing
production goals.
SCAG determines total housing needs for each community in southern California based on three general
factors: 1) the number of housing units needed to accommodate future population and employment growth;
2) the number of additional units needed to allow for housing vacancies; and 3) the number of very low, low,
moderate, and above moderate-income households needed in the community. Additional factors used to
determine the RHNA include tenure, the average rate of units needed to replace housing units demolished,
and other factors.
The City’s RHNA allocation for the 2014–2021 period was approved in 2012 and is shown in Table 5.10-7.
The City is required to ensure that sufficient sites planned and zoned for housing are available to
accommodate its need and to implement proactive programs that facilitate and encourage the production of
housing commensurate with its housing needs.
Table 5.10-7 City of Temple City Regional Housing Needs Allocation for 2014–2021
Income Category Definition
RHNA
Number of Units Percentage
Very Low 50% or Less of MFI 159 26.2%
Low 51–80% of MFI 93 15.8%
Moderate 81–120% of MFI 99 16.5%
Above Moderate above 120% of MFI 252 41.5%
Total 603 100%
Source: SCAG 2011.
Notes: MFI = median family income
Employment
Table 5.10-8 shows the City’s workforce by occupation and industry. According to estimates calculated by the
U.S. Census for 2014 (the most recent year available), the City had an employed civilian labor force (16 years
and older) of 16,304. The largest occupational category is “management, business, science, and arts
occupations,” which accounts for 41.2 percent of the civilian jobs available in the City (U.S. Census 2016b).
During the 2010-2014 period, the City’s workforce was 1.9 percent of the SGV’s employed civilian workforce
of 847,509 (U.S. Census 2016b).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Page 5.10-8 PlaceWorks
Table 5.10-8 Existing Temple City Employment by Business Sector
Occupation/Industry Number Percent
Occupation
Management, business, science, and arts occupations 6,717 41.2%
Service occupations 2,299 14.1%
Sales and office occupations 5,299 32.5%
Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations 913 5.6%
Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 1,076 6.6%
Total 16,304 100%
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 82 0.5%
Construction 702 4.3%
Manufacturing 1,632 10.0%
Wholesale trade 1,094 6.7%
Retail trade 1,990 12.2%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 882 5.4%
Information 522 3.2%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 1,078 6.6%
Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste
management services 1,616 9.9%
Educational services, and health care and social assistance 3,703 22.7%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 1,224 7.5%
Other services, except public administration 947 5.8%
Public administration 832 5.1%
Total 16,304 100%
Source: U.S. Census 2016b.
It should be noted that these statistics describe the employment status of Temple City residents and do not
account for the many employees who work in Temple City but live elsewhere. As discussed in Table 4 -1,
Existing Land Use Statistical Summary, of Chapter 4 of this DEIR, it is estimated that land uses in the Plan Area
currently employ approximately 6,654 people.
Employment Trends
According to the California Employment Development Department (EDD), Temple City has been slowly
gaining jobs between 2010 and 2015. Numerical employment and annual employment change in Temple City
are shown in Table 5.10-9. As mentioned before, the employment statistics shown here do not account for all
jobs in Temple City. As shown in Table 4 -1, Existing Land Use Statistical Summary, of Chapter 4 of this DEIR,
it is estimated that land uses in Temple City and its SOI currently employ approximately 6,654 people.
Despite this difference in enumeration methodology, the figures in Table 5.10-9 accurately illustrate overall
employment trends in the community.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
June 2017 Page 5.10-9
Table 5.10-9 Historic Employment Growth Trends in Temple City
Year Total Employment (Persons)1 Percent Change
2010 17,200 N/A
2011 17,200 0.0%
2012 17,300 0.6%
2013 17,500 1.2%
2014 17,700 1.1%
2015 17,800 0.6%
Source: EDD 2016.
1 Estimates are not seasonally adjusted. Employment is defined as the number of individuals, aged 16 years or older, who are working. Existing employment identified
in Chapter 3 of this DEIR is based on employment generation based on nonresidential building square footage by land use type.
Employment Forecasts
Employment forecasts for Temple City and the SGV are shown in Table 5.10-10. An employment figure for
existing conditions in the SGV that was calculated using the same methodology and geographic boundary as
SCAG employment forecasts is not available. Therefore, “existing conditions” for the SGV uses SCAG’s 2012
employment estimates for the 31 cities that constitute the SGV.
Table 5.10-10 Employment Forecasts
Existing
Conditions
SCAG Forecasts Increase,
2016–2035
Percent Increase,
2016–2035 2020 2035
San Gabriel Valley1 678,9002
(2012) 735,000 784,200 105,300
(2012–2035)
15.5%
(2012–2035)
Temple City 6,900 7,500 8,100 1,200 17.4%
Source: DOF 2016b, SCAG 2016.
1 SCAG forecasts for the SGV were calculated using forecasts for the 31 cities that compose the SGVCOG’s definition of the region and do not account for the region’s
unincorporated areas.
2 SCAG estimate for 2012. A more recent figure that is calculated using the same methodology and geographic boundary as SCAG employment forecasts is not
available.
As shown in Table 5.10-10, employment is forecast to grow at a healthy pace between now and 2035 in both
Temple City (17.4 percent) and the SGV (15.5 percent). Employment growth in Temple City is expected to
outpace that in the San Gabriel Valley.
5.10.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
P-1 Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Page 5.10-10 PlaceWorks
P-2 Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere.
P-3 Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds
would be less than significant:
Thresholds P-2 and P-3
These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis.
5.10.3 Relevant General Plan Policies
The following are relevant policies of the adopted Temple City 2014–2021 Housing Element and proposed
Mid-Century Plan, which are designed to reduce the potential population and housing impacts that could
result from implementation of the Proposed Project.
Adopted Temple City 2014–2021 Housing Element
Program 1: Temple City Downtown Specific Plan
2014-2021 Objectives: Promote identified opportunity sites and lot consolidation incentives within the
Downtown Specific Plan to the residential development community and on the City’s website.
Program 2: Multi-Family Sites Inventory and Development Incentives
2014-2021 Objectives: Maintain an inventory of vacant and underutilized multi-family residential sites
and place on the City’s website, and provide to developers in conjunction with information on available
development incentives.
Program 3: Special Needs Housing
2014-2021 Objectives: Continue to allow the establishment of transitional and supportive housing
development and single-room occupancy developments (SRO). Consistent with State law, transitional
housing and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use of property, and shall be subject
only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.
Program 6: House Ownership Program for Lower-Income Households
2014-2021 Objectives: Continue to participate in the regional Mortgage Credit Certificate Program
(MCC) program, and provide information to interested residents at City Hall and on the City’s website.
Provide information on the Los Angeles County Homeownership Program (HOP) program,
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
June 2017 Page 5.10-11
Independent Cities Lease Financing Authority (ICLFA) Access, and National Homebuyers Fund (NHF)
Gold programs to interested residents.
Program 7: Affordable Housing Development Assistance
2014-2021 Objectives: Provide development assistance through regulatory incentives as a means to
reduce overall development costs and facilitate the development of quality affordable housing for
families and seniors. Assist affordable housing developers to seek additional funding sources— including
State, federal, and private funding sources—as a means of leveraging local funds and maximizing
assistance to meet City housing goals. Meet with developers of supportive housing as requested to help
them understand how housing for persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities, can best
be constructed in Temple City.
Program 8: Second Unit Ordinance
2014-2021 Objectives: Through implementation of the City’s second unit ordinance, provide additional
sites for the provision of rental housing. Continue to educate residents on the potential for second unit
construction through availability of informational materials for distribution at the public counter and
through advertisement on the City’s website. Seek to achieve a total of 30 second units during the 2014-
2021 planning period.
Program 17: Fair Housing Program
2014-2021 Objectives: Continue to promote fair housing practices, and refer fair housing and
tenant/landlord complaints to the Housing Rights Center. Advertise services available through the fair
housing program through distribution of fair housing brochures in community locations, and provide
information on fair housing resources on the Temple City website.
Mid-Century Plan
Land Use Element
LU 1.1 Basic Growth Policy. Accommodate growth that is consistent with community values, character,
and scale and complements and enhances existing uses.
LU 1.2 Targeted Growth. Target primary growth as adaptive re-use and new construction in the
downtown Las Tunas Drive/Temple City Boulevard core, commercial centers at major arterial
intersections including properties southwest of the Las Tunas Drive/Rosemead Boulevard intersection,
and underutilized industrial properties.
LU 1.3 Development Capacity. Accommodate the type and density of land uses depicted on the Land
Use Diagram to a cumulative (existing and new) maximum of 20,523 housing units and 3,854,533 square
feet of commercial square feet.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Page 5.10-12 PlaceWorks
LU 2.2 Places to Live. Provide opportunities for a full range of housing types, densities, locations, and
affordability levels to address the community’s fair share of regional, senior, and workforce housing needs
and provide a strong customer base sustaining the economic vitality of Temple City’s commercial
businesses.
LU 2.4 Places to Work. Provide opportunities for the development of a broad range of land uses that
offer job opportunities, including knowledge-based and local serving jobs that are commensurate with
the education, skills, and occupations of Temple City residents.
LU 2.5 Places to Live and Work. Provide for the development of projects integrating housing with
commercial uses enabling residents to reduce automobile travel, air pollution, and greenhouse gas
emissions.
LU 8.3 Housing Type Distribution. Promote an equitable distribution of housing types for all income
groups throughout the City and promote mixed-income developments to avoid concentrations of below-
market-rate housing in particular areas.
LU 9.3 New Residential Development. Accommodate the development of new residential
development that is well-conceived, constructed, and maintained in a variety of types and densities,
scales, and costs.
LU 9.10 Senior Housing. Encourage the development of senior housing that is located near
commercial goods, health care facilities, community and recreational facilities, and public transit, allowing
seniors to age in place.
LU 13.1 Vibrant Economy. Encourage a diverse mix of vibrant and prosperous businesses and
commercial districts that serve Temple City residents and attract residents from surrounding communities
to provide revenue to sustain a high level of community services.
LU 13.2 Local Businesses. Support local businesses and entrepreneurs by providing a range of
locations and flexible space opportunities in the City’s commercial districts.
LU 14.1 Mix of Uses. Accommodate development integrating commercial and residential land uses in
mixed-use designated areas that establish places that are economically vital and pedestrian-active
contributing to resident health and community sustainability.
LU 15.4 Local Manufacturing. Support small-scale, local production and manufacturing uses that
provide locally-produced products to Temple City residents.
LU 16.2 Land Use Mix. Provide for the development of retail, office, restaurant, and other commercial
uses along the street frontages, integrated with multi-family housing on abutting properties or on upper
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
June 2017 Page 5.10-13
level at key intersections designated on the Land Use Diagram, which expand the customer base for local
businesses, enable residents to live close to jobs, and create an active, walkable environment.
Economic Development Element
ED 2.1 Business Attraction. Attract a mix of national-brand and proven regional and local area
businesses that provide fiscal and employment benefits for the City.
ED 2.7 Regulatory Environment. Encourage an efficient and consistent regulatory environment with a
predictable development process to encourage growth of existing businesses and attract new businesses
to locate within Temple City.
ED 4.1 Targeted Job Opportunity. Explore and identify industries with well-paying jobs that match or
that can enhance the skill base and training capacity of resident workforce.
ED 4.2 Targeted Job Promotion. Promote local workforce as marketable resource for job placement
companies serving the area and targeted industries.
ED 4.3 Targeted Job Growth. Encourage cooperative partnerships with industry businesses that plan to
increase on-site staffing upon location or expansion within Temple City.
ED 4.4 Targeted Job Hiring. Encourage and assist businesses seeking to obtain tax credits for qualified
hiring of City residents.
5.10.4 Environmental Impacts
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Methodology
The Plan Area’s demographics are examined in the context of existing and projected population for the San
Gabriel Valley (SGV) as identified by SGVCOG and the Temple City. The SGV is preferred over Los Angeles
County for providing regional context because of the very large population of Los Angeles County—
estimated at approximately 10.17 million people in 2015 (DOF 2016a). The SGV is an east-west-trending
valley bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the north; the Puente Hills and Orange County to the south;
San Bernardino County to the east; and the Repetto Hills and San Rafael Hills to the west. Temple City is in
the midwestern part of the SGV. The region spans 400 square miles and encompasses 31 incorporated cities
as well as several large unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County.
Because not all data sources have information for the subregion in its entirety, aggregated data for the
subregions 31 cities is used to represent the subregion.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Page 5.10-14 PlaceWorks
Impact 5.10-1: Buildout under the Proposed Project would directly result in population growth in the Plan
Area. [Threshold P-1]
Impact Analysis: Implementation of the Proposed Project, which includes the Mid-Century Plan and
Crossroads Specific Plan, would result in the direct growth in population in the Plan Area. As shown in Table
3-2, Estimated General Plan Land Use Designations and Buildout Projections, of Chapter 3 of this DEIR,
implementation of the Mid-Century Plan would result in buildout of approximately 20,520 residential units
(5,220 more than existing conditions) and 3,867,597 square feet of nonresidential uses (commercial, office,
industrial, and institutional; 1,048,100 more than existing conditions). These land use changes are anticipated
to generate 12,778 additional residents (total of 59,228 under buildout) and 3,200 additional workers (total of
9,854 under buildout) to the Plan Area.
Buildout of the Mid-Century Plan would involve the extensive redevelopment and intensification of major
corridors and specific plan areas in the City, including transitioning the Specific Plan Area under the
Crossroads Specific Plan from an auto-oriented commercial corridor to a mixed-use, multi-modal area with
housing, retail and services, restaurants, and recreation and open space. As shown in Table 3 -3, Land Use
Projections for Specific Plan Area, buildout of the Specific Plan Area, which is the reasonable buildout of the area
through the year 2035, would increase the number of residential units in the Specific Plan Area to
approximately 1,887 dwelling units—roughly 1,837 more than existing conditions. The Specific Plan also
increases potential commercial building square footage to approximately 1,082,061 square feet–a net increase
of approximately 454,713 square feet over existing conditions.
Following is a discussion of the potential population and housing impacts resulting from development that
would be accommodated under each component of the Proposed Project.
Mid-Century Plan
Population Growth
As shown in Table 4 -1, Existing Land Use Statistical Summary, the current population of the Plan Area is
approximately 46,450: 36,015 residents within the City’s boundary and 10,431 within the City’s SOI. Buildout
of the Plan Area in accordance with the Mid-Century Plan—which includes buildout that would be
accommodated under the Crossroads Specific Plan—would result in a total population of 59,228 (45,960
within the City’s boundary and 13,268 within the City’s SOI)—this would equate to a population increase of
12,778 residents over existing conditions, or a 27.5 percent increase.
The estimated population growth for Temple City due to buildout of the Mid-Century Plan would exceed
SCAG’s forecast population increase for the City of 39,500 by 2035 (see Table 5.10-3, Adopted SCAG Growth
Forecasts). Specifically, the population growth that would occur within the City’s boundary would be
approximately 45,960, as noted above—which represents an increase of 6,460 residents over SCAG’s 2035
growth forecast. Growth in the City’s SOI is projected to increase by 2,837 residents. However, it is likely that
buildout under the Mid-Century Plan could occur over a longer buildout horizon than 2035. Additionally, one
of the purposes of the Mid-Century Plan is to adequately plan and accommodate future growth in the Plan
Area. The majority of the increase in population would occur within Specific Plan Area (concentrating and
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
June 2017 Page 5.10-15
intensifying development along the City’s key corridors), with minor increases occurring in other areas of the
Plan Area.
Therefore, the increases in population due to buildout of Mid-Century Plan compared to the 2035 SCAG
projections is not anticipated to result in a substantial adverse impact.
Housing Growth
As shown in Table 4 -1, the current number of housing units in the Plan Area is approximately 15,300—
11,813 with the City’s boundary and 3,487 within the City’s SOI. Buildout of the Plan Area in accordance
with the Mid-Century Plan—which includes buildout that would be accommodated under the Crossroads
Specific Plan—would result in a total of 20,520 dwelling units (16,383 within the City’s boundary and 4,137
within the City’s SOI)—this would equate to an increase of 5,220 dwelling units over existing conditions
(4,570 in the City and 650 in the City’s SOI), or a 34.1 percent increase.
The estimated increase in housing units for Temple City (does not include the City’s SOI) due to buildout of
the Mid-Century Plan would exceed SCAG’s forecast housing unit increase for the City of approximately
13,808 by 2035. Specifically, the increase in dwelling units that would occur within the City’s boundary would
be approximately 16,383, as noted above—which represents an increase of 2,575 dwelling units over SCAG’s
2035 growth forecast. However, it is likely that buildout under the Mid-Century Plan could occur over a
longer buildout horizon than 2035. One of the factor used by SCAG to prepare growth forecasts and RHNA
requirements is each jurisdictions adopted General Plan. In cases where jurisdictions are being responsive to
housing demands by planning for additional housing in their General Plan or a Specific Plan, that plan will
initially be in conflict with SCAG’s forecasts. However, when the next RTP is prepared and RHNA is
prepared those documents will be revised to take into account the City’s revisions to its General Plan.
Additionally, one of the purposes of the Mid-Century Plan is to adequately plan and accommodate future
growth in the Plan Area. The majority of the increase in dwelling units would occur within the Specific Plan
Area (concentrating and intensifying development along the City’s key corridors), with minor increases
occurring in other areas of the Plan Area. The Mid-Century Plan is also consistent with the City’s and SCAG
goals to provide additional housing opportunities in Temple City; it would also help meet the current housing
demand and needs in Temple City. For example, the additional housing units (type and number of) permitted
under the Crossroads Specific Plan would afford the City a substantial opportunity to provide affordable
housing units in Temple City consistent with the goals and policies of the City’s current Housing Element.
Therefore, the increases in dwelling units due to buildout of Mid-Century Plan compared to the 2035 SCAG
projections is not anticipated to result in a substantial adverse impact.
Jobs Growth
New and expanded land uses in the Plan Area would accommodate approximately 1,048,100 additional
square feet of nonresidential space compared to existing conditions and would, together with existing
employment-generating land uses, provide 9,854 jobs in the Plan Area (9,217 within Temple City and 637
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Page 5.10-16 PlaceWorks
within the City’s SOI). Approximately 6,654 jobs currently exist within the Plan Area (5,965 within Temple
City and 689 within the City’s SOI).
Buildout in accordance with the Mid-Century Plan would therefore result in 3,165 additional jobs in the Plan
Area (specifically, all within the City’s boundary), a substantial increase in employment compared to existing
conditions and an increase that could indirectly induce population growth. The construction phase of
individual development projects that would be accommodated under the Mid-Century Plan would also
generate some temporary employment.
The estimated increase in jobs for Temple City due to buildout of the Mid-Century Plan would exceed
SCAG’s forecast employment increase for the City of 8,100 by 2035 (see Table 5.10-3). Specifically, the
increase in jobs that would occur within the City’s boundary would be approximately 3,252, as noted above—
which represents an increase of 1,117 jobs over SCAG’s 2035 growth forecast. This is not considered a
substantial increase. Additionally, it is likely that buildout under the Mid-Century Plan could occur over a
longer buildout horizon than 2035.
Additionally, the unemployment rate in Los Angeles in April 2017 was estimated at 4.3 percent (EDD 2017);
therefore, the operation- and construction-related employment generation that would result from
implementation of the Mid-Century Plan is expected to be absorbed from the regional labor force and would
not attract new workers into the region. Furthermore, as discussed below, the increase in jobs would help the
City’s jobs-housing ratio.
Therefore, the increases in jobs due to buildout of Mid-Century Plan compared to the 2035 SCAG
projections is not anticipated to result in a substantial adverse impact.
Relationship between Jobs and Housing
The jobs-housing ratio is a general measure of the total number of jobs to housing units in a defined
geographic area, without regard to economic constraints or individual preferences. The balance of jobs and
housing in an area—in the total number of jobs and housing units as well as the type of jobs versus the price
of housing—has implications for mobility, air quality, and the distribution of tax revenues.
Jobs -housing balance is somewhat of an artificial construct, since even in a “balanced” community, in- and
out-commuting between it and other parts of a region is to be expected. However, the jobs-housing ratio is
one indicator of a project’s effect on growth patterns in the project area. Furthermore, although full jobs-
housing balance may not be an appropriate goal for the City, analysis of the relationship between jobs and
housing at the regional level is useful because it takes into account regional commuting patterns and regional
land use patterns.
SCAG applies the jobs-housing ratio at the regional and subregional levels to analyze the fit between jobs,
housing, and infrastructure. A major focus of SCAG’s regional planning efforts has been to improve this
balance. No ideal jobs-housing ratio has been adopted in state, regional, or city policies; jobs-housing goals
and ratios are advisory only. The American Planning Association (APA) is an authoritative resource for
community planning best practices, including recommendations for assessing jobs-housing ratios. Although
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
June 2017 Page 5.10-17
APA recognizes that an ideal jobs-housing ratio will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, its recommended
target is about 1.5, with a recommended range of 1.3 to 1.7 (Weltz 2003). A well-balanced ratio of jobs and
housing reduces commuting trips because more employment opportunities are closer to residential areas.
Such a reduction in vehicle trips lowers levels of air pollutant emissions (including lower greenhouse gas
emissions) and causes less congestion on area roadways and intersections.
Temple City Jobs -Housing Ratio
Full buildout of the Proposed Project (which includes the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan)
could occur over a longer buildout horizon than 2035, and therefore is not anticipated to occur in the near
future. However, this DEIR is tasked with determining the significance of impacts based on the development
potential allowed under the Proposed Project. Based on this standard, buildout of the Proposed Project
would result in population growth of 35.4 percent. When averaged between 2015 and 2035, this is an annual
population growth of approximately 1.8 percent, which is consistent with expected regional growth. Table
5.10-11 compares buildout projections of the Plan Area for population, households, and employment to
SCAG projections.
Table 5.10-11 Comparison of SCAG and Mid-Century Plan Projections for the Plan Area
Existing 2015 Conditions
SCAG Projections1 Project Buildout within Temple City 2020 2035
Population 36,534 37,000 39,500 43,279
Households 11,5862 12,300 13,200 14,3162
Housing Units 12,196 12,9153 13,8603 15,069
Employment 6,900 7,500 8,100 8,803
Jobs-Housing Ratio 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.58
Source: DOF 2016b, SCAG 2016.
1 Note that SCAG projections are for the City only and not the entire planning area or the City’s sphere of influence.
2 Household estimates for existing conditions and project buildout are calculated based on number of housing units and a vacancy rate of 5%.
3 Housing units in SCAG projections are estimated based on number of households and a vacancy rate of 5%.
As shown in the table, SCAG projects that the City will remain housing-rich in 2035, with a jobs-housing
ratio of 0.58. The table shows that buildout projections for population, household and employment growth
under the Mid-Century Plan do not exceed the 2035 estimates projected for the City by SCAG. The table
shows that the jobs-housing balance in Temple City in 2015 was 0.57, indicating that the City is housing-rich.
SCAG anticipates this ratio to slightly increase to 0.58 by 2035. Buildout of the City in accordance with the
Mid-Century Plan would be consistent with this expectation, increasing the City’s job-housing balance to 0.58.
Additionally, the following goals of the Land Use Element recognize the relationship between jobs and
housing:
Goal LU 2.4: Places to Work. Provide opportunities for the development of a broad range of land uses
that offer job opportunities, including knowledge-based and local serving jobs that are commensurate
with the education, skills, and occupations of Temple City residents.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Page 5.10-18 PlaceWorks
Goal LU 15: Industrial Districts. Industrial districts consisting of diverse light industrial uses that
provide job opportunities and for Temple City residents and growth opportunities for Temple City
businesses, while not unduly impacting the community.
A number of policies in the Mid-Century Plan also address the relationship between local employment and
housing. Land Use Policies 1.2, 1.3, 2.4, 2.5, 13.1, and 13.2, and Economic Development Policies 2.1, 4.1, 4.2,
4.3, and 4.4, both directly and indirectly promote the creation of new jobs for City residents. Additional
policies in the Land Use Element pertaining to the creation of Complete and Livable Neighborhoods
promote the location of jobs and housing near each-other. These policies are aimed at giving residents the
option to live near work or live where transit easily connects them to their place of employment.
Furthermore, the following policies of the Crossroads Specific Plan recognize the relationship between jobs
and housing:
Crossroads Policy 1: Accommodate the transition of the Specific Plan area from an auto-oriented
commercial corridor to a mixed-use, multi-modal area with housing, retail and services, restaurants, and
recreation and open space.
Crossroads Policy 3: Encourage the Mixed-Use Core be developed in a comprehensive, non-piecemeal
manner that establishes a critical mass of residents, employees, and visitors to the area.
San Gabriel Valley Jobs-Housing Ratio
Table 5.10-12 compares population, housing, and employment projections for Temple City to SCAG’s
projections for the City and SGV in 2035. Buildout under the Mid-Century Plan would increase SCAG
projections for the City (does not include the City’s SOI) by 19,701 people, 1,719 employees, and 15,663
dwelling units. As Table 5.10-12 illustrates, when this difference is added to SCAG’s 2035 projections for the
SGV region, the jobs-housing ratio for the SGV becomes more housing-rich, but within a balanced jobs-to-
housing ratio (between 1.3 and 1.7).
Table 5.10-12 Comparison of SCAG and General Plan Buildout Projections
for Temple City and the San Gabriel Valley
2035 SCAG Projections for City
of Temple City1
2035 General Plan
Buildout Projections
Difference between SCAG and
General Plan
2035 SCAG Projections
for SGV2 SGV plus Difference
Population 39,500 59,228 19,728 1,650,500 1,669,778
Housing Units 13,8083 20,520 6,712 549,2553 555,967
Employment 8,100 9,851 1,751 784,200 785,951
Jobs-Housing Ratio 0.59 0.48 — 1.43 1.41
Source: SCAG 2016.
1 Note that SCAG projections are for the City only and not the entire planning area or the City’s sphere of influence.
2 Population estimates for the SGV were calculated using estimates for the 31 cities that compose the SGVCOG’s definition of the region and do not account for the
region’s unincorporated areas.
3 Housing units in SCAG projections are estimated based on number of households and a vacancy rate of 4.4% (the City’s current vacancy rate was applied here).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
June 2017 Page 5.10-19
SCAG’s 2035 projections for the SGV are used as a comparison since growth will occur in the region with or
without implementation of the Mid-Century Plan. This method of analysis demonstrates the Mid-Century
Plan’s long-term contribution to future jobs-housing balance in the region. Note that a comparison between
existing conditions in the SGV and the SGV region with buildout of the Mid-Century Plan is less meaningful
because the difference in housing units and jobs generated between the two is largely a function of growth
elsewhere in the region, not growth resulting from Temple City’s contribution to regional conditions.
However, both scenarios demonstrate that the Mid-Century Plan would not drastically change the overall
jobs-housing balance in the SGV.
Added growth under the Mid-Century Plan would be focused and occur along the City’s main corridors.
Therefore, population increases projected for the SGV region would locate in areas with closer proximity to
jobs and employment centers—thereby reducing, vehicle miles traveled in the region as well as the
corresponding reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. This allows a greater number of residents in the region
to live and work in the Plan Area and surrounding areas. This benefit to the region ensures that population
growth impacts would not be significant.
Conclusion
As demonstrated above, the population, housing, and employment projections for buildout of the Mid-
Century would exceed, but not substantially exceed, SCAG’s growth forecasts for Temple City. Furthermore,
population growth would be offset by employment growth accommodated by the Mid-Century, which would
provide employment opportunities for new residents. The jobs-housing ratio for the SGV region would
remain balanced. Therefore, implementation of the Mid-Century Plan is not anticipated to result in a
significant impact relating to population, housing, and job growth.
Crossroads Specific Plan Policies
The above analysis also applies to the Crossroads Specific Plan.
5.10.5 Existing Regulations
No regulations apply to population and housing.
5.10.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon adherence to regulatory requirements, implementation of the policies contained in the Mid-Century
Plan, and compliance with the provisions of the Crossroads Specific Plan, the following impact would be less
than significant: 5.10-1.
5.10.7 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Page 5.10-20 PlaceWorks
5.10.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant, and no significant and unavoidable impact would occur.
5.10.9 References
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2016a, May 1. Report E-4 Population Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State, 2011-2016 with 2010 Census Benchmark.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-4/2011-20/.
———. 2016b, May 1. Report E-1: Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2015
and 2016. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-1/.
———. 2016c, May 1. Report E-5: Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State,
January 1, 2011–2017, with 2010 Benchmark.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/.
California Employment Development Department (EDD). 2017, April 1. Report 400C: Monthly Labor Force
Data for Counties. March 2017–Preliminary. http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/countyur-
400c.pdf.
———. 2016. Labor Force and Unemployment Rate for Cities and Census Designated Places.
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2017. Growth Forecasting.
http://www.scag.ca.gov/DataAndTools/Pages/GrowthForecasting.aspx.
———. 2016, April. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).
http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf.
———. 2011. Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 1/1/2014-9/30-/2021.
http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/rhna/RHNADraftAllocationPlan112011.pdf.
U.S. Census. 2016. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010. 2010 Demographic
Profile Data. http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF.
———. 2016a. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000. Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1)
100-Percent Data.
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF.
———. 2016b. Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Population. 2010-2014 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_14_5YR_S
0501&prodType=table
Weltz, Jerry. 2003. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 516: Jobs-Housing Balance. American Planning
Association.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2017 Page 5.11-1
5.11 PUBLIC SERVICES
This section of the DEIR addresses the potential for implementation of the Proposed Project, which
includes the Temple City 2050 Mid-Century General Plan (Mid-Century Plan) and Temple City Crossroads
Specific Plan (Crossroads Specific Plan), to impact public services in Temple City, including fire protection
and emergency medical services, police protection, school services, and library services. The analysis in this
section is based in part on the public service provider questionnaire responses provided in Appendix G of
this DEIR. Park and recreational services are addressed in Section 5.12, Recreation. Public and private utilities
and service systems, including water, wastewater, and solid waste services and systems, are addressed in
Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems.
5.11.1 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
5.11.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Setting
Federal, state and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are applicable to the Proposed Project are
summarized below.
Federal
International Fire Code
The International Fire Code (IFC) regulates minimum fire safety requirements for new and existing buildings,
facilities, storage, and processes. The IFC includes general and specialized technical fire and life safety
regulations addressing fire department access; fire hydrants; automatic sprinkler systems; fire alarm systems;
fire and explosion hazards safety, use and storage of hazardous materials; protection of emergency
responders; industrial processes; and many other topics.
State
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9) is based on the 2012 IFC and
includes amendments from the State of California fully integrated into the code. The California Fire Code
contains fire safety-related building standards that are referenced in other parts of Title 24 of the California
Code of Regulations.
California Health and Safety Code
Sections 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code include fire regulations for building standards
(also in the California Building Code), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as
extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building and childcare facility standards, and fire suppression
training.
T EMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
Page 5.11-2 PlaceWorks
Local
City of Temple City Municipal Code
The following provisions of the City’s Municipal Code address fire protection and emergency medical
services. Title 3 (Public Safety), Chapter 1 (Fire Code): Under this chapter, the City of Temple City
adopted the consolidated fire protection district of Los Angeles County (district) fire code as the fire code for
Temple City.
Existing Conditions
Plan Area
The County of Los Angeles Fire Department (LACoFD) Division 9 provides fire protection and emergency
medical services to the overall Plan Area, which includes the Specific Plan Area. Additionally, LACoFD
participates in mutual aid agreements with other emergency medical service providers to ensure that the
closest resources are dispatched to an emergency, as described below. All agencies also participate in the
statewide master mutual aid system for response during major emergencies.
Fire Stations, Staffing, and Equipment
The primary LACoFD fire stations located within the Plan Area (Fire Station 5 and 47), as well as the other
nearest LACoFD stations are described in Table 5.11-1 and mapped in Figure 5.11-1, Public Facilities and Parks.
The primary LACoFD fire station to serve the Plan Area is Fire Station 47 (Temple City). While Fire Station
47 is the only LACoFD station located within the City boundary, the four other fire stations listed in Table
5.11-1 also have first-in jurisdiction within the Plan Area (Vidales 2016).
Table 5.11 -1 Existing LACoFD Fire Stations
Station Address Equipment Daily Staffing (24 hour shifts) Distance to Project Site
Fire Station 47 Temple
City
5946 Kauffman Avenue,
Temple City
1 Engine
1 Paramedic Squad
1 Captain
1 Fire Fighter Specialist
3 Fire Fighter Paramedics
Located within the
Plan Area
boundary (within
the City
Fire Station 5 San
Gabriel
7225 Rosemead Boulevard,
San Gabriel 1 Engine
1 Captain
1 Fire Fighter Specialist
1 Fire Fighter
Located within the
Plan Area
boundary (within
the SOI)
Fire Station 42
Rosemead
9319 E Valley Boulevard,
Rosemead 1 Engine
1 Captain
1 Fire Fighter Specialist
2 Fire Fighters
0.45 mile
Fire Station 166 El
Monte
3615 Santa Anita Avenue,
El Monte 1 Quint
1 Captain
1 Fire Fighter Specialist
2 Fire Fighters
1.25 miles
Fire Station 169 El
Monte
5112 N. Peck Road,
El Monte 1 Engine
1 Captain
1 Fire Fighter Specialist
1 Fire Fighter
0.95 mile
Source: Vidales 2016.
Base Map Source: ESRI, USGS, NOAA, 2016
PlaceWorks
Figure 5.11-1 - Public Facilities and Parks
0
Scale (Miles)
0.5
5. Environmental Analysis
Temple City Boundary
Temple City SOI
Public Facilities
F
Fire Station
Library
Police Station
Recreation/Park
F
P
Temple City
F
LA County
Sheriff
P
Specific Plan Boundary
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
T EMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
Page 5.11-4 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
June 2017 Page 5.11-5
Response Times
LACoFD uses national guidelines of a five-minute response time for the first-arriving unit for fire and
emergency medical services responses, and eight minutes for the advanced life support (paramedic) unit in
urban areas for their response time standard for emergency and non-emergency calls (Vidales 2016).
Throughout 2015, LACoFD’s average response time for emergency incidents in Temple City was 4:58
minutes and 7:00 minutes for non-emergency incidents (Vidales 2016).
Specific Plan Area
The existing conditions information provided above applies to the Specific Plan Area.
5.11.1.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
FP-1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire
protection services.
5.11.1.3 RELEVANT GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The following are relevant policies of the Mid-Century Plan Land Use, Hazards, and Community Services
Elements, which are designed to reduce the potential impacts on fire protection and emergency medical
services from implementation of the Proposed Project.
Land Use Element
LU 1.6: Development and Public Services Concurrency. Work with applicable public entities and
service providers to coordinate the timing of new development with the provision of public facilities and
infrastructure assuring that adequate services are available at the time of occupancy.
Policy LU 1.7: Development Costs. Require new development to contribute its share of the costs of
providing necessary public services and facilities through equitable fees and exactions.
Hazards Element
H 1.1: Assessment of Fire Risks. Work with the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD) to
maintain an ongoing fire inspection program to reduce fire hazards associated with critical facilities,
public assembly facilities, industrial buildings, commercial, and residential buildings.
T EMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
Page 5.11-6 PlaceWorks
H 1.2: Development Review. Coordinate with LACoFD to review plans for new development projects
and the renovation or reuse of existing buildings and structures to ensure compliance with all applicable
federal, state, and local codes and regulations.
H 1.3: Fire Education. Continue with LACoFD to educate the public on proactive urban fire
prevention and remediation techniques to minimize potential fire hazards and damage.
H 10.2: Essential Public Facilities/Post Disaster Response and Recovery. Require that essential
public facilities such as sheriff’s and fire stations, hospitals, and emergency operations centers be located
outside of Santa Fe Dam and Reservoir Flood inundation area.
H 10.3: Emergency and Hazard Mitigation Plans. Continue to prepare and implement proactive
emergency response plans, procedures, and operations to reduce the risk to life and property from natural
or human-induced disasters and emergencies.
H 10.7: Automatic and Mutual Aid. Continue to participate in emergency preparation and response
automatic and mutual aid agreements between the local cities and county agencies.
Community Services Element
CS 7.1: Support Fire Service Provider. Continue to work with and support the Los Angeles County
Fire Department (LACoFD) to ensure adequate personnel, facilities, and infrastructure to maintain an
acceptable level of fire protection and emergency services in Temple City.
CS 7.2: Response Time. Work with the LACoFD to maintain optimal response times for all call priority
levels that ensure the safety of all Temple City residents, businesses, and visitors.
CS 7.3: Adequate Water Supply. Maintain sufficient water supply and fire flow pressure for fire
suppression.
CS 7.4: Enforcement of Codes to Reduce the Risk of Fire. Continue to enforce all relevant federal,
state, county, and local codes and ordinances to proactively increase fire protection, reduce the risk of fire
hazards, and implement into the design of all new developments fire prevention measures.
CS 7.5: Review of Development Projects. Continue to include the LACoFD in the review of
development proposals to ensure projects adequately address safe design and on-site fire protection and
comply with applicable fire and building codes.
CS 7.6: Fire Inspection and Permit Program. Continue to work with the LACoFD to ensure that
businesses in Temple City are operating within the highest fire safety standards regarding occupancy,
ingress and egress, ventilation, and the storage of flammable materials.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
June 2017 Page 5.11-7
CS 7.7: Inspection and Abatement. Continue ongoing program of inspection and abatement of fire
hazards through fire prevention measures.
CS 7.8: Automatic and Mutual Aid. Continue to participate in automatic and mutual aid agreements
between the fire departments of local cities and county agencies.
CS 7.9: Community Education. Work with LACoFD to develop educational and training programs and
volunteer opportunities, enabling resident participation in fire prevention and safety.
5.11.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study, included as
Appendix A, disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets
after the impact statement.
Impact 5.11-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would introduce new structures, residents, and workers into the Los Angeles County Fire Department’s service boundaries, thereby increasing the need for fire protection and emergency medical services. [Threshold FP-1]
Impact Analysis: Following is a discussion of the potential impacts to fire protection and emergency
medical services as a result of development that would be accommodated under each component of the
Proposed Project.
Mid-Century Plan
Future development (increase in population and residential and nonresidential development) in accordance
with the Mid-Century Plan (which includes development of the Specific Plan Area under the Crossroads
Specific Plan) would result in an increase in demand for fire protection and emergency medical services in the
Plan Area. Future development is anticipated to create the typical range of fire service calls that other similar
uses create, such as structure fires, garbage bin fires, car fires, various accidents causing injuries or medical
emergencies, and electrical fires. New fire and emergency facilities, equipment, and personnel may be
necessary to maintain adequate levels of service.
Future growth under the Mid-Century Plan is expected to increase the number of fire and emergency medical
service calls, and possibly increase the need for new fire facilities, apparatus, and personnel in order to
maintain adequate response times. However, according to LACoFD, the Mid-Century Plan would not cause a
substantial change to LACoFD’s current level of service since the City’s boundaries would remain the same
and population growth would not be substantial. LACoFD stated that while each additional development
creates greater demands on existing resources, the effects of cumulative impact over time by new
development are evaluated by LACoFD on an ongoing basis to meet the need for adequate resources. The
impacts that the additional residential and non-residential development would have on LACoFD’s ability to
serve the Plan Area depends in part on the proposed uses, location, and density of future development.
Therefore, the effects that the Mid-Century Plan would have at buildout on the adequacy of LACoFD’s level
of service remain uncertain (Vidales 2016).
T EMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
Page 5.11-8 PlaceWorks
Additionally, if increased demand for additional personnel, facilities, and operational costs do emerge do to
buildout of the Mid-Century Plan, the costs would be funded and offset through the increased tax revenue
generated and deposited into the City’s general fund (in which LACoFD receives annual funding) from the
additional development that would be accommodated under the Mid-Century Plan.
Public safety within the Plan Area, including fire protection and emergency medical services provided by
LACoFD, is funded from the City’s general fund. There is no direct fiscal mechanism that ensures that
funding for fire protection and emergency medical services will grow exactly proportional to an increased
need for services resulting from population growth in the City. However, revenue sources that contribute to
the general fund, including property and sales taxes, would be expected to grow in rough proportion to any
increase in residential dwelling units and/or nonresidential space in the Plan Area under the Mid-Century
Plan.
The City also involves LACoFD in the development review and permitting process in order to ensure that the
necessary fire prevention and emergency response features are incorporated into development projects. For
example, LACoFD would review and approve individual development projects to ensure that adequate
facilities, infrastructure, and access are provided to serve the needs of LACoFD in the case of emergency.
Individual development projects would also be required to incorporate adequate fire protection into building
plans in order to comply with the most current (2010) California Fire Code adopted by LACoFD, as outlined
in Title 3 (Public Safety), Chapter 1 (Fire Code) of the City’s Municipal Code. Furthermore, building
inspections by LACoFD would ensure all new developments incorporate fire safety features and designs.
Specific fire and life-safety requirements for the construction phase of future development projects that
would be accommodated under the Mid-Century Plan would be addressed during the building and fire plan
check review for each development project. Therefore, all development projects within the Plan Area would
be required to comply with the most current adopted fire codes, building codes, and nationally recognized fire
and life safety standards of Temple City, LACoFD, and the State of California.
Finally, the Mid-Century includes policies that would help reduce impacts of future development projects on
fire protection and emergency medical services; a complete list of applicable policies is provided in Section
5.11.1.3, Relevant General Plan Policies. Specifically, these policies include:
LU 1.6: Development and Public Services Concurrency. Work with applicable public entities and
service providers to coordinate the timing of new development with the provision of public facilities
H 1.1: Assessment of Fire Risks. Work with the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD) to
maintain an ongoing fire inspection program to reduce fire hazards associated with critical facilities,
public assembly facilities, industrial buildings, commercial, and residential buildings.
H 1.2: Development Review. Coordinate with LACoFD to review plans for new development projects
and the renovation or reuse of existing buildings and structures to ensure compliance with all
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
June 2017 Page 5.11-9
CS 7.1 Support Fire Service Provider. Continue to work with and support the Los Angeles County Fire
Department (LACoFD) to ensure adequate personnel, facilities, and infrastructure to maintain an
acceptable level of fire protection and emergency services in Temple City.
CS 7.2 Response Time. Work with the LACoFD to maintain optimal response times for all call priority
levels that ensure the safety of all Temple City residents, businesses, and visitors.
For these reasons, implementation of the Mid-Century Plan is not anticipated to create a significant impact
on fire protection and emergency medical services.
Crossroads Specific Plan
The above analysis also applies to the Crossroads Specific Plan.
5.11.1.5 EXISTING REGULATIONS
California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 9: 2013 California Building Code
City of Temple City Municipal Code, Title 3 (Public Safety), Chapter 1 (Fire Code)
5.11.1.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION
Upon adherence to regulatory requirements, implementation of the policies contained in the Mid-Century Plan,
and compliance with the provisions of the Crossroads Specific Plan, the following impacts would be less than
significant: 5.11-1.
5.11.1.7 MITIGATION MEASURES
No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required.
5.11.1.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
No significant adverse impacts related to fire protection and emergency medical services were identified.
5.11.2 Police Protection
5.11.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Setting
There are no laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines related to police protection services that are applicable to
the Proposed Project.
T EMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
Page 5.11-10 PlaceWorks
Existing Conditions
Plan Area
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) provides police services to the Plan Area. The
primary LASD police station within the Plan Area is the Temple City Station at 8838 E. Las Tunas Drive (see
Figure 5.11-1, Public Facilities and Parks). Temple City Station is equipped with a heliport along its eastern
property boundary. The heliport is within the Specific Plan Area of the Plan Area, and supports an average
of 10 flight operations per month.
As of December 1, 2016, Temple City Station's service ratio is 0.873 patrol deputies per 1,000 residents, or
one patrol deputy per 1,145 residents. Based on the generally-accepted service ratio of 1 patrol deputy per
1,000 residents for urban law enforcement agencies, and a resident population of 150,000 within the station's
service area, the station is deficient by 19 patrol deputies (McNeal 2016).
LASD generally prescribes to the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).
The goal of CPTED is to reduce opportunities for criminal activities by employing physical design features
that discourage anti-social behaviors, while encouraging the legitimate use of the site. The overall principles
of CPTED include defensible space, territoriality, surveillance, lighting, landscaping, and physical security
(McNeal 2016).
Response Times
LASD’s response time goals for responding to emergency and nonemergency calls within its service area is 10
minutes for emergency calls, 20 minutes for priority calls, and 60 minutes for routine calls. Currently, its
average response time is 3.3 minutes for emergent calls, 8.5 minutes for priority calls, and 42.2 minutes for
routine calls (McNeal 2016).
Staffing
As of December 1, 2016, total staffing at LASD’s Temple City Station included 167 sworn deputies (131 of
which were designated as patrol deputies), and 40 civilian employees. Daily staffing numbers of the Temple
City Station is intentionally undisclosed (McNeal 2016).
Specific Plan Area
The existing conditions information provided above applies to the Specific Plan Area.
5.11.2.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
PP-1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
June 2017 Page 5.11-11
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police
protection services.
5.11.2.3 RELEVANT GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The following are relevant policies of the Mid-Century Plan Land Use, Hazards, and Community Services
Elements, which are designed to reduce the potential impacts on police protection services from
implementation of the Proposed Project.
Land Use Element
LU 1.6: Development and Public Services Concurrency. Work with applicable public entities and
service providers to coordinate the timing of new development with the provision of public facilities and
infrastructure assuring that adequate services are available at the time of occupancy.
LU 1.7: Development Costs. Require new development to contribute its share of the costs of
providing necessary public services and facilities through equitable fees and exactions.
Hazards Element
H 10.2: Essential Public Facilities/Post Disaster Response and Recovery. Require that essential
public facilities such as sheriff’s and fire stations, hospitals, and emergency operations centers be located
outside of Santa Fe Dam and Reservoir Flood inundation area.
H 10.3: Emergency and Hazard Mitigation Plans. Continue to prepare and implement proactive
emergency response plans, procedures, and operations to reduce the risk to life and property from natural
or human-induced disasters and emergencies.
H 10.7: Automatic and Mutual Aid. Continue to participate in emergency preparation and response
automatic and mutual aid agreements between the local cities and county agencies.
Community Services Element
CS 6.1: Response Time. Work with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) to maintain
optimal response times for all call priority levels that ensure the safety of all Temple City residents,
businesses, and visitors.
CS 6.2: Sworn and Non-Sworn Personnel. Work with the LASD to maintain adequate staffing levels
for sworn law enforcement officers and non-sworn or civilian staff to provide quality law enforcement
services.
CS 6.3: Temple City Station. Work with LASD to ensure that the LASD Temple Station remains open,
operational, and a source of community pride.
T EMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
Page 5.11-12 PlaceWorks
CS 6.4: Operations and Facilities. Work with LASD to ensure that law enforcement facilities,
equipment, and technology and communications systems are adequate to accommodate the needs of the
community and keep pace with technological advances.
CS 6.5: Cooperative Law Enforcement. Continue to work with and support federal, state, county, and
neighboring local law enforcement agencies and departments to promote cooperation in the delivery of
services.
CS 6.6: Review of Development Proposals. Include the LASD in the review of development
proposals to ensure that projects adequately address crime prevention and safety and promote the
implementation of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles.
CS 6.7: Community Policing. Support educational, training, and volunteer community policing
programs, including the Neighborhood Watch Program, Every 15 Minutes Program, Resident Safety
Voluntary Patrol, Citizens Academy, and Community Academy, enabling resident involvement in
community law enforcement and safety.
CS 6.8: Automatic and Mutual Aid. Continue to participate in automatic and mutual aid agreements
between the law enforcement agencies and departments of local cities and county agencies.
CS 6.9: Community Education. Work with LASD to develop educational and training programs and
volunteer opportunities, enabling resident participation in community law enforcement.
5.11.2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study, included as
Appendix A, disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets
after the impact statement.
Impact 5.11-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project would introduce new structures, residents, and workers into the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department service boundaries, thereby increasing the need for police protection facilities and personnel. [Threshold PP-1]
Impact Analysis: Following is a discussion of the potential impacts to police protection services as a result
of development that would be accommodated under each component of the Proposed Project.
Mid-Century Plan
Future development (increase in population and residential and nonresidential development) in accordance
with the Mid-Century Plan (which includes development of the Specific Plan Area under the Crossroads
Specific Plan) would result in an increase in demand for police protection services in the Plan Area. Crime
and safety issues during individual project construction phases may include: theft of building materials and
construction equipment, malicious mischief, graffiti, and vandalism. After construction, development that
would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan is anticipated to generate a typical range of police service
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
June 2017 Page 5.11-13
calls as similar developments, such as vehicle burglaries, residential thefts, disturbance, driving under the
influence.
The increase in population and workers in the Plan Area would add to the number of service calls received
and to the number/amount of patrols, equipment, and staff necessary to service the Plan Area. To serve
future growth, new and/or additional police resources would be needed to prevent a reduction in service
ratios. LASD’s costs to maintain facilities and equipment as well as train and equip personnel would also
increase. Additionally, the redistribution and increase of the population and traffic density into areas
proposed for growth, such as the downtown Las Tunas Drive/Temple City Boulevard core, could necessitate
the reassignment of certain resources pertaining to police services.
To maintain the current ratio of 0.873 patrol deputies per 1,000 residents or better, buildout of the Mid-
Century Plan would require hiring a minimum of 18 new patrol deputies (McNeal 2016). Impacts to police
services are anticipated to be adequately funded by an increase in tax revenues over an extended period of
time, relative to the increase in development intensity.
Although there is no direct fiscal mechanism ensuring that funding for police protection services from the
general fund will grow exactly proportional to the increased need for services, development over time would
increase contributions to the general fund through tax revenues and are expected to grow in rough
proportion to any increase in residential dwelling units and/or nonresidential space in the Plan Area.
Additional resources and personnel funded by an increase in tax revenue would help maintain the level of
service needed to support the increase in growth. Additional police personnel and resources would also be
provided through the City’s annual budget and Capital Improvement Program review process. Annually,
LASD needs would be assessed and budget allocations revised accordingly to ensure that adequate levels of
service are maintained throughout the Plan Area.
Additionally, proposed Policy LU 1.6 of the Mid-Century Plan Land Use Element requires the City to work
with applicable public entities and service providers to coordinate the timing of new development with the
provision of public facilities and infrastructure assuring that adequate services are available at the time of
occupancy. Other policies of the Mid-Century Plan that would help reduce impacts of future development
projects on police protection services include but are not limited to (see Section 5.11.2.3, Relevant General Plan
Policies, for a complete list of applicable policies):
LU 1.7: Development Costs. Require new development to contribute its share of the costs of
providing necessary public services and facilities through equitable fees and exactions.
H 10.2: Essential Public Facilities/Post Disaster Response and Recovery. Require that essential
public facilities such as sheriff’s and fire stations, hospitals, and emergency operations centers be located
outside of Santa Fe Dam and Reservoir Flood inundation area.
CS 6.1 Response Time. Work with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) to maintain
optimal response times for all call priority levels that ensure the safety of all Temple City residents,
businesses, and visitors.
T EMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
Page 5.11-14 PlaceWorks
CS 6.2: Sworn and Non-Sworn Personnel. Work with the LASD to maintain adequate staffing levels
for sworn law enforcement officers and non-sworn or civilian staff to provide quality law enforcement
services.
CS 6.4: Operations and Facilities. Work with LASD to ensure that law enforcement facilities,
equipment, and technology and communications systems are adequate to accommodate the needs of the
community and keep pace with technological advances.
Furthermore, the Development Fees and Exactions implementation measure of the Mid-Century Plan’s
Implementation Plan (provided as Appendix A of the Mid-Century Plan) calls for the City to adopt an impact
fee schedule and update it as necessary to provide revenue for required supporting public infrastructure,
parks, and services (e.g., police). Once established, future developers would be required to pay the established
impact feet.
Finally, to ensure adequate police protection services are provided and to minimize the demands on such
services, future development projects that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan would be
designed with the security and design measures and strategies that employ Defensible Space concepts. These
measures and strategies incorporate the concepts of CPTED, which involves consideration of measures and
strategies such as placement and orientation of structures; access and visibility of common areas; and
placement of doors, windows, addressing, and landscaping. CPTED promotes public safety and physical
security, and allows residents the ability to monitor activity in neighboring areas. For example, some of the
CPTED design measures and strategies that would be implemented for individual development projects
include but are not limited to:
The provision of open space and common area gathering locations dispersed throughout the project site
to encourage outdoor activity and resident interaction within the site.
The multistory nature of certain development projects and provision of windows on all sides increases
visibility into the area to improve the “eyes on the street” crime prevention method, by providing eyes
from a higher vantage point.
The placement of dense plantings immediately adjacent to buildings will be avoided to eliminate the
creation of hiding places.
The provision of adequately-sized elevators that discourage hiding places and include view panels.
The provision of illuminated diagrammatic directories at the main entrance to residential developments
to assist in response time for emergency personnel.
As discussed above, to maintain the existing ratio of sworn officers and civilian employees per capita,
buildout of the Mid-Century Plan would require hiring a minimum of 18 new patrol deputies. However,
given the field-nature of certain officers, the rotating daily shifts of police personnel, and LASD’s existing
facilities, no new or expanded police stations or other physical facilities are expected to be necessary.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
June 2017 Page 5.11-15
Additionally, as noted by LASD, no new police facilities are planned or proposed at this time (McNeal 2016).
Nevertheless, it is assumed that if new facilities are determined to be necessary at some point in the future,
such facilities would occur where allowed under the designated land use. The environmental impacts of the
construction and operation of new facilities, as an allowed land use, have been evaluated throughout this
DEIR. Specifically, the DEIR analyzes anticipated effects of citywide growth related to air quality, noise,
traffic, utilities, and other environmental impact areas. No significant impacts due to the construction of new
or expanded police facilities are expected to occur apart from impacts identified elsewhere in Chapter 5 of
this DEIR.
Based on the preceding, impacts on police protection services related to implementation of the Mid-Century
Plan are not anticipated to be significant.
Crossroads Specific Plan
The above analysis also applies to the Crossroads Specific Plan.
5.11.2.5 EXISTING REGULATIONS
No regulations pertaining to police protection services exist.
5.11.2.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION
Upon adherence to regulatory requirements, implementation of the policies contained in the Mid-Century
Plan, and compliance with the provisions of the Crossroads Specific Plan, the following impacts would be
less than significant: 5.11-2.
5.11.2.7 MITIGATION MEASURES
No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation is required.
5.11.2.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
No significant adverse impacts related to police protection services were identified.
5.11.3 School Services
5.11.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Background
State laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are applicable to the Proposed Project are summarized below.
California State Assembly Bill 2926: School Facilities Act of 1986
To assist in providing school facilities to serve students generated by new development, Assembly Bill
(AB) 2926 was enacted in 1986 and authorizes a levy of impact fees on new residential and
commercial/industrial development. The bill was expanded and revised in 1987 through the passage of
T EMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
Page 5.11-16 PlaceWorks
AB 1600, which added Sections 66000 et seq. to the Government Code. Under this statute, payment of
impact fees by developers serves as CEQA mitigation to satisfy the impact of development on school
facilities.
California Senate Bill 50
Senate Bill (SB) 50, passed in 1998, provides a comprehensive school facilities financing and reform program and
enables a statewide bond issue to be placed on the ballot. Under the provisions of SB 50, school districts are
authorized to collect fees to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity as a result of development
and related population increases. The funding goes to acquiring school sites, constructing new school facilities, and
modernizing existing school facilities. SB 50 establishes a process for determining the amount of fees developers
would be charged to mitigate the impact of development on school districts from increased enrollment. According
to Section 65996 of the California Government Code, development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed to be
“full and complete school facilities mitigation.”
Under this legislation, there are three levels of developer fees that may be imposed upon new development by the
governing school district. Level I fees are assessed based upon the proposed square footage of residential,
commercial/industrial, and/or parking structure uses. Level II fees require the developer to provide one-half of
the costs of accommodating students in new schools, and the state provides the remaining half. To qualify for
Level II fees, the governing board of the school district must adopt a School Facilities Needs Analysis and meet
other prerequisites in accordance with Section 65995.6 of the California Government Code. Level III fees apply if
the state runs out of bond funds, allowing the governing school district to impose 100 percent of the cost of
school facility or mitigation minus any local dedicated school monies on the developer.
Existing Conditions
Plan Area
Students in the Plan Area attending public schools are served primarily by the Temple City Unified School
District (TCUSD). Within the Plan Area, TCUSD operates one high school, one intermediate school, three
elementary schools, the Community Learning Center, and the TCUSD district offices. In addition to TCUSD,
students are served by schools of six other school districts: Arcadia Unified School District, El Monte City
School District, Pasadena Unified School District, Rosemead School District, San Gabriel Unified School
District, and San Marino Unified School District, as well as six private schools. Public and private schools
make up the largest share of civic and institutional land area in the Plan Area (45 percent).
Figure 5.11-2, School District Boundaries, shows the services boundaries of the seven school districts that serve
the Plan Area.
Base Map Source: ESRI, USGS, NOAA, 2017
PlaceWorks
Figure 5.11-2 - School District Boundaries
0
Scale (Miles)
0.5
5. Environmental Analysis
Temple City Boundary
Temple City SOI
School Type
Private School
Public School
School Districts
Specific Plan Boundary
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
T EMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
Page 5.11-18 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
June 2017 Page 5.11-19
The fourteen existing schools within the boundaries of the Plan Area, as shown on Figure 5.11-2, are listed in
Table 5.11-2.
Table 5.11 -2 Schools within the Plan Area
School Address Level Grades
Temple City Unified School District
Elementary
Cloverly Elementary School 5476 Cloverly Avenue, Temple City Elementary School 4-6
Emperor Elementary School 2301 East La Rosa Drive, Temple City Elementary School K-3
La Rosa Elementary School 9501 East Wendon Street, Temple City Elementary School K-5
Longden Elementary School 6415 North Muscatel, San Gabriel Elementary School K-5
Middle
Oak Avenue Intermediate School 1505 North Marengo Avenue Intermediate/Middle School 7-8
High
Temple City High School 9501 Lemon Avenue, Temple City High School 9-12
Dr. Doug Sears Learning Center
(Community Learning Center) 2925 East Sierra Madre Boulevard, Temple City
Alternative School of
Choice 9-12
El Monte City School District
Cleminson Elementary School 213 Daleview Avenue, Temple City Elementary School K-6
Private Schools
Angela Preschool and Kindergarten 5708 N Muscatel Avenue, San Gabriel Preschool PRE-K
Arcadia Children’s Educational Center 9845 E Lemon Avenue, Arcadia Preschool PRE-K
ARK Christian Academy 6539 Rosemead Boulevard, Temple City Preschool & Kindergarten PRE-K & K
Pacific Friends School 210 Temple City Boulevard, Temple City Preschool PRE-K
First Lutheran Sunshine Preschool 9141 Broadway, Temple City Preschool PRE-K
St. Luke Elementary School 5521 Cloverly Avenue, Temple City Elementary School K-8
Source:
Capacities and Enrollments
The capacities and enrollments for six of the seven school districts that serve the Plan Area are shown in
Table 5.11-3. San Marino Unified School District’s enrollment data is not included because no change is
proposed under the Mid-Century Plan for the portion of the Plan Area within their service boundaries. As
shown in Table 5.11-3, there is an approximate remaining capacity of 2,380 students in existing schools that
serve the Plan Area; specifically, 1,351 remaining capacity in elementary schools, 230 in middle schools, and
1,865 in high schools.
T EMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
Page 5.11-20 PlaceWorks
Table 5.11 -3 School Capacities and Enrollments
School Total Capacity Current Enrollment Remaining Capacity
Temple City Unified School District
Elementary
Cloverly Elementary School 500 493 7
La Rosa Elementary School 620 596 24
Longden Elementary School 1,075 1,060 15
Emperor Elementary School 710 686 24
Middle
Oak Avenue Intermediate 1,000 918 82
High
Temple City High School 2,200 2,072 128
Other
Other 90 78 12
Arcadia Unified School District
Elementary
Longley Way Elementary School 549 519 30
Middle
Dana Middle School 760 741 19
High
Arcadia High School 3,800 3,395 405
El Monte City School District
Elementary
Cleminson Elementary School 512 294 218
Rio Hondo Elementary School 1,000 685 315
Pasadena Unified School District
Elementary
Don Benito Fundamental 588 602 14
Eugene Field Elementary School 575 481 94
Hamilton Elementary School 601 576 25
Sierra Madre Elementary School 652 668 -16
Willard Elementary School 664 644 20
Middle
Sierra Madre Middle School 393 447 -54
Wilson Middle School 463 528 -65
High
Pasadena High School 2,416 1,792 624
Other
Marshall Fundamental School 1,575 1,945 -370
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
June 2017 Page 5.11-21
Table 5.11 -3 School Capacities and Enrollments
School Total Capacity Current Enrollment Remaining Capacity
Rosemead School District
Elementary
Encinita School 600 400 200
Middle
Muscatel Middle School 800 659 191
San Gabriel Unified School District
Elementary
Elementary School Total 2,947 2,566 381
Middle
Middle School Total 864 827 57
High
High School Total 2,582 1,874 708
Sources: Carreon 2017, Gile 2017, Leahy 2017, Olafason 2017, Perez 2017, Sarrail 2017.
Student Generation Rates
The student generation rates for four of the seven school districts that serve the Plan Area are shown in
Table 5.11-4. Pasadena Unified School District noted that their student generation rates were not applicable
to the Proposed Project (Perez 2017). Additionally, Rosemead School District noted that there is no current
student generation rate utilized by the district (Carreon 2017). Furthermore, San Marino Unified School
District’s student generation rates are not included because no change is proposed under the Mid-Century
Plan within their service boundaries.
Table 5.11 -4 Student Generation Rates
Land Use
Student Generation Rate
Elementary School Middle School High School
Temple City Unified School District
Single-family Residential 0.2426 0.0832 0.1915
Multifamily Residential 0.1572 0.0556 0.1189
Arcadia Unified School District
Single-family Residential 0.1640 0.1060 0.1540
Multifamily Residential 0.1310 0.0690 0.1160
Other 0.1780 0.0800 0.1100
El Monte City School District
All Residential 0.4000 0.1000 0.2000
San Gabriel Unified School District
Single-family Residential 0.1464 0.0947 0.1307
Multifamily Residential 0.2154 0.1037 0.1767
Sources: Gile 2017, Leahy 2017, Olafason 2017, Sarrail 2017.
T EMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
Page 5.11-22 PlaceWorks
5.11.3.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
SS-1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for school
services.
5.11.3.3 RELEVANT GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The following are relevant policies of the Mid-Century Plan Land Use, Mobility, and Community Services
Elements, which are designed to reduce the potential impacts on school services from implementation of the
Proposed Project.
Land Use Element
LU 1.6: Development and Public Services Concurrency. Work with applicable public entities and
service providers to coordinate the timing of new development with the provision of public facilities and
infrastructure assuring that adequate services are available at the time of occupancy.
LU 1.7: Development Costs. Require new development to contribute its share of the costs of
providing necessary public services and facilities through equitable fees and exactions.
LU 3.2: Complete and Livable Neighborhoods. Maintain the pattern of distinct residential
neighborhoods oriented around parks, schools, and community facilities that are connected to and
walkable from neighborhood-serving businesses
LU 3.8: A Connected Community. Maintain an interconnected network of pedestrian and bicycle
pathways facilitating access among residential, retail, and industrial districts, schools, open spaces, and
recreation areas.
LU 6.4: Schools as Centers of Health and Well-Being. Support strategies that make schools centers
of health and well-being by creating environments in and around local schools that are safe, abundant in
healthy goods and services, and offer opportunities for physical activity and recreation.
Mobility Element
M 3.6: School Accessibility. Consider the safety of school children as a priority over vehicular
movement on all streets.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
June 2017 Page 5.11-23
Community Services Element
CS 2.2: Youth Programs. Continue to coordinate with Temple City Unified School District (TCUSD),
private schools, local nonprofit organizations, service clubs, and other agencies to provide opportunities
for youth to explore and enjoy sports, creative and performing arts, future career paths, civic activities,
and volunteer opportunities.
CS 4.1: School Facilities. Coordinate with the Temple City Unified School District (TCUSD), Arcadia
Unified School District, El Monte City School District, San Gabriel Unified School District, Rosemead
School District (other school districts), and private schools to ensure adequate and high quality school
facilities and programs for all Temple City residents.
CS 4.2: School Capacity. Coordinate with TCUSD, other school districts, and private schools to ensure
that facilities are able to accommodate current and projected enrollment.
CS 4.3: Joint Uses. Continue to work with TCUSD, and encourage other school districts, and private
schools to participate in joint-use agreements with the City and other institutions and organizations to
expand the facilities and resources available to the community, including parks, libraries, community
centers, and daycare facilities.
CS 4.4: Development Fees. Ensure that all residential development fully mitigates its impact on school
capacity and facilities through development fees or other negotiated methods, as permitted by state law.
CS 4.5: Safe Routes to School. Continue to work with TCUSD, other school districts, and private
schools to reduce student-vehicle accidents, improve safety and circulation in proximity to schools, and
increase the number of students walking or bicycling to school through Safe Routes to Schools grants
and improvements to the public right-of-way.
CS 4.6: Supporting Uses. Encourage the development of educational supportive uses, such as tutoring
centers, bookstores, daycare centers, and recreational centers to cluster around schools and educational
institutions in appropriate commercial areas.
CS 4.7: Educational Performance and Programs. Work with TCUSD, other school districts, and
private schools to ensure that Temple City schools' performance and educational programs, such as the
Regional Occupational Program and Gifted and Talented Education Program, reflect the community's
cultural diversity and concern for a high quality education.
CS 4.8: Technology. Work with TCUSD, other school districts, and private schools to incorporate new
technologies that facilitate learning in the classroom, at remote sites, and connections with other
educational institutions located outside of Temple City.
T EMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
Page 5.11-24 PlaceWorks
CS 4.9: Funding. Work with TCUSD, other school districts, and private schools to seek state and federal
funding to support school modernization, safety upgrades, and expansion, as necessary, to accommodate
community education needs.
CS 8.10: Joint-Use Facilities. Actively pursue opportunities to expand recreation and open space areas
and programs through joint-use agreements with Temple City Unified School District (TCUSD), other
school districts, private schools, and institutional uses, as well as neighboring communities including
Rosemead, El Monte, and Arcadia.
5.11.3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study, included as
Appendix A, disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets
after the impact statement.
Impact 5.11-3: Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in the generation of new students in the Plan Area, which in turn would impact the school enrollment capacities of area schools. [Threshold SS-1]
Impact Analysis: Following is a discussion of the potential impacts to school services as a result of
development that would be accommodated under each component of the Proposed Project.
Mid-Century Plan
The addition of new housing units within the attendance boundaries of a school district has the potential to
generate student growth in that district. This growth may put a strain on existing and/or planned school
resources. Although the Mid-Century Plan does not involve the approval of any specific development
projects in and of itself, population growth and student generation was estimated based on buildout of the
Mid-Century Plan to determine whether the project would impact schools of the seven school districts that
that serve the Plan Area.
Buildout of the Mid-Century Plan (which includes development that would be accommodated under the
Crossroads Specific Plan) would add a net increase of 5,220 dwelling units in the Plan Area over existing
conditions (see Table 3 -2, Estimated General Plan Land Use Designations and Buildout Projections), which would in
turn result in the generation of new students. It should be noted that based on the proposed land use
designation under the Mid-Century Plan (mostly medium to higher density residential, plus mixed-use
residential), the increase in dwelling units would mainly occur under the multi-family housing type. As shown
in Table 5.11-4, Student Generation Rates, TCUSD uses a multifamily residential student generation rate of
0.1572 student per household for elementary school students, 0.0556 student per household for middle
school students, and 0.1189 student per household for high school students. Therefore, using TCUSD’s
student generation rates as a conservative measure, the addition of 5,220 dwelling units would amount to an
increase of approximately 821 elementary school students, approximately 290 middle school students, and
approximately 621 high school students in the Plan Area upon buildout of the Mid-Century Plan. Therefore,
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
June 2017 Page 5.11-25
buildout under the Mid-Century Plan is anticipated to generate a combined total of approximately 1,732
additional students in the Plan Area.
As noted above, the Plan Area is served by seven school districts, with six of the seven being potentially
impacted by buildout of the Mid-Century Plan. Each of the six school districts has capacity to accommodate
the student population estimated for the Plan Area at buildout of the Mid-Century Plan. As shown in Table
5.11-3, School Capacities and Enrollments, there is excess classroom capacity for the elementary and high school
grade levels across the six school districts: 1,351 students in elementary schools and 1,865 students in high
schools. The capacity of the middle school grade level however, would be exceeded by approximately 60
students, as the current capacity for middle schools serving the Plan Area is 230 and the number of middle
school students that would be generated by the Mid-Century Plan would be approximately 290. However,
residential development under the Mid-Century Plan would not occur all at once—it would be incremental
and would occur over an extended period of time (25 years or more). The actual number of students that
would be generated would be tied to the amount of residential development that would occur over time.
Therefore, although buildout of the Mid-Century Plan may increase the student population in the Plan Area,
the construction or expansion of local school facilities is not anticipated to be required to serve the new
students.
Additionally, the Mid-Century Plan includes a number of policies that are designed to reduce the potential
impacts on school services from implementation of the Mid-Century Plan. For example, Policy CS 4.1 of the
Community Services Element calls for the City to coordinate with the school districts that serve the Plan
Area, as well as private schools, to ensure adequate and high-quality school facilities and programs for all
residents of the Plan Area. Other policies of the Mid-Century Plan that would help reduce impacts of future
development projects on schools is provided in Section 5.11.4.3, Relevant General Plan Policies.
Finally, the need for additional services is addressed through compliance with the school impact fee
assessment. SB 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) sets forth a state school facilities construction program
that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction’s ability to condition a project on mitigation of impacts on
school facilities in excess of fees set forth in Education Code Section 17620. These fees are collected by
school districts at the time of issuance of building permits for commercial, industrial, and residential projects.
Each of the school districts serving the Plan Area would be able to collect these school impact fees from
future development projects that would be accommodated by the Midtown Specific Plan, pursuant to SB 50.
The State Legislature has declared that the payment of those fees constitutes full mitigation for the impacts
generated by new development, per Government Code Section 65995. Since all future development projects
must pay their appropriate impact fees, each project would mitigate the impacts associated with its activities.
Based on the preceding, impacts from implementation of the Mid-Century Plan on school services are not
anticipated to be significant.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Buildout of the Crossroads Specific Plan would add a net increase of 1,837 dwelling units in the Specific Plan
Area over existing conditions (see Table 3-3, Land Use Projections for Specific Plan Area), which would in turn
result in the generation of new students.
T EMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
Page 5.11-26 PlaceWorks
As noted above, the increase in dwelling units would mainly occur under the multi-family housing type. Using
TCUSD’s student generation rates as a conservative measure, the addition of 1,837 dwelling units would
amount to an increase of approximately 289 elementary school students, approximately 102 middle school
students, and approximately 218 high school students in the Specific Plan Area upon buildout of the
Crossroads Specific Plan. Therefore, buildout under the Crossroads Specific Plan is anticipated to generate a
combined total of approximately 609 additional students in the Specific Plan Area.
As shown in Figure 5.11-2, School District Boundaries, the Specific Plan Area is served by SGUSD and
TVCUSD. As shown in Table 5.11-3, School Capacities and Enrollments, both school districts have capacity at all
school levels to accommodate the student population generated under the Crossroads Specific Plan.
Additionally, the Mid-Century Plan includes a number of policies that are designed to reduce the potential
impacts on school services from implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan, which is a subset of the
Mid-Century Plan. The list of applicable policies is provided in Section 5.11.4.3, Relevant General Plan Policies.
Furthermore, as noted above under the Mid-Century Plan analysis, the need for additional services is
addressed through compliance with the school impact fee assessment under SB 50. Both school districts
serving the Specific Plan Area would be able to collect these school impact fees from future development
projects that would be accommodated by the Crossroads Specific Plan, pursuant to SB 50. The State
Legislature has declared that the payment of those fees constitutes full mitigation for the impacts generated
by new development, per Government Code Section 65995. Since all future development projects must pay
their appropriate impact fees, each project would mitigate the impacts associated with its activities.
Based on the preceding, impacts from implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan on school services are
not anticipated to be significant.
5.11.3.5 EXISTING REGULATIONS
California Government Code Section 65996 (Assembly Bill 2926; Senate Bill 50)
5.11.3.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION
Upon adherence to regulatory requirements, implementation of the policies contained in the Mid-Century
Plan, and compliance with the provisions of the Crossroads Specific Plan, the following impacts would be
less than significant: 5.11-3.
5.11.3.7 MITIGATION MEASURES
No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required.
5.11.3.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
No significant adverse impacts related to school services were identified.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
June 2017 Page 5.11-27
5.11.4 Library Services
5.11.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Setting
No federal, state or local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines are applicable to library services and facilities.
Existing Conditions
Plan Area
The County of Los Angeles Public Library (CoLAPL) provides library services to the community at the
County’s Temple City Library branch. Figure 5.11-1, Public Facilities and Parks, shows the location of the
Temple City Library Branch within the boundary of the Plan Area. Other nearby libraries available to
residents of the Plan Area include the Rosemead Library (at approximately 2.1 miles), San Gabriel Library (at
approximately 2.3 miles), Live Oak Library (at approximately 3.6 miles), and El Monte Library (at
approximately 4.6 miles). The Temple City Library provides a variety of services, including English and non-
English language collections, child and teen programs, computer access, and free wireless internet access. The
Temple City Library currently has 48,332 collection items, as well as 18 computers for public use (Ramus
2017).
Specific Plan Area
The existing conditions information provided above applies to the Specific Plan Area.
5.11.4.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
LS-1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for library
services.
5.11.4.3 RELEVANT GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The following are relevant policies of the Mid-Century Plan Land Use and Community Services Elements,
which are designed to reduce the potential impacts on library services from implementation of the Proposed
Project.
T EMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
Page 5.11-28 PlaceWorks
Land Use Element
LU 1.6: Development and Public Services Concurrency. Work with applicable public entities and
service providers to coordinate the timing of new development with the provision of public facilities and
infrastructure assuring that adequate services are available at the time of occupancy.
LU 1.7: Development Costs. Require new development to contribute its share of the costs of
providing necessary public services and facilities through equitable fees and exactions.
Community Services Element
CS 1.1: Adequate Facilities, Resources, and Programs. Encourage the County of Los Angeles Public
Library (CoLAPL) to continue to provide library services, resources, and programs that meet the needs
of all Temple City residents.
CS 1.2: Facility Accessibility. Coordinate with the CoLAPL to ensure that the Temple City Public
Library is accessible by all modes of transportation, including walking, bicycling, transit, and automobile.
CS 1.3: Library Expansion. Work with the CoLAPL to seek opportunities to expand the Temple City
public library to provide an adequate level of ser vice for current residents and accommodate growth and
expanding interests of the community.
CS 1.4: Multi-Functional Use. Support the use of the Temple City Public Library as a multi-functional
facility, acting as a gathering place, cultural center, and venue for community events and programs.
CS 1.5: Technology. Work with the CoLAPL to provide users of the Temple City Public Library access
to digital resources at all library facilities within the County system.
CS 1.6: Programs & Services. Encourage the CoLAPL to continue to partner with local health and
wellness, arts, cultural, educational, and faith-based organizations to provide a range of programming and
educational material that is representative of residents’ interests and reflects the City’s history and culture.
5.11.4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study, included as
Appendix A, disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets
after the impact statement.
Impact 5.11-4: Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate additional population in the Plan area, thereby increasing the service needs of the Temple City Library. [Threshold LS-1]
Impact Analysis: Following is a discussion of the potential impacts to library services as a result of
development that would be accommodated under each component of the Proposed Project.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
June 2017 Page 5.11-29
Mid-Century Plan
Currently, the existing library facilities and resources are not adequate to service the existing population of
the Plan Area. CoLAPL determined that Temple City Library currently has a 5,939-square foot facility size
deficit, 49,277 collection deficit, and 19 computer deficit. (Ramus 2017). These library deficiencies would be
increased under the Mid-Century Plan, as buildout under the Mid-Century Plan (which includes development
that would be accommodated under the Crossroads Specific Plan) would add an estimated 5,220 residential
units and 12,778 residents to the Plan Area over existing conditions (see Table 3-2, Estimated General Plan Land
Use Designations and Buildout Projections); thereby, increasing demands on CoLAPL’s library services, resources,
and facilities. Specifically, using CoLAPL’s generation rates for building space (0.5 gross square feet per
capita), land (2 gross square feet per capita), collections (2.75 items per capita), and computers (1 computer
per 1,000 capita) (Ramus 2017), the 12,778 residents that would be generated by the Mid-Century Plan would
result in the need for approximately 6,389 additional square feet of library space, 25,556 additional square feet
(gross) of land, 351,395 additional collection items, and 13 additional computers.
There are currently existing plans to expand library facilities and resources for residents of the Plan Area. The
County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors approved a motion on October 18, 2016, for Temple City
Library’s enhancements. The expansion will include an addition of approximately 1,400 square feet, a new
community room within the library, enhanced children’s library area, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
upgrades, and refurbishment of the existing 12,000 square foot building. The expansion is anticipated to be
complete by Spring 2020. To fund the expansion, Temple City will contribute $1,950,000 and the County of
Los Angeles will contribute $1,950,000 from Fifth Supervisorial District Discretionary Funds for a total
budget of $3,900,000. The Community Development Commission will oversee the expansion project (Ramus
2017). It should be noted that the library expansion will be implemented (with or without implementation of
the Mid-Century Plan) to help meet some of the libraries current deficits outlined above.
Additionally, the Mid-Century Plan includes a policy (Policy CS 1.1) that encourages the CoLAPL to continue
to provide library services, resources, and programs that meet the needs of all Temple City residents, as well
as a policy (Policy CS 1.2) to work with the CoLAPL to seek opportunities to expand the Temple City Public
Library in order to provide an adequate level of service for current residents and accommodate growth and
expanding interests of the community. Other policies of the Mid-Century Plan that would help reduce
impacts of future development projects on library services is provided in Section 5.11.4.3, Relevant General
Plan Policies. Residents of the Plan Area would also have access to other nearby County libraries, including the
Rosemead Library (at approximately 2.1 miles), San Gabriel Library (at approximately 2.3 miles), Live Oak
Library (at approximately 3.6 miles), and El Monte Library (at approximately 4.6 miles). With the on-going
collaboration with CoLAPL and library resources provided nearby, implementation of the Mid-Century Plan
is not anticipated to create a significant impact on library services.
Furthermore, the development and operation of new library facilities under the Mid-Century Plan may have
an adverse physical effect on the environment, including impacts relating to air quality, biological resources,
lighting, noise, and traffic. Environmental impacts associated with construction of new and/or expansion of
library facilities in accordance with the Mid-Century Plan are addressed throughout this DEIR (see
appropriate environmental topical areas in Chapter 5, Environmental Impacts). However, it is speculative at this
T EMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
Page 5.11-30 PlaceWorks
time to determine the location of new library facilities that would result from future site-specific development
projects in accordance with the Mid-Century Plan, since development projects are not proposed at this time.
However, future library facility improvements and/or expansions in the Plan Area would be consistent with
the proposed Mid-Century Plan land use diagram and/or require additional environmental review under
CEQA.
Crossroads Specific Plan
As noted above, the existing Temple City Library facilities and resources are not adequate to service the
existing population of the Plan Area, as there are deficits in library square footage, number of collection
items, and computers (Ramus 2017). These library deficiencies would be increased under the Crossroads
Specific Plan, as buildout under the specific plan would add an estimated 3,774 residents to the Specific Plan
Area over existing conditions (see Table 3-3, Land Use Projections for Specific Plan Area); thereby, increasing
demands on CoLAPL’s library services, resources, and facilities. Specifically, using CoLAPL’s generation rates
for building space (0.5 gross square feet per capita), land (2 gross square feet per capita), collections (2.75
items per capita), and computers (1 computer per 1,000 capita) (Ramus 2017), the 3,673 residents that would
be generated by the Mid-Century Plan would result in the need for approximately 1,837 additional square feet
of library space, 7,346 additional square feet (gross) of land, 10,100 additional collection items, and 4
additional computers.
As noted above, there are currently existing plans to expand library facilities and resources for residents of
the Plan Area, which includes the Specific Plan Area. It should be noted that the library expansion will be
implemented (with or without implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan) to help meet some of the
libraries current deficits. Additionally, the Mid-Century Plan includes a number of policies that would help
reduce impacts of future development projects (including those that would occur within the Specific Plan
Area under the Crossroads Specific Plan) on library services (the policies are listed in Section 5.11.4.3, Relevant
General Plan Policies). Finally, as with residents of the Plan Area, residents of the Specific Plan Area would have
access to other nearby County libraries, including the Rosemead Library, San Gabriel Library, Live Oak
Library, and El Monte Library. For these reasons, implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan is not
anticipated to create a significant impact on library services.
5.11.4.5 EXISTING REGULATIONS
No existing regulations pertain to library services.
5.11.4.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION
Upon adherence to regulatory requirements, implementation of the policies contained in the Mid-Century
Plan, and compliance with the provisions of the Crossroads Specific Plan, the following impacts would be
less than significant: 5.11-4.
5.11.4.7 MITIGATION MEASURES
No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
June 2017 Page 5.11-31
5.11.4.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
No significant adverse impacts related to library services were identified.
5.11.4.9 REFERENCES
Carreon, Armida (Assistant Superintendent) 2017, February 1. Written response to service questionnaire.
Rosemead School District (RSD).
De Ramus, Yolanda (Chief Deputy Director) 2017, March 28. Written response to service questionnaire.
County of Los Angeles Public Library.
Gile, William (Director of Facilities Maintenance and Operations). 2017, February 2. Written response to
service questionnaire. San Gabriel Unified School District (SGUSD).
Leahy, Jim (Executive Director of Facilities and Operational Services). 2017, January 17. Written response to
service questionnaire. Arcadia Unified School District (AUSD).
McNeal, Thomas (Operations Lieutenant). 2016, December 5. Written response to service questionnaire.
County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LACSD) − Temple Station.
Olafsson, Kristinn G. (Deputy Superintendent, Business Services). 2017, February 10. Written response to
service questionnaire. El Monte City School District (EMCSD).
Perez, Miguel V. (Construction Specialist). 2017, February 27. Written response to service questionnaire.
Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD).
Sarrail, Marianne (Chief Business Official). 2017, February 28. Written response to service questionnaire.
Temple City Unified School District (TCUSD).
Vidales, Frank (Chief, Forestry Division). 2016, December 14. Written response to service questionnaire.
County of Los Angeles Fire Department (LACoFD) − Prevention Services Bureau.
T EMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES
Page 5.11-32 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2017 Page 5.12-1
5.12 RECREATION
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for implementation
of the Proposed Project, which includes the Temple City 2050 Mid-Century General Plan (Mid-Century Plan)
and the Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan (Specific Plan), to impact parks and recreational facilities in the
overall Plan Area. The potential for adverse impacts on the accessibility of recreational facilities for existing
and proposed residential neighborhoods, and impacts resulting from the construction of additional
recreational facilities are evaluated based on current facilities and their usage.
5.12.1 Environmental Setting
5.12.1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND
State and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are applicable to the Proposed Project are
summarized below.
State
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act (Government Code § 66477) was established by the California Legislature in 1965 to
provide parks for the growing communities in California. The Quimby Act gives cities and counties the
authority to require developers to dedicate land as parkland, pay in-lieu fees, or both as a condition of
approval for a tentative or final tract map or parcel map for a residential subdivision. Revenue generated
through the Quimby Act cannot be used for operation or maintenance of existing park facilities. The Quimby
Act also sets a statewide minimum standard of three acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents; if the
amount of existing neighborhood and community park area exceeds that limit, the city or county may
establish a higher standard not to exceed five acres per 1,000 residents. The act also specifies acceptable uses
and expenditures of the generated revenue.
California Public Park Preservation Act
The primary instrument for protecting and preserving parkland is California’s Public Park Preservation Act
of 1971 (Public Resources Code §§ 5400–5409). Under this act, cities and counties may not acquire any real
property that is in use as a public park for any nonpark use unless compensation, land, or both are provided
to replace the parkland acquired. This provides no net loss of parkland and facilities.
Local
City of Temple City Municipal Code
Chapter 5 (New Construction Park Fees) of the City’s Municipal Code imposes development impact fees on
all new development; the fees are to be placed into a special park development fee fund in order to finance
the acquisition or improvement of neighborhood and community parks in general conformance with the
priorities established in the Temple City General Plan. The City’s park facilities fee is currently set at $500 per
dwelling unit.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
RECREATION
Page 5.12-2 PlaceWorks
Capital Improvement Program
The City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a multi-year work plan designed to facilitate and implement
policy decisions based on a citywide capital needs assessment and corresponding fiscal analysis. The CIP is
intended to provide the Temple City City Council with a mechanism for selecting capital improvements,
establishing work plan priorities, and determining funding sources for improvements. The CIP is updated on
an annual basis to reflect changes in the work plan and changes in priorities, as well as changes in funding.
Park Acquisition Fund
The Park Acquisition Fund is part of the City’s CIP, and requires the payment of $500 per dwelling unit on
any new dwelling constructed within Temple City, as codified in Chapter 5 (New Construction Park Fees) of
the City’s Municipal Code. Funds collected are used exclusively for the acquisition or improvement of
neighborhood and community parks, in general conformance with the priorities established by the Temple
City General Plan.
Parks and Open Space Master Plan
In March 2014, the City developed the Parks and Open Space Master Plan (POSMP). Under the POSMP, a
study was conducted with the intention of aiding community stakeholders in understanding priorities that
should be addressed to best meet the recreational needs of Temple City residents and parks users. As part of
the study, a community needs assessment was undertaken to understand the public’s perceived general needs
for parks and open space. The findings were identified as being current strengths or opportunities, and
include:
Strengths: Good general park maintenance, clean and safe parks, high levels of use, family-friendly
parks, and concrete walkways throughout the parks.
Opportunities for improvement: Limited parking availability, and worn-out play equipment.
In addition to determining the strengths and opportunities for current Temple City parks, the POSMP
gathered information from previous “Caught-in-the-Act” surveys conducted at the two City park locations to
determine rankings for facility and amenities that City residents identified as priorities. The top five facility
and amenity priorities as determined by the community were family walking and biking trails, `bike lanes,
outdoor pool, Wi-Fi access in parks, and small family picnic areas and shelters. The top five program
priorities as determined by the community were adult fitness and wellness programs, lap swim programs,
cultural events, summer concerts, and city-wide special events (Temple City 2014).
With approval of the POSMP, the City is looking into developing specific and separate master plans for both
Live Oak and Temple City Parks to guide future projects that will further address the specific needs of
Temple City residents.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
RECREATION
June 2017 Page 5.12-3
5.12.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Temple City is an older community that is generally built out with limited recreational amenities. The City’s
Parks and Recreation Department does however, provide a wide range of programs and community services
for youth, adults, seniors, and families to promote healthy lifestyles and improve quality of life. Recreational
amenities and opportunities in Temple City are summarized below.
City Parks
The City’s parks include Live Oak Park and Temple City Park, which together encompass an approximate
total of 20 acres of public recreational open space to its residents; amenities of these parks are described
below. Figure 5.11-1, Public Facilities and Parks, shows the location of the parks.
Live Oak Park, which encompasses 16 acres, offers a playground area; picnic shelters; one full and two
half basketball courts; seven tennis courts; and fields for baseball, softball, soccer, and football.
Temple City Park, which encompasses 4 acres, is home to the Performing Arts Pavilion—the iconic stage
for the City's annual Concerts in the Park series and Lights on Temple City. The park offers a small
playground; seven picnic tables; electrical power at the picnic shelters; two barbecue pits; and restroom
facilities.
The Recreational and Open Space Resources section of the 1987 Temple City General Plan categorizes Live
Oak Park as a community park, and Temple City as a neighborhood park. These categorizes are described
below.
Community Parks. These parks are defined as a park which is over 10 acres in area, and because of the
nature of facilities provided, serves 10,000 to 30,000 residents, and has a service area ranging from one-
half to one mile.
Neighborhood Parks. These parks and facilities are generally between two to ten acres and have a
service area ranging from one-quarter to one-half mile. This type of park has some facilities for active
recreation such as playgrounds.
Other Parks, Open Space, and Recreational Amenities
Temple City is in proximity to other public park, open space, and recreation areas in the San Gabriel Valley,
such as the San Gabriel Mountains and the Whittier Narrows Dam County Recreation Area. The San Gabriel
Mountains for example, offers a large network of multipurpose trails, developed campgrounds, picnic areas,
swimming, fishing, skiing, and various other seasonal activities. These and other nearby parks, open space and
recreational amenities are available to the City’s residents.
Recreation Programs and Services
Park and recreation services to Temple City residents are provided through the Temple City Parks and
Recreation Department. The Parks and Recreation Department provides a diverse array of recreation
opportunities and services for all ages and interests, including youth, teens, adults, and seniors. For example,
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
RECREATION
Page 5.12-4 PlaceWorks
recreation classes, sports programs and afterschool care are offered for local youth and teens to encourage
creativity, leadership development and overall healthy lifestyles. Senior programs and services encourage an
independent and healthy lifestyle for residents ages 60 years and older. The majority of programs and services
are held at one of the community’s two parks, Live Oak Park and Temple City Park.
Parkland Standard
As stated in the current (1987) Temple City General Plan, Temple City does not have an official parkland
standard, but implements the National Parks and Recreation Association (NPRA) recommended minimum
of 2.5 acres of park space per 1,000 persons. As noted earlier, the City adopted the Temple City Parks and
Open Space Master Plan in 2014, which will, in part, work towards alleviating the parkland deficit in Temple
City. The two developed parks in the City, the 16-acre Live Oak Park and the 4-acre Temple City Park,
amount to a combined 20 acres of community and neighborhood parks that would count toward the City’s
parkland standard. The park-to-population ratio in Temple City, based on the City’s current population of
46,450 (see Table 3-2, Estimated General Plan Land Use Designations and Buildout Projections), is approximately .43
acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which is significantly under NPRA’s recommendation of 2.5 acres or
parkland per 1,000 residents. The current Temple City General Plan states that maintaining adequate parkland
for Temple City to meet NRPA’s recommended minimum parkland standard goal was not realistic, since the
City has little vacant land available.
5.12.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project:
R-1 Would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
R-2 Includes recreational facilities or requires the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
PS-4 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks.
5.12.3 Relevant General Plan Policies
The following are relevant policies of the Mid-Century Plan Land Use, Mobility, Economic Development and
Community Services Elements, which are designed to reduce potential impacts on park and recreation
facilities from implementation of the Proposed Project.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
RECREATION
June 2017 Page 5.12-5
Land Use Element
LU 2.7 Places for Recreation and Celebration. Provide parks, open spaces, venues for community
events, and similar uses enabling residents to participate in healthy lifestyles and celebrate the community.
LU 3.7 Connected Greenways Network. Explore opportunities to develop trails along Eaton and
Arcadia Wash to serve as the backbone of a citywide greenway network incorporating greenbelts,
parklands, bicycle and pedestrian paths, and trails. Encourage properties that are redeveloped along their
length to incorporate setbacks and landscape amenities that extend the open space character and
recreational amenity into their sites.
LU 3.8 A Connected Community. Maintain an interconnected network of pedestrian and bicycle
pathways facilitating access among residential, retail, and industrial districts, schools, open spaces, and
recreation areas.
LU 9.11 Recreation and Open Space. Ensure that residents have access to a variety of high-quality,
well-activated recreation and open space areas, supporting increased physical activity, social interaction,
and exposure to nature.
Mobility Element
M 4.1 Bicycle Networks. Require that the City provide additional bicycle facilities along roadways in the
City, where appropriate and feasible, in support of the City’s Bicycle Master Plan and other planning
documents.
M 4.2 Priority Bike Improvements. Prioritize improvements that address bicycling in existing areas of
the City with community facilities, complementary land use patterns, and connections to other modes of
travel including walking and transit.
M 4.3 Bicycle Parking. Require that public and private development in the City provide sufficient
bicycle parking.
M 4.4 Bicycle Share Program. Explore the feasibility of developing a citywide bike share program.
Wo rk with the local business community to identify and coordinate with possible corporate sponsors.
Economic Development Element
ED 7.1 Adult Health and Lifestyle Enrichment Programs. Encourage and offer recreation, health,
and enrichment programs that appeal to adults and seniors, promoting a high quality of life for current
residents and making Temple City more attractive to potential employers and employees.
ED 7.2 Child Health and Enrichment Programs. Encourage and coordinate supervised childcare,
after-school, summer, and recreation programs that assist working parents and enrich the lives and health
of children, teens, and young adults.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
RECREATION
Page 5.12-6 PlaceWorks
Community Services Element
CS 8.1 Parkland Standard. Establish a parkland standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents and monitor
and adjust the standard over time based on community recreational needs and opportunities.
CS 8.2 Review Recreation and Open Space Facilities. Review and update recreation and open space
facilities to ensure alignment with community needs and the overall improved health of Temple City
residents.
CS 8.3 Incentives for Additional Parklands. Encourage developers of large projects to provide land
dedications for parks and improvements exceeding minimum City requirements in exchange for
incentives established by the City, such as density bonuses, expedited development review, and the
reduction of on-site parking.
CS 8.4 Parkland and/or In-Lieu Dedication. Ensure that all residential subdivision, development, or
redevelopment, pay their fair share of the cost of land acquisition for parks and their fair share of the
cost of development of new parks, trails and open space.
CS 8.5 Park Types. Maintain an integrated hierarchy of recreation and open space facilities including
pocket parks, neighborhood parks, community parks, and linear parks or greenbelts that meet the needs
of all users, regardless of age, ability, or income.
CS 8.7 Infill Development. Promote the development of parklets, plazas, and streetscapes that provide
active and passive recreational opportunities for residents in areas targeted for moderate and higher
density residential or mixed-use development such as the downtown core and the intersection of
Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive.
CS 8.8 Residential and Mixed-Use Development. Require that significant residential and mixed-use
development projects make provisions for adequate amounts of usable and publicly accessible recreation
and open space.
CS 8.9 Vacant and/or Underutilized Property. Develop a strategy to acquire, activate, or program
vacant and/or underutilized property within Temple City to expand recreation and open space
opportunities, while also improving the aesthetics and urban form of the community.
CS 8.10 Joint-Use Facilities. Actively pursue opportunities to expand recreation and open space areas
and programs through joint-use agreements with Temple City Unified School District (TCUSD), other
school districts, private schools, and institutional uses, as well as neighboring communities including
Rosemead, El Monte, and Arcadia.
CS 8.16 Funding Mechanisms. Explore traditional and innovative land acquisition and capital funding
mechanisms to support and maintain existing recreation and open space facilities, and expand the City’s
recreation and open space network.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
RECREATION
June 2017 Page 5.12-7
CS 8.17 Park Maintenance. Conduct regular park maintenance and facility inspections on park
buildings, playground equipment, and recreational fields to allow for their continued public use and
enjoyment.
CS 8.18 Facility Inspection. Conduct regular park maintenance and facility inspections including
buildings, playground equipment, and recreational fields to maintain the current level of park
maintenance enjoyed by Temple City residents and visitors.
CS 10.1: Connections. Connect residential neighborhoods, schools, recreational and open space areas,
and key commercial and activity centers to the extent feasible, with trails, walking paths, and bikeways.
CS 10.2: Safe Trails. Ensure that trails are safe, well-marked, and well lit.
CS 10.3: Linear Park/Greenbelt. Strive towards the development of a linear park/greenbelt system that
includes trails along the Eaton Wash and Arcadia Wash that is linked with neighborhoods, recreation and
open spaces, and adjoining communities.
CS 10.4: Regional Trail System. Cooperate and collaborate with adjacent jurisdictions in developing a
regional trail system.
5.12.4 Environmental Impacts
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study, included as
Appendix A, disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets
after the impact statement.
Impact 5.12-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in the generation of additional
residents in the Plan Area, which would in turn result in an increase in the use of existing City parks and recreational facilities. [Threshold R-1]
Impact Analysis: Following is a discussion of the potential impacts on the City’s existing parks and
recreational facilities as a result of development that would be accommodated under each component of the
Proposed Project, the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan.
Mid-Century Plan
Demand for parks and recreation facilities are determined by the residential population within the City’s
service area. Buildout under the Mid-Century Plan would result in an impact on the City’s existing parks and
recreational facilities due to greater use and intensification of facilities. Buildout could generate up to
approximately 5,220 additional residential units over existing conditions, which would equate to 12,778 new
residents in the Plan Area. Implementation of the Mid-Century Plan would result in increased use of existing
City parks and recreational facilities and increased wear and tear of these facilities.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
RECREATION
Page 5.12-8 PlaceWorks
The Plan Area currently has a citywide deficit of park and recreational space (deficit of approximately 118
acres of parkland); it currently has approximately .43 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents 1 (20 acres of
parkland in total). This is significantly less than the 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents called for in Policy CS 8.1 of
the Mid-Century Plan, and significantly under NPRA’s recommendation of 2.5 acres or parkland per 1,000
residents. Applying the goal of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, the increase of 12,778 residents over
existing conditions due to buildout of the Mid-Century Plan would result in the need of approximately 38
acres of additional parkland in the Plan Area. At buildout of the Mid-Century Plan, and without the
additional parkland to serve the needs of the additional residents (only taking into consideration the 20 acres
of existing parkland), the new parkland ratio would be reduced to .34 acres per 1,000 residents.2 Therefore,
the City would continue to not be able to meet its minimum goal of 3 acres per 1,000 residents.
Pursuant to Chapter 5 (New Construction Park Fees) of the City’s Municipal Code, the City requires and
would continue requiring development impact fees for all new dwelling units. Future developers of new
dwelling units would be required to pay all applicable development impact fees. Funds collected are used
exclusively for the acquisition or improvement of City parks, in general conformance with the priorities
established by the Mid-Century Plan. The additional 5,220 residential units that could be generated at
buildout of the Mid-Century Plan would generate additional funds that would be placed into a special park
development fee fund in order to finance the acquisition or improvement of neighborhood and community
parks.
Additionally, in March 2014, the City developed the Parks and Open Space Master Plan (POSMP). With
approval of the POSMP, the City is looking into developing specific and separate master plans for both Live
Oak and Temple City Parks to guide future projects that will further address the specific needs of Temple
City residents.
Further, although Temple City residents are limited to two City parks (Live Oak Park and Temple City Park;
see Figure 5.11-1, Public Facilities and Parks), Temple City is in proximity to other public park, open space, and
recreation areas in the San Gabriel Valley, such as the San Gabriel Mountains and the Whittier Narrows Dam
County Recreation Area. The San Gabriel Mountains for example, offers a large network of multipurpose
trails, developed campgrounds, picnic areas, swimming, fishing, skiing, and various other seasonal activities.
These and other nearby parks, open space and recreational amenities are available to the City’s residents.
The City’s Parks and Recreation Department also provides a diverse array of recreation opportunities and
services for all ages and interests, including youth, teens, adults, and seniors. For example, recreation classes,
sports programs and afterschool care are offered for local youth and teens to encourage creativity, leadership
development and overall healthy lifestyles. Senior programs and services encourage an independent and
healthy lifestyle for residents ages 60 years and older. The majority of programs and services are held at one
of the community’s two parks, Live Oak Park and Temple City Park.
1 The current number of acres of parkland per resident in the Plan Area is calculated as follows: 20 acres (total acres of parkland in
the Plan Area) divided by 46,450 (current number of residents in the Plan Area) and then multiplied by 1,000 residents.
2 The anticipated number of acres of parkland per resident that would be generated due to buildout of the Mid-Century Plan is
calculated as follows: 20 acres (total acres of parkland in the Plan Area) divided by 59,228 (proposed number of residents in the
Plan Area) and then multiplied by 1,000 residents.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
RECREATION
June 2017 Page 5.12-9
Furthermore, the Mid-Century Plan contains policies designed to minimize impacts on parks and recreational
facilities. Compliance with these policies would ensure that progress is made in the provision of adequate and
expansion of the City’s network of recreational amenities. In particular, policies in the proposed Land Use,
Mobility, Economic and Community Services Elements directly address the provision of adequate parks and
recreational facilities, including Policy’s CS 8.1 through 8.5, CS 8.7 through 8.10, 8.16, 8.17, 8.18, and 10.1
through 10.4 of the Community Services Element. For example, Policy CS 8.3 calls for developers of large
projects to provide land dedications for parks and improvements exceeding minimum City requirements in
exchange for incentives established by the City, while Policy CS 8.8 outlines the requirement that significant
residential and mixed-use development projects make provisions for adequate amounts of usable and publicly
accessible recreation and open space. Additionally, Policy’s CS 8.17 and CS 8-18 call for the City to conduct
regular park maintenance and facility inspections on park buildings, playground equipment, and recreational
fields to allow for their continued public use and enjoyment and to maintain the current level of park
maintenance enjoyed by Temple City residents and visitors. The detailed list of applicable policies is provided
in Section 5.12.3, Relevant General Plan Policies, above.
Finally, as shown in Figures 3-4, Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram, and 4-2, Proposed General Plan Land Use
Diagram, the Mid-Century Plan does not include any changes to parks and open space land use designations.
This would ensure that the City’s existing parks would remain and thereby, continue to provide suitable
recreation areas for Temple City residents.
However, as called for in Policy CS 8.1, the City proposes to establish a parkland standard of 3.0 acres per
1,000 residents, and to monitor and adjust the standard over time based on community recreational needs and
opportunities. As stated above, the City would continue to not be able to meet its minimum goal of 3 acres
per 1,000 residents. Additionally, the proposed Land Use Element of the Mid-Century Plan does not call for
an increase of parkland in proportion to the number residents that the Mid-Century Plan would generate.
Therefore, implementation of the Mid-Century Plan would result in a significant impact to existing City parks
and recreational facilities.
Crossroads Specific Plan
As with development that would be accommodated under the General Plan Update, the additional residents
that would be generated by the Crossroads Specific Plan would lead to an increase in the use of existing City
park and recreational facilities, which may lead to a deterioration of these parks and facilities over time.
The Crossroads Specific Plan would also lead to an increase in commercial and employment development
uses within the Specific Plan Area from 627,348 square feet under existing conditions to just under 1.1
million square feet under proposed conditions (see Table 3-3, Land Use Projections for Specific Plan Area). The
additional commercial and employment development uses would increase the number of employees within
the Specific Plan Area (and Plan Area) by approximately 1,200. However, only the increase in population due
to residential development that would be accommodated under the Crossroads Specific Plan would lead to a
need for additional parks and recreational facilitates to meet the needs of future project residents. The
increase in employees is not used in determining the need for additional parks and recreational facilitates.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
RECREATION
Page 5.12-10 PlaceWorks
As noted above, Temple City currently has a citywide deficit of park and recreational space; it currently has
approximately .43 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which is less than the City’s target goal of 3 acres per
1,000 residents (20 acres of parkland in total). Using the City’s goal of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000
residents, the net increase in demand for parkland due to buildout of the Crossroads Specific Plan (up to
3,673 new residents) would be approximately 11 acres.
There are currently no parks, open space areas or other recreational facilities within the confines of the
Specific Plan Area. However, the Crossroads Specific Plan includes development standards that require that a
certain percentage of usable open space be provided with new development projects; the percentage of
usable open space varies by land use district. The Crossroads Specific Plan also includes a number of design
guidelines regarding park, open space recreational areas and uses. Some of the design guidelines include:
Public open space should be designed and programmed to be inviting and serve a variety of needs and
interests, including the incorporation of areas for physical activity and recreation, relaxation, and
socialization.
Larger projects should contribute to and connect with a comprehensive network of integrated open
spaces throughout the Specific Plan Area. This comprehensive network should be linked by pedestrian
and bicycle paths with larger parks and open spaces outside of the Specific Plan Area, such as Live Oak
Park and Temple City Park.
Owners of properties adjacent to Eaton Wash should participate in collective efforts to enhance and
improve the area fronting the Wash, by providing landscaping, open space, and paths or walkways along
the Wash.
Public open spaces should be designed for day and evening use.
All future development projects within the Specific Plan Area would be required to adhere to the
development standards and design guidelines of the Crossroads Specific Plan. Also, as with development that
would occur under the Mid-Century Plan, future project developers of the Specific Plan Area would be
required to pay all applicable development impact fees pursuant to Chapter 5 (New Construction Park Fees)
of the City’s Municipal Code. Individual development project adherence with the provisions of the
Crossroads Specific Plan and City’s Municipal Code would be ensured through the City’s development review
process.
Additionally, part of the vision of the Crossroads Specific Plan calls for the Specific Plan Area being a
recreation area home to public open space and bicycle and pedestrian paths and trails. Also, one of the
guiding principles of the Crossroads Specific Plan calls for the provision of new public and semi-public open
spaces, such as plazas, pocket parks, and greenways, which will create a network of useable and passive
recreation areas suited to a variety of activities, including relaxation, reflection, recreation, performance
spaces, and art and cultural activities. Policy 6 of the Crossroads Specific Plan also calls for the creation of
new connections, especially pedestrian and bicycle connections, and recreation and open space in concert
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
RECREATION
June 2017 Page 5.12-11
with new development and public improvements—while Policy 7 encourages the development of new public
open space improvements.
Furthermore, although implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan would not provide the 11 acres of
parkland needed to serve the 3,673 new residents that would be generated, it would provide a number of park
and open space areas throughout the Specific Plan Area. The provision of park and open space areas within
the Specific Plan Area would not only be important for serving this area, but also as helping the City meet
part of its overall goal of providing 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents and helping reduce the City’s
overall park deficiency.
In addition to the two existing City parks (Live Oak Park and Temple City Park), residents of the Specific
Plan Area would also have access to other public park, open space, and recreation areas in the San Gabriel
Valley, such as the San Gabriel Mountains and the Whittier Narrows Dam County Recreation Area. Residents
would also have access to the array of recreation opportunities and services offered by the City’s Parks and
Recreation Department.
Finally, future project developers would be required to pay all applicable development impact fees, including
those outlined in Chapter 5 (New Construction Park Fees) of the City’s Municipal Code. As noted above,
funds collected from park fees are used exclusively for the acquisition or improvement of City parks, in
general conformance with the priorities established by the Mid-Century Plan. Therefore, as residential
development occurs in accordance with the Crossroads Specific Plan, the City’s park funds would also
gradually increase and allow the City to acquire new parks or improve existing parks and recreational facilities.
Payment of the parks fees would also help offset any impacts to existing parks and recreational facilities.
Additionally, the Development Fees and Exactions implementation measure of the Mid-Century Plan’s
Implementation Plan (provided as Appendix A of the Mid-Century Plan) calls for the City to adopt an impact
fee schedule and update it as necessary to provide revenue for required supporting public infrastructure,
parks, and services.
Overall, impacts to existing City parks and recreational facilities associated with the increase in population
under the Crossroads Specific Plan are not anticipated to occur.
Impact 5.12-2: Project implementation would not result in environmental impacts as a result of new and/or
expanded recreational facilities that would be needed to serve future project residents. [Threshold R-2 and PS-4]
Impact Analysis: The potential impacts due to new and/or expanded parks and recreational facilities
resulting from the Proposed Project are addressed below.
Mid-Century Plan
While the Mid-Century Plan establishes City-wide policy level guidance, includes a revision to the current
Temple City General Plan land use diagram (see Figures 3-4, Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram, and 4-2,
Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram), and modifies the development potential of certain areas in the City, it
does not contain specific development project proposals. Any future parks and recreational facilities (new or
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
RECREATION
Page 5.12-12 PlaceWorks
expanded) within the Plan Area would be required to be developed in accordance to City’s zoning
requirements and development standards, and in compliance with applicable policies of the Mid-Century
Plan. Additionally, subsequent environmental review would be required for the expansion or development of
new park and recreational facility projects.
The Mid-Century Plan land use diagram includes a Park land use designation; the two areas covered under
this land use designation comprise the existing Live Oak and Temple City Parks. Although the acreage of
these two areas is already developed for parks and open space, new recreational facilities or the expansion of
existing facilities within these parks could be implemented by the City under the POSMP and as a result of
additional funds collected by the City from development projects pursuant to Chapter 5 (New Construction
Park Fees) of the City’s Municipal Code. Furthermore, new residential and mixed-use development that
would be accommodated within the Specific Plan Area would result in the construction of new or expanded
parks, open space, and recreational amenities.
The development and operation of new parks and recreational facilities under the Mid-Century Plan may
have an adverse physical effect on the environment, including impacts relating to air quality, biological
resources, lighting, noise, and traffic. Environmental impacts associated with construction of new and/or
expansion of parks and recreational facilities in accordance with the Mid-Century Plan are addressed
throughout this DEIR (see appropriate environmental topical areas in Chapter 5, Environmental Impacts).
However, it is speculative to determine the location of new park and recreational facilities that would result
from future site-specific development projects in accordance with the Mid-Century Plan, since development
projects are not proposed at this time. However, future park and recreation improvements or acquisition in
the Plan Area would be consistent with the proposed Mid-Century Plan land use diagram and/or require
additional environmental review under CEQA.
Additionally, implementation of the Mid-Century goals and policies, along with existing federal, state, and
local regulations, would also mitigate potential adverse impacts to the environment that may result from the
development of new or expansion of existing parks and recreational facilities pursuant to buildout of the
Mid-Century Plan. Some of the policies contained in the Mid-Century Plan are designed to minimize impacts
of the future expansion or development of new park and recreational facilities. For example, Policy CS 8.2
calls for the City to review and update recreation and open space facilities to ensure alignment with
community needs and the overall improved health of Temple City residents, while Policy CS 10.2 aims to
ensure that trails are safe, well-marked, and well lit. Additionally, Policy CS 8.12 aims to ensure that Temple
City’s recreation and open space areas provide opportunities for residents of all ages, abilities, and incomes to
achieve recommended levels of daily physical activity. In addition to supporting healthy lifestyles, this policy
helps ensure recreational opportunities are available within proximity of residents.
Consequently, implementation of the Mid-Century Plan is not anticipated to result in a significant adverse
impact related to the provision of new or expanded parks and recreational facilities.
Crossroads Specific Plan
The analysis provided above for the Mid-Century Plan also applies to the Crossroads Specific Plan.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
RECREATION
June 2017 Page 5.12-13
In addition, future park and recreational facility developments within the Specific Plan Area would be
required to adhere to the development standards and design guidelines of the Crossroads Specific Plan.
Furthermore, subsequent City review would be required for approval and development of future park and
reactional facility projects within the Specific Plan Area.
As with the Mid-Century Plan, implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan is not anticipated to result in
a significant adverse impact related to the provision of new or expanded parks and recreational facilities.
5.12.5 Existing Regulations
State Regulations
Quimby Act (California Government Code 66477)
Local Regulations
Temple City Parks and Open Space Master Plan (2012)
Temple City Municipal Code, Chapter 5, New Construction Park Fees
5.12.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon adherence to regulatory requirements, implementation of the policies contained in the Mid-Century
Plan, and compliance with the provisions of the Crossroads Specific Plan, the following impacts would be
less than significant: 5.12-2.
Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant:
Impact 5.12-1 Buildout of the proposed Mid-Century Plan would generate additional residents in
the Plan Area that may in turn result in substantial physical deterioration of existing
City parks and recreational facilities.
5.12.7 Mitigation Measures
Impact 5.12-1
The City has considered mitigation to reduce the impacts created by the Mid-Century Plan (includes
development under the Crossroads Specific Plan, which is a subset of the Mid-Centur y Plan), such as the
acquisition of private property for the development of additional parkland to serve its residents. However,
this is not a feasible mitigation as acquiring private property is not an attainable measure for the City for
various reasons, including financial and legal. No feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate
Impact 5.12-1.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
RECREATION
Page 5.12-14 PlaceWorks
5.12.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impact 5.12-1
Goals and policies are included in the Mid-Century Plan that would help reduce impacts on park and
recreational facilities as a result of future development that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century
Plan. Additionally, the Crossroads Specific Plan includes development standards that require that a certain
percentage of usable open space be provided with new development projects—it also includes a number of
design guidelines regarding park, open space recreational areas and uses. However, considering the City’s
current parkland deficit and that the acquisition of new parkland cannot be guaranteed to meet the needs of
future growth through the Mid-Century Plan policies or implementation of park fees collected by the City,
Impact 5.12-1 would remain significant and unavoidable.
5.12.9 References
Department of Finance (DOF). 2016, May 1. Report E-5: Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State: January 1, 2011–2016, with 2010 Benchmark.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/documents/E-
5_2016_InternetVersion.xls.
Temple City, City of. 2014, March. Parks and Open Space Master Plan.
http://weblink.templecity.us/weblink/0/edoc/15796/Attachments%20A.pdf.
———. 1987, April 21. City of Temple City General Plan. http://www.ci.temple-
city.ca.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1379.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFI PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2017 Page 5.13-1
5.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for implementation
of the Proposed Project, which includes the Temple City 2050 Mid-Century General Plan (Mid-Century Plan)
and Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan (Crossroads Specific Plan), to result in transportation and traffic
impacts in the overall Plan Area. The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical report:
Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis, Fehr and Peers, March 2017
A complete copy of this technical report is included as Appendix H to this DEIR.
5.13.1 Environmental Setting
5.13.1.1 REGULATORY SETTING
This section summarizes state and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to
the Proposed Project.
State
Caltrans, the California Department of Transportation, is charged with planning and maintaining state routes,
highways, and freeways. Caltrans is the owner/operator for Interstate 210 (I-210) and Interstate 10 (I-10).
Caltrans has developed Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for use when assessing state facilities.
Assembly Bill 1358: The California Complete Streets Act
The California Complete Streets Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 1358) of 2008 was also signed into law on
September 30, 2008. Beginning January 1, 2011, AB 1358 requires circulation elements to address the
transportation system from a multimodal perspective. The bill states that streets, roads, and highways must
“meet the needs of all users in a manner suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general
plan.” Essentially, this bill requires a circulation element to plan for all modes of transportation where
appropriate, including walking, biking, car travel, and transit.
The Complete Streets Act also requires circulation elements to consider the multiple users of the
transportation system, including children, adults, seniors, and the disabled. AB 1358 tasks the Governor’s
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to release guidelines for compliance, which are so far undeveloped.
Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, or Senate Bill (SB) 375, was signed into
law on September 30, 2008. The SB 375 regulation provides incentives for cities and developers to bring
housing and jobs closer together and to improve public transit. The goal behind SB 375 is to reduce
automobile commuting trips and length of automobile trips, thus helping to meet the statewide targets for
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions set by AB 32.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 5.13-2 PlaceWorks
SB 375 requires each metropolitan planning organization to add a broader vision for growth, called a
“Sustainable Communities Strategy” (SCS), to its transportation plan. The SCS must lay out a plan to meet
the region’s transportation, housing, economic, and environmental needs in a way that enables the area to
lower GHG emissions. The SCS should integrate transportation, land-use, and housing policies to plan for
achievement of the emissions target for their region. On April 7, 2016, the Southern California Association
of Governments’ (SCAG) Regional Council adopted the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/
Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS).
Senate Bill 743
The legislature found that with the adoption of SB 375, the state had signaled its commitment to encourage
land use and transportation planning decisions and investments that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and
thereby contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions, as required by the California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB 32]). Additionally, AB 1358, described above, requires local
governments to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users.
On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into law. SB 743 started a process that could fundamentally
change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. These changes will include the
elimination of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic
congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts in many parts of California (if not statewide). As
part of the new CEQA Guidelines, the new criteria “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public
Resources Code Section 21099(b)(1)). OPR is in the process of developing alternative metrics and thresholds
based on VMT. OPR has published the final draft of changes to the CEQA Guidelines, which will require
certification and adoption by the California Secretary for Natural Resources before they go into effect. This
may take several months depending on the input received during the review process. Once the guidelines are
prepared and certified, “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service of similar measures of
vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment”
(Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2)). Certification and implementation of the guidelines are expected
no earlier than the fall of 2017. Since OPR has not yet amended the CEQA Guidelines to implement this
change, automobile delay is still considered a significant impact, and the City of Temple City will continue to
use the established LOS criteria.
Regional and Local
SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS
Every four years, SCAG updates the RTP for the six-county region that includes Los Angeles, San
Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, Ventura, and Imperial counties. Current and recent transportation plan goals
generally focus on balanced transportation and land use planning that:
Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region.
Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
June 2017 Page 5.13-3
Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system.
Maximize the productivity of our transportation system.
Protect the environment and health of residents by improving air quality and encouraging active
transportation (e.g., bicycling and walking).
Encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and active transportation.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) serves as transportation planner and
coordinator, designer, builder, and operator for Los Angeles County. Metro funds improvements to all modes
of transportation through several programs, including the Transportation Improvement Program, the
Congestion Management Program, and Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan. Metro operates rail and bus
transit services throughout Los Angeles County, including the Plan Area. It should be noted that Foothill
Transit also operates regular bus service throughout the Plan Area.
Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program
In 2010, the County of Los Angeles updated its Congestion Management Program (CMP) to assess the
overall performance of the highway system, which provides quantitative input for funding improvements and
programs. This is the eighth CMP adopted for Los Angeles County since the requirement became effective
with the passage of Proposition 111 in 1990. The CMP covers approximately 500 miles of freeway facilities,
which are divided into 81 key segment pairs (eastbound/westbound or northbound/southbound). The traffic
operations at each segment are evaluated every two years by Caltrans and published in the CMP. The
intersection of Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive is the only CMP location in the Plan Area.
The county’s traffic congestion management policy is intended to determine appropriate transportation
planning actions in response to a particular level of service (LOS). However, a particular level of service at an
intersection does not necessarily preclude additional development at or around that intersection. Instead, the
local agency responds with a three-tiered approach that emphasizes:
1. Managing speeds and motorist behavior at intersections with high LOS.
2. Reviewing traffic growth patterns when congestion begins to appear and planning for appropriate ways
to address additional congestion.
3. Taking steps to manage congestion, including moving from intersection-specific metrics to LOS for an
entire corridor.
City of Temple City
The Temple City City Council recently approved a resolution to adopt new thresholds of significance for
traffic for projects and plans reviewed under CEQA. The recommended thresholds of significance amended
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 5.13-4 PlaceWorks
the City’s current practice so that it more closely aligns with recent State legislation (SB 743) and current best
practices. The performance standards and thresholds of significance are discussed in detail below.
Performance Standards and Thresholds of Significance
Level of service standards for roadways and intersections in Temple City are classified into three categories.
These three categories help develop a more sensitive approach to traffic planning so that streets with different
purposes, functions, and in different neighborhoods have different thresholds. The following LOS
significance criteria were used to determine whether significant impacts to roadway segments and
intersections in the study area would occur. Level of service standards for roadways and intersections in
Temple City are classified based on the street segment category—the facility types are shown in Figure 5.13-1,
Roadway Facility Categories. Once street segments and intersections are identified, then a minimum acceptable
level of service and threshold of significance are set for each.
Category C roadway segments and intersections are auto-centric and therefore should have a minimum
acceptable LOS of D at intersections and C for roadway segments. Category A streets are located in areas
where pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile movement; a vibrant economy; and more people travelling from
the region to visit are anticipated. Since the streets under Category A will be serving multiple users, the areas
served by these streets are expected to see more economic activity and the street will be designed in a
sustainable manner. The Category A intersections and roadway segments should have a minimum acceptable
LOS of F. The City’s adopted and acceptable level of service for roadway segments and intersections are
shown in Table 5.13-1.
Table 5.13-1 Temple City Minimum Acceptable Level of Service
Category Intersections Roadway Segments
Category A F F
Category B E D
Category C D C
Source: Fehr and Peers, 2017.
The performance standards shown in Table 5.13-1 are then converted into thresholds of significance. Table
5.13-2 provides the recommended thresholds of significance for each intersection and roadway segment
category. There are no thresholds for Category A intersections and roadways because they are designed to
serve multiple users in a sustainable manner; in other words, LOS F is allowed at intersections and roadways
designated as Category A facilities. For Category B and C intersections and roadway segments that are already
functioning at the acceptable level of service, only a two percent degradation in level of service is allowed
without considering the impact significant.
""
""""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""NPeckRdMcClintock AveKings Row
W Norman Ave
Campus Dr
S Santa Anita AveE Garibaldi Ave SGolden WestAveEllisLnCherrylee DrNMuscatelAve7thPlVal St
S King StLentaLnS Baldwin Ave9thAveLiviaAve
ShastaPlM i l o a n n S tAlster Ave
Esto AveAlabama StLemon AveNOakAve
S8thAveRyland AveHeleo AveBurt
on Ave
Gidley S t
Kennerly St
C a llit a S tBogue StBradburyRdVandykeRd
N Earle StV is ta L n Foss AvePitkin St 7thAveBellwoodRd
Green St
Beverly Dr
Palm AveNoel
DrWhitneyDrC l a r y Ave
Mulhall St S 9th Avela Presa DrRubi
oDrFiestaAveLeeAvePal
omarRdE Lemon Ave
NDarocaAveLyndAveCypress AveAvonAveFra
t
usDr
Emer
y
StLenoreAveEncinoAveMarshburnAveLasFloresAveCochinAveLongleyWayLovell AveW Le Roy Ave
W la Sierra Dr
N Bartlett AveW Wistaria AveS Sunset BlvdWarr
e
nWayWMission
R
d
Ranger AveKeni
l
worthAveSharon Rd
W Pamela Rd
Shirley AveNSegoviaAveGreenfield AveS Pine StW Chestnut Ave
W Fairview Ave Doreen AveMc Girk AveS Euclid AveBilton WayWalnut StS California StW Hermosa Dr
S Charlotte AveDelta AveEarle AveW Las Tuna s D r
A d a irS tMuscatel AveDoolittleAveE Naomi AveRidgewayRd
Welland AvePersimmonAveW Broadway
S del Mar AveR o blesAve
Agostino Rd Ivar AveRowland AveN Gerona AveE Santa Ynez St
AcaciaStdel
MarAveE Hermosa Dr
Golden West AveRose
montBlvdWinstonAveP e n tla n d S t
Missi
o
n
D
r CamelliaAveBroadway
el Monte St Agnes AveFarnaAveL y n r o se S tReno AveSere
noDr S 3rd AveHart AveHermosa Dr S 4th AveEmperor Av
e
Elm Ave
E G r e e n w oo d A v e
Wal
nut
Gr
oveAve8th AveN Charlotte AveS 5th AveElroviaAveW Huntington Dr
Alessandro AveE Grand Ave
E F a i r v i e w A v e
E A r c a d i a A v e
W Naomi Ave
S Gladys AveN del Mar AveE Mi
s
s
i
o
n
R
d Kauffman AveRose AveNSanMarinoAveE Ardendal
e
A
v
e
CedarAveN Burton AveW Woodruff AveHolly AveSheffield Rd
Loma AveWoodruff Ave
TylerAveWLongden AveWalnut Ave
SultanaAveW Lemon Ave
Grand Ave SantaAni
t
a
A
v
eHal
i
f
axRdNVi
staStW Camino Real Ave
Arden DrCloverly AveFreer St S 1st Aveel MonteAveNWillardAveTempleCity
Bl
vdL o r a i n R d
la Rosa Dr
Garib a l d i A v e
E Live Oak Ave
Ranchito St
W Palm Dr
Las Tunas Dr
E Longden Ave
E Camino Real Ave
PalM
a
lAveOak AveSan Marino AveS San Gabriel BlvdBaldwinAveE Las Tunas DrNSanGabrielBlvd Longden Ave
E Broadway S 10th AveArcadia Ave
Fairview Ave
S 6th AveS 2nd AveD u a r t e R d
H u n t ing t o n D r
O l i v e S t
Daines Dr
W Duarte Rd
RosemeadBlvdEncinita AveState Rte 19L ower Azusa Rd
C:\Users\msahimi\Documents\ArcGIS\Packages\fig02_Ped_B7D62842-4FC8-4AA9-8585-E7B76238F4AD\v103\fig02_Ped.mxdFigure 3
Intersections
Mixed Use
Multi-Modal
Auto-Centric
Roadway Segments
Multi-Modal
Mixed Use
Auto-Centric
Temple City Boundary
" " "Temple City Sphere of Influence
Roadway Facility Categories
PlaceWorks
Base Map Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017
Figure 5.13-1 - Roadway Facility Categories
0
Scale (Miles)
0.5
Temple City Sphere of Influence
Temple City Boundary Category A Category A
Category B
Category C
Category B
Category C
5. Environmental Analysis
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Specific Plan Boundary
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 5.13-6 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
June 2017 Page 5.13-7
Table 5.13-2 Temple City Impact Thresholds
Category Intersections Roadway Segments
Category A None None
Category B MODERATE: LOS degrades to F, or V/C
increases by 0.02 or more if already F
MODERATE: LOS degrades to E/F, or V/C
increases by 0.02 or more if already E/F
Category C MINIMAL: LOS degrades to E/F, or V/C
increases by 0.02 or more if already E/F
MINIMAL: LOS degrades to D/E/F, or V/C
increases by 0.02 or more if already D/E/F
Source: Fehr and Peers, 2017. Notes: V/C = volume to capacity
With regard to bicycle facilities, Temple City adopted a Bicycle Master Plan in 2011, which provides a broad
vision, strategies, and actions to improve conditions for bicycling in Temple City. Recommendations have
been made in the Bicycle Master Plan for on-street bike lanes along Las Tunas Drive and Temple City
Boulevard and for on-street bike routes along Encinitas Avenue and Golden West Avenue.
In addition, the City’s Municipal Code includes regulations related to pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular
mobility: these are outlined in Chapter 3 (Traffic Regulations) and Title 9, Article J (Off-Street Parking) of the
code.
5.13.1.2 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK
Regional access to the Plan Area is from I-10 and I-210, approximately 0.8 mile south and 1.8 miles north,
respectively, of the Plan Area boundary. Outside of the City’s downtown area, the grid pattern becomes more
scattered and cul-de-sacs become more common. Roads in the Plan Area are primarily two-lane streets with
no medians, shading from large trees is typical, and the roadways are generally wide as compared to other
small cities.
The local circulation network serving the Plan Area is essentially a grid system of roadways generally oriented
north–south and east–west. Temple City’s road network consists of several functional street types. Temple
City’s current General Plan Circulation Element designates four different roadway types in the City.
Functional classification refers to how a road accommodates two characteristics: the extent to which the
roadway prioritizes the movement of traffic and the level of access provided to adjacent properties. Based on
these generalized characteristics, roadways often vary in terms of right-of-way, r oadway width, number of
lanes, intersection and traffic signal spacing, speed, and other factors. Functional classification is generally
determined by the City’s General Plan, in which the functional classification is assigned to a particular
roadway based on the criteria above. Table 5 -13-3 summarizes the City’s roadway functional classifications:
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 5.13-8 PlaceWorks
Table 5.13-3 Temple City Roadway Functional Classifications
Roadway Type Accommodation for Movement of Traffic Level of Property Access
Primary
Primary roadway for movement of traffic at city level;
prioritizes movement of traffic; can also provide
regional connectivity.
Access is provided with limits on driveway spacing and turns
allowed, potentially through use of traffic control devices.
Secondary
These roadways provide some level of inter-city
connectivity. Secondary roadways typically do not
provide any regional access or connectivity.
Secondary roadways typically provide some level of property
access with fewer restrictions than typically found on major
streets.
Collector These roadways provide some level of intra-city
connectivity, collecting traffic from local streets
Access is prioritized similarly to a local street with more
considerations for traffic flow and visibility.
Local
Local streets provide the lowest accommodation for the
movement of traffic with lower connectivity and
potential for cul-de-sacs.
Local streets provide the highest level of property access.
Driveways are closely spaced and there are few access
limitations.
Source: Fehr and Peers 2017.
Some primary roads, such as Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive, tend to have medians and four lanes
of traffic. Posted speed limits within the Plan Area are typically between 25 and 40 miles per hour (mph),
with parallel parking common in the downtown region. Described below are the primary, secondary and
collector roads forming the transportation network in the Plan Area:
Rosemead Boulevard: The largest street in the Plan Area, Rosemead Boulevard travels north-south. It is
one of the primary roads connecting the Plan Area to I-210 and I-10, so it is a key part of the regional
road network. Within Temple City, the street is developed in a four-lane, partially divided configuration
with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. The roadway is a mixture of single- and multi-family residential
with some commercial development near the Rosemead Boulevard/Las Tunas Drive and Rosemead
Boulevard/Longden Avenue intersections. With the recent Rosemead Boulevard Project, there are now
bicycle lanes along both sides of Rosemead Boulevard. Additionally, striped or physical landscaped
bicycle lane buffers are present along some segments. Rosemead Boulevard was originally known as
California State Route 19 (SR-19), a state highway owned and maintained by Caltrans. However, Caltrans
relinquished control of the segment of the highway running through Temple City to the City in 2008.
Since then, the City has been responsible for this portion of Rosemead Boulevard’s operation and
maintenance.
Temple City Boulevard: Temple City Boulevard serves as the central north-south street within the Plan
Area. Temple City Boulevard has its southern terminus at an I-10 interchange, making it a key part of the
regional road network for the Plan Area. Within the City, the road is developed in a four-lane, undivided
configuration and a posted speed limit of 35 mph. In the southern part of the Plan Area, Temple City
Boulevard is primarily residential, with single-family homes lining the street. As the road approaches Las
Tunas Drive, the uses change to commercial, and Temple City Boulevard becomes the downtown main
street of the City. North of the downtown core, the land again returns to residential and the speed limit
decreases to 30 mph. Temple City Boulevard is also a designated bike route.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
June 2017 Page 5.13-9
South Baldwin Avenue: Baldwin Avenue is classified as a major artery, traveling north-south and
connecting the Plan Area to I-210 and I-10. Baldwin Avenue is a key part of the regional road network
for the Plan Area due to the existing freeway interchanges. Within the City, the street is developed in a
four-lane, divided configuration and a posted speed limit of 40 mph. Baldwin Avenue begins at Lower
Azusa Road and continues north, exiting the City limits at West Live Oak Road. The area is entirely
residential, with single-family homes lining the street. As the road approaches Lower Azusa Road, the
adjacent land uses change to commercial.
East Las Tunas Drive: Las Tunas Drive is one of the primary east-west corridors in the Plan Area.
Within the City, the road is developed in a four-lane, undivided configuration and a posted speed limit of
30 mph. The roadway is primarily commercial, providing a mix of uses for residents.
Lower Azusa Road: Lower Azusa Road is classified as a primary artery within the Plan Area, providing
an east-west route in the southern part of Plan Area. The main function of this street is accommodating
traffic from Rosemead Boulevard to the City of El Monte and further east. The roadway is developed in
a partially divided, four-lane section with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. Uses along the roadway are
primarily residential with pockets of commercial buildings near the major intersections.
Broadway: Classified as a secondary road, Broadway acts as a connector between Baldwin Avenue and
Rosemead Boulevard. The street is developed in an undivided, two-lane configuration and a posted speed
limit of 30 mph. Uses along the roadway are primarily single-family residences. There is some
commercial development near the intersection of Rosemead Boulevard and Broadway.
El Monte Avenue: El Monte Avenue is classified as a secondary road, providing a north-south route in
the eastern portion of the Plan Area. The street is developed in an undivided, two -lane configuration and
a posted speed limit of 35 mph. The main function of this street is accommodating traffic between the
City of Arcadia near Live Oak Avenue and the City of El Monte near Lower Azusa Road. There are also
bike lanes along this road. Uses located along El Monte Avenue are entirely residential, with single-family
homes lining both sides of the street.
Encinita Avenue: Encinita Avenue is classified as a collector street, providing a north-south route in the
western part of Plan Area. The roadway is developed in an undivided, two-lane section with a posted
speed limit of 35 mph. Encinita Avenue terminates on the south side at Mission Drive in the City of
Rosemead and on the north side at Lemon Avenue, adjacent to Temple City High School. Uses along
Encinita Avenue are primarily residential, with single-family houses. Commercial uses are located at the
intersection with Las Tunas Drive. A small amount of light industrial development is clustered where
Encinita crosses the Eaton Wash. The City has employed a number of traffic calming measures along
Encinita Avenue.
Golden West Avenue: Golden West Avenue is classified as a collector street, providing a north-south
route in the central part of the Plan Area. The roadway is developed as an undivided, two -lane section
with a posted speed limit of 30 mph and is a designated bike route. Uses along Golden West Avenue are
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 5.13-10 PlaceWorks
primarily residential, with single-family houses. Commercial uses are located at Golden West Avenue’s
intersection with Las Tunas Drive. Golden West Avenue terminates on the south side at Lower Azusa
Road and on the north side near the Los Angeles County Arboretum in the City of Arcadia.
Longden Avenue: Longden Avenue is classified as a collector street, providing an east-west route in the
northern part of Plan Area. The roadway is developed as an undivided, two -lane section with a posted
speed limit of 30 to 35 mph and is a designated bike route. Uses along Longden Avenue are primarily
single-family residential. Commercial uses are located at Longden Avenue’s intersection with Rosemead
Boulevard. Longden Elementary is located along the central portion of the road at its intersection with
Oak Avenue.
Garibaldi Avenue: Garibaldi Avenue is classified as a collector street, providing an east-west route in the
northern part of the Plan Area. The roadway is developed as an undivided, two-lane section with a
posted speed limit of 30 mph. Uses located along Garibaldi Avenue are entirely single-family.
The majority of the streets in the Plan Area fall under the local street classification. Local streets are two-lane
roadways without medians, and in some cases, without centerlines. Some of these streets have sidewalks while
others lack such pedestrian amenities. Speed limits are typically 25 mph or less, and there is a higher likelihood
of cul-de-sacs, tight radius turns, and meandering alignments.
The study area for the Proposed Project consists of major roadway segments and intersections in the Plan
Area. Some of these locations were also reviewed to prepare the analysis for the Crossroads Specific Plan. In
consultation with City staff, 10 study intersections were identified for analysis:
1. Rosemead Boulevard & Longden Avenue
2. Temple City Boulevard & Longden Avenue
3. Muscatel Avenue & Las Tunas Drive
4. Rosemead Boulevard & Las Tunas Drive
5. Encinita Avenue & Las Tunas Drive
6. Temple City Boulevard & Las Tunas Drive
7. Rosemead Boulevard & Broadway
8. Temple City Boulevard & Broadway
9. Temple City Boulevard & Lower Azusa Road
10. Baldwin Avenue & Lower Azusa Road
In addition, the following 30 roadway segments in the Plan Area were evaluated:
1. Baldwin Avenue south of Live Oak Avenue
2. Baldwin Avenue north of La Rosa Drive
3. Las Tunas Drive west of Reno Avenue
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
June 2017 Page 5.13-11
4. Las Tunas Drive west of Cloverly Avenue
5. Las Tunas Drive west of Golden West Avenue
6. Lower Azusa Road west of Cloverly Avenue
7. Lower Azusa Road west of Golden West Avenue
8. Lower Azusa Road west of Halifax
9. Rosemead Boulevard south of Emperor Avenue
10. Rosemead Boulevard south of Garibaldi Avenue
11. Rosemead Boulevard north of Pentland Street
12. Santa Anita Avenue south of Daines Drive
13. Temple City Boulevard south of Lemon Avenue
14. Temple City Boulevard south of Garibaldi Avenue
15. Temple City Boulevard south of Live Oak Avenue
16. Temple City Boulevard north of La Rosa Drive
17. Temple City Boulevard north of Ellis Lane
18. El Monte Avenue south of Live Oak Avenue
19. El Monte Avenue north of Grand Avenue
20. Live Oak Avenue west of Cloverly Avenue
21. Live Oak Avenue west of Golden West Avenue
22. Live Oak Avenue west of Halifax
23. Longden Avenue west of Reno Avenue
24. Longden Avenue east of Oak Avenue
25. Longden Avenue west of Golden West Avenue
26. Broadway east of Acacia Street
27. Broadway west of Cloverly Avenue
28. Olive Street west of Cloverly Avenue
29. Olive Street west of Golden West Avenue
30. Olive Street west of Halifax
A vicinity map displaying the study area and analyzed intersections and roadway segments is provided in
Figure 5.13-2, Study Intersections and Roadway Segments.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 5.13-12 PlaceWorks
5.13.1.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Plan Area
Daily roadway volume counts were collected at the study roadway segments in May 2016, prior to the end of
the academic school year. Additionally, existing morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM)
peak period intersection counts were conducted at the study intersections in May 2014. For the purposes of
the traffic analysis, a 2 percent growth was added to the 2014 intersection volumes to represent 2016 existing
baseline conditions. Figure 6 (Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations Existing [2016]
Conditions) of the transportation impact analysis (TIA) summarizes the existing AM and PM peak traffic
volumes and lane configurations (see Appendix H).
Intersections and Roadway Segments
Intersections within the Plan Area were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)
methodology. The ICU methodology evaluates the critical movements for each signal and compares that to
the critical movement capacity of the intersection, resulting in a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio. After the
quantitative V/C estimates are complete, the methodology assigns an LOS grade representing the quality of
intersection operations. Based on the V/C and delay findings, the methodologies assign a qualitative letter
grade that represents the operations of the intersection—from LOS A (minimal delay) to LOS F (excessive
congestion). LOS E represents at-capacity operations. Descriptions of the LOS letter grades are provided in
Table 5.13-4.
Table 5.13-4 Intersection and Roadway Level of Service Criteria
LOS Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio
A 0.000-0.600
B 0.601-0.700
C 0.701-0.800
D 0.801-0.900
E 0.901-1.000
F Greater than 1.000
Source: Fehr & Peers 2017.
""
""""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""NPeckRdMcClintock AveKings Row
W Norman Ave
Campus Dr
S Santa Anita AveE Garibaldi Ave SGoldenWestAveEllisLnCherrylee DrNMuscatelAve7thPlVal St
S King StLentaLnS Baldwin Ave9th AveLiviaAve
ShastaPlM i l o a n n S tAlster Ave
Esto AveAlabama StLemon AveNOakAve
S8thAveRyland AveHeleo AveBurt
on Ave
Gidley S t
Kennerly St
C a llita S tBogue StBradburyRdVandykeRd
N Earle StV is ta L n Foss AvePitkin St 7thAveBellwoodRdGreen St
Beverly Dr
Palm AveNoelDrWhitneyDrC l a r y Ave
Mulhall St S 9th Avela Presa DrRubi
oDrFiestaAveLeeAvePal
omarRdE Lemon Ave
NDarocaAveLyndAveCypress AveAvonAveFr
at
usDr
Emer
y
StLenoreAveEncinoAveMarshburnAveLasFloresAveCochinAveLongleyWayLovell AveW Le Roy Ave
W la Sierra Dr
N Bartlett AveW Wistaria AveS Sunset BlvdWarr
e
nWayWMissionRd
Ranger AveKeni
l
worthAveSharon Rd
W Pamela Rd
Shirley AveNSegoviaAveGreenfield AveS Pine StW Chestnut Ave
W Fairview Ave Doreen AveMc Girk AveS Euclid AveBilton WayWalnut StS California StW Hermosa Dr
S Charlotte AveDelta AveEarle AveW Las Tunas D r
A d a irS tMuscatel AveDoolittleAveE Naomi AveRidgewayRd
Welland AvePersimmonAveW B roadway
S del Mar AveR o blesAve
Agostino Rd Ivar AveRowland AveN Gerona AveE Santa Ynez St
AcaciaStdel
MarAveE Hermosa Dr
Golden West AveRosemontBlvdWinstonAveP e n t l a n d S t
Missi
o
n
D
r CamelliaAveBroadway
el Monte St Agnes AveFarnaAveL y n r o se S tReno AveSer
e
noDr S 3rd AveHart AveHermosa Dr S 4th AveEmperor Av
e
Elm Ave
E G r e e n w oo d A v e
Wal
nut
Gr
oveAve8th AveN Charlotte AveS 5th AveElroviaAveW Huntington Dr
Alessandro AveE Grand Ave
E F a i r v i e w A v e
E A r c a d i a Av e
W Naomi Ave
S Gladys AveN del Mar AveE Mis
s
i
o
n
R
d Kauffman AveRose AveNSanMarinoAveE Ardendal
e
A
v
e
CedarAveN Burton AveW Woodruff AveHolly AveSheffield Rd
Loma AveWoodruff Ave
TylerAveWLongden AveWalnut Ave
SultanaAveW Lemon Ave
Grand Ave SantaAni
t
a
Av
eHal
i
faxRdNVi
staStW Camino Real Ave
Arden DrCloverly AveFreer St S 1st AveelMonteAv
eNWillardAveTempleCity B
l
vdL o r a i n R d
la Rosa Dr
Garib a l d i A v e
E Live Oak Ave
Ranchito St
W Palm Dr
Las Tunas Dr
E Longden Ave
E Camino Real Ave
PalMalAveOak AveSan Marino AveS San Gabriel BlvdBaldwinAveE Las Tunas DrNSanGabrielBlvd Longden Ave
E Broadway S 10th AveArcadia Av
e
Fairview Ave
S 6th AveS 2nd AveD u a r t e R d
H u n t i n g t o n D r
O l i v e S t
Daines Dr
W Duarte Rd
RosemeadBlvdEncinita AveState Rte 19L ower Azusa Rd
C:\Users\msahimi\Documents\ArcGIS\Packages\fig03_Transit_68905E80-8E8A-4D22-8579-5E8255FBBB2F\v103\fig03_Transit.mxdGeneral Plan Update Study Locations
Figure 2
Temple City Boundary
" " "Temple City Sphere of Influence
7
65
4
8
9
3
21
10
#Study Intersection
Study Roadway Segment
PlaceWorks
Base Map Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017
Figure 5.13-2 - Study Intersections and Roadway Segments
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
0
Scale (Miles)
0.5Temple City Sphere of InfluenceTemple City Boundary Study Intersection
Study Roadway Segment
#Specific Plan Boundary
3 4
7
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 5.13-14 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
June 2017 Page 5.13-15
Existing conditions traffic volumes, lane configurations, and signal timing information provided by City staff
were used to analyze operations at the study intersections for AM and PM peak-hour conditions, using
methodologies described above. The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 5.13-5. For Category B
intersections, the minimum acceptable LOS is E, and for Category C intersections the minimum acceptable
LOS is D. There are no minimum LOS standards for Category A intersections. As shown in Table 5.13-5, all
intersections operate at acceptable LOS under existing conditions.
Table 5.13-5 Intersection Level of Service for Existing Conditions
Intersection Intersection Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C1 or Delay2 LOS V/C1 or Delay2 LOS
1. Rosemead Boulevard & Longden Avenue Auto-Centric 0.61 B 0.71 C
2.Temple City Boulevard & Longden Avenue Auto-Centric 0.69 B 0.73 C
3.Muscatel Avenue & Las Tunas Drive Mixed-Use 0.75 C 0.63 B
4.Rosemead Boulevard & Las Tunas Drive1 Mixed-Use 0.75 C 0.86 D
5.Encinita Avenue & Las Tunas Drive Mixed-Use 0.65 B 0.68 B
6.Temple City Boulevard & Las Tunas Drive Mixed-Use 0.85 D 0.91 E
7.Rosemead Boulevard & Broadway Mixed-Use 0.69 B 0.80 C
8.Temple City Boulevard & Broadway Auto-Centric 0.64 B 0.59 A
9.Temple City Boulevard & Lower Azusa Road Multi-Modal 0.76 C 0.88 D
10.Baldwin Avenue & Lower Azusa Road Multi-Modal 0.86 D 0.91 E
Source: Fehr & Peers 2017.
Notes: V/C = Volume / Capacity Ratio Intersections operating below acceptable LOS are shown in bold.
Roadway segments in the Plan Area were evaluated using Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and V/C ratios. Using
the quantitative V/C ratios, a level of service grade was assigned ranging from LOS A to LOS F. LOS grades
and corresponding V/C ratios are provided in Table 5.13-4. The following capacities were used for each
roadway classification in the Plan Area:
Primary: 9,000 vehicles per day per lane
Secondary: 8,000 vehicles per day per lane
Collector: 7,500 vehicles per day per lane
Local: 6,000 vehicles per day per lane
For Category B roadways, the minimum acceptable LOS is D, and for Category C roadways the minimum
acceptable LOS is C. There are no minimum LOS standards for Category A roadway segments. As shown in
Table 5.13-6, all roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS under existing conditions.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 5.13-16 PlaceWorks
Table 5.13-6 Roadway Level of Service for Existing Conditions
Functional Class Roadway Segment Lanes Capacity Volume V/C Ratio LOS Corridor Type
Primary
Baldwin
Avenue
s/o Live Oak
Avenue 4 36,000 28,725 0.8 C Category B
n/o La Rosa
Drive 4 36,000 26,471 0.74 C Category B
Las Tunas
Drive
w/o
Rosemead
Boulevard
6 54,000 30,121 0.56 A Category A
w/o Cloverly
Avenue 4 36,000 25,594 0.71 C Category A
w/o Golden
West
Avenue
4 36,000 24,348 0.68 B Category A
Lower
Azusa Road
w/o Cloverly
Avenue 4 36,000 17,458 0.48 A Category B
w/o Golden
West
Avenue
4 36,000 23,411 0.65 B Category B
w/o Halifax 4 36,000 26,004 0.72 C Category B
Rosemead
Boulevard
s/o Emperor
Avenue 4 36,000 34,711 0.96 E Category A
s/o Garibaldi
Avenue 4 36,000 33,617 0.93 E Category A
n/o Pentland
Street 4 36,000 36,193 1.01 F Category A
Santa Anita
Avenue
s/o Daines
Drive 4 36,000 22,654 0.63 B Category B
Temple City
Boulevard
s/o Lemon
Avenue 4 36,000 29,119 0.81 D Category B
s/o Garibaldi
Avenue 4 36,000 29,734 0.83 D Category B
s/o Live Oak
Avenue 4 36,000 22,579 0.63 B Category B
n/o La Rosa
Drive 4 36,000 23,329 0.65 B Category B
n/o Ellis
Lane 4 36,000 18,493 0.51 A Category B
Secondary
El Monte
Avenue
s/o Live Oak
Avenue 2 16,000 7,806 0.49 A Category B
n/o Grand
Avenue 2 16,000 7,123 0.45 A Category B
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
June 2017 Page 5.13-17
Table 5.13-6 Roadway Level of Service for Existing Conditions
Functional Class Roadway Segment Lanes Capacity Volume V/C Ratio LOS Corridor Type
Collector
Live Oak
Avenue
w/o Cloverly
Avenue 2 15,000 3,194 0.21 A Category C
w/o Golden
West
Avenue
2 15,000 5,075 0.34 A Category C
w/o Halifax 2 15,000 9,536 0.64 B Category C
Longden
Avenue
w/o Reno
Avenue 2 15,000 7,022 0.47 A Category C
e/o Oak
Avenue 2 15,000 6,634 0.44 A Category C
w/o Golden
West
Avenue
2 15,000 6,183 0.41 A Category C
Local
Broadway.
e/o Acacia
Street 4 24000 12,377 0.52 A Category C
w/o Cloverly
Avenue 2 12,000 5,692 0.47 A Category C
Olive Street
w/o Cloverly
Avenue 2 12,000 2,682 0.22 A Category B
w/o Golden
West
Avenue
2 12,000 3,974 0.33 A Category B
w/o Halifax 2 12,000 2,669 0.22 A Category B
Source: Fehr & Peers 2017. Notes: V/C = Volume-to-Capacity
Roadways operating below acceptable LOS are shown in bold
Pedestrian Conditions
Figure 5.13-3, Citywide Sidewalk Conditions, indicates the locations of sidewalks in Temple City. As shown in the
figure, sidewalks are not continuous throughout the City. In some locations sidewalks are present on both
sides of the roadway, others in which sidewalks are on only one side, and others with no sidewalks at all. In
addition to continuity, five other factors that might affect walkability and the pedestrian experience were
analyzed, as follows:
Sidewalk Conditions: This refers to the physical condition of sidewalk surfaces. Sidewalks that are
broken or cracked can deter walkability and pose a safety hazard, particularly for people who are mobility
impaired, such as those in wheelchairs and persons using walkers and strollers. Generally, within the
downtown area the sidewalks are in good condition, free of cracks and fissures. Outside of this area,
there is a significant amount of damage to sidewalks due to tree roots both in residential neighborhoods
and the commercial districts. The main issue is uplifting of slabs, causing lateral peaks and valley along
the walkways. This poses an impediment to pedestrians, especially those with disabilities.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 5.13-18 PlaceWorks
Shading: Persons are more inclined to walk in areas where there is shade present, particularly in southern
California with its relatively warm weather and limited rainfall as compared to other locations.
Additionally, shade trees create an aesthetic value that is pleasing to the pedestrian. Shading is common in
the city, with large, shade bearing trees lining most streets, both arterials and local streets. The City’s
downtown core is lined with shade trees however the other commercial districts lack vegetation.
Grade: Persons are more inclined to walk in areas which are relatively flat or have limited grade changes.
In both the east-west direction and the north-south direction, the streets are generally flat. There is a
slight slope in the north-south streets.
Amenities: All items being equal, persons are more inclined to walk in areas that are interesting
environments with shopping, retail, restaurants, and other similar uses. Pedestrian-friendly amenities
include street furniture, attractive paving, wayfinding signage, enhanced landscaping, and improved
lighting. In the downtown area amenities are plentiful, with public space, shopping, dining, benches, and
shade. Outside of the area the character is entirely residential, and other than shade and occasional
benches, there are no amenities supporting pedestrians.
Buffers: A more walkable environment is one in which there is some degree of separation between the
pedestrian and the motorist. This typically includes wider sidewalks, street parking and sidewalk bulbouts
at intersections where feasible. Crosswalks with appropriate signage serve as an important buffer as well.
Buffered space is common throughout the city, particularly along roads with more traffic. There are many
locations however that benefit from wider sidewalks, sidewalk bulb-outs at intersections where feasible,
and appropriate signage. Rosemead Boulevard benefits from bike lane buffers, both striped and
landscaped.
Bicycle Facilities
Temple City also provides opportunities for bicycling via a network of bikeways, bicycle parking, and other
accommodations. The streets in the City are generally sufficiently wide to accommodate bicyclists even when
parking is provided. Existing bicycle facilities are shown on Figure 5.13-4, Citywide Bicycle Facilities. Currently,
bicycle facilities in Temple City consist of Class II bike protected bicycle lanes, Class III bike routes, and a
bike lane along Rosemead Boulevard. Protective buffers are present along several portions of the bicycle
lanes along Rosemead Boulevard, and are either striped or consist of physical landscaping.
""
""""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkNPeckRdMcClintock AveKings Row
W Norman Ave
Campus Dr
S Santa Anita AveE Garibaldi Ave SGolden WestAveEllisLnCherrylee DrNMuscatelAve7thPlVal St
S King StLentaLnS Baldwin Ave9thAveLiviaAve
ShastaPlM i l o a n n S tAlster Ave
Esto AveAlabama StLemon AveNOakAve
S8thAveRyland AveHeleo AveBurt
on Ave
Gidley S t
Kennerly St
C a llit a S tBogue StBradburyRdVandykeRd
N Earle StV is ta L n Foss AvePitkin St 7thAveBellwoodRd
Green St
Beverly Dr
Palm AveNoel
DrWhitneyDrC l a r y Ave
Mulhall St S 9th Avela Presa DrRubi
oDrFiestaAve LeeAvePal
omarRdE Lemon Ave
NDarocaAveLyndAveCypress AveAvonAveFra
t
usDr
Emer
y
StLenoreAveEncinoAveMarshburnAveLasFloresAveCochinAveLongleyWayLovell AveW Le Roy Ave
W la Sierra Dr
N Bartlett AveW Wistaria AveS Sunset BlvdWarr
e
nWayWMission
R
d
Ranger AveKeni
l
worthAveSharon Rd
W Pamela Rd
Shirley AveNSegoviaAveGreenfield AveS Pine StW Chestnut Ave
W Fairview Ave Doreen AveMc Girk AveS Euclid AveBilton WayWalnut StS California StW Hermosa Dr
S Charlotte AveDelta AveEarle AveW Las Tuna s D r
A d a irS tMuscatel AveDoolittleAveE Naomi AveRidgewayRd
Welland AvePersimmonAveW Broadway
S del Mar AveR o blesAve
Agostino Rd Ivar AveRowland AveN Gerona AveE Santa Ynez St
AcaciaStdel
MarAveE Hermosa Dr
Golden West AveRose
montBlvdWinstonAveP e n tla n d S t
Missi
o
n
D
r CamelliaAveBroadway
el Monte St Agnes AveFarnaAveL y n r o s e S tReno AveSere
noDr S 3rd AveHart AveHermosa Dr S 4th AveEmperor Av
e
Elm Ave
E G r e e n w oo d A v e
Wal
nut
Gr
oveAve8th AveN Charlotte AveS 5th AveElroviaAveW Huntington Dr
Alessandro AveE Grand Ave
E F a i r v i e w A v e
E A r c a d i a A v e
W Naomi Ave
S Gladys AveN del Mar AveE Mis
s
i
o
n
R
d Kauffman AveRose AveNSanMarinoAveE Ardendal
e
A
v
e
CedarAveN Burton AveW Woodruff AveHolly AveSheffield Rd
Loma AveWoodruff Ave
TylerAveWLongden AveWalnut Ave
SultanaAveW Lemon Ave
Grand Ave SantaAni
t
a
Av
eHal
i
f
axRdNVi
staStW Camino Real Ave
Arden DrCloverly AveFreer St S 1st Aveel MonteAveNWillardAveTempleCity
Bl
vdL o r a i n R d
la Rosa Dr
Garib a l d i A v e
E Live Oak Ave
Ranchito St
W Palm Dr
Las Tunas Dr
E Longden Ave
E Camino Real Ave
PalM
a
lAveOak AveSan Marino AveS San Gabriel BlvdBaldwinAveE Las Tunas DrNSanGabrielBlvd Longden Ave
E Broadway S 10th AveArcadia Ave
Fairview Ave
S 6th AveS 2nd AveD u a r t e R d
H u n t ing t o n D r
O l i v e S t
Daines Dr
W Duarte Rd
RosemeadBlvdEncinita AveState Rte 19L ower Azusa Rd
C:\Users\msahimi\Documents\ArcGIS\Packages\fig02_Ped_B7D62842-4FC8-4AA9-8585-E7B76238F4AD\v103\fig02_Ped.mxdCitywide Sidewalk Conditions
Figure 4
Sidewalk Presence
Both Sides
One Side
kkkkk None
Temple City Boundary
" " "Temple City Sphere of Influence
PlaceWorks
Base Map Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017
Figure 5.13-3 - Citywide Sidewalk Conditions
0
Scale (Miles)
0.5
Temple City Sphere of Influence
Temple City Boundary Both Sides Sidewalk Presence
One Side Sidewalk Presence
No Sidewalk Presence
""
""""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkNPeckRdMcClintock AveKings Row
W Norman Ave
Campus Dr
S Santa Anita AveE Garibaldi Ave SGolden WestAveEllisLnCherrylee DrNMuscatelAve7thPlVal St
S King StLentaLnS Baldwin Ave9thAveLiviaAve
ShastaPlM i l o a n n S tAlster Ave
Esto AveAlabama StLemon AveNOakAve
S8thAveRyland AveHeleo AveBurt
on Ave
Gidley S t
Kennerly St
C a llit a S tBogue StBradburyRdVandykeRd
N Earle StV is ta L n Foss AvePitkin St 7thAveBellwoodRd
Green St
Beverly Dr
Palm AveNoel
DrWhitneyDrC l a r y Ave
Mulhall St S 9th Avela Presa DrRubi
oDrFiestaAveLeeAvePal
omarRdE Lemon Ave
NDarocaAveLyndAveCypress AveAvonAveFra
t
usDr
Emer
y
S
tLenoreAveEncinoAveMarshburnAveLasFloresAveCochinAveLongleyWayLovell AveW Le Roy Ave
W la Sierra Dr
N Bartlett AveW Wistaria AveS Sunset BlvdWarr
e
nWayWMission
R
d
Ranger AveKeni
l
worthAveSharon Rd
W Pamela Rd
Shirley AveNSegoviaAveGreenfield AveS Pine StW Chestnut Ave
W Fairview Ave Doreen AveMc Girk AveS Euclid AveBilton WayWalnut StS California StW Hermosa Dr
S Charlotte AveDelta AveEarle AveW Las Tuna s D r
A d a irS tMuscatel AveDoolittleAveE Naomi AveRidgewayRd
Welland AvePersi
mmonAveW Broadway
S del Mar AveR o blesAve
Agostino Rd Ivar AveRowland AveN Gerona AveE Santa Ynez St
AcaciaStdel
MarAveE Hermosa Dr
Golden West AveRose
montBlvdWinstonAveP e n tla n d S t
Missi
o
n
D
r CamelliaAveBroadway
el Monte St Agnes AveFarnaAveL y n r o s e S tReno AveSere
noDr S 3rd AveHart AveHermosa Dr S 4th AveEmperor Av
e
Elm Ave
E G r e e n w oo d A v e
Wal
nut
Gr
oveAve8th AveN Charlotte AveS 5th AveElroviaAveW Huntington Dr
Alessandro AveE Grand Ave
E F a i r v i e w A v e
E A r c a d i a A v e
W Naomi Ave
S Gladys AveN del Mar AveE Mis
s
i
o
n
R
d Kauffman AveRose AveNSanMarinoAveE Ardendal
e
A
v
e
CedarAveN Burton AveW Woodruff AveHolly AveSheffield Rd
Loma AveWoodruff Ave
TylerAveWLongden AveWalnut Ave
SultanaAveW Lemon Ave
Grand Ave SantaAni
t
a
Av
eHal
i
f
axRdNVi
staStW Camino Real Ave
Arden DrCloverly AveFreer St S 1st Aveel MonteAveNWillardAveTempleCity
Bl
vdL o r a i n R d
la Rosa Dr
Garib a l d i A v e
E Live Oak Ave
Ranchito St
W Palm Dr
Las Tunas Dr
E Longden Ave
E Camino Real Ave
PalM
a
lAveOak AveSan Marino AveS San Gabriel BlvdBaldwinAveE Las Tunas DrNSanGabrielBlvd Longden Ave
E Broadway S 10th AveArcadia Av
e
Fairview Ave
S 6th AveS 2nd AveD u a r t e R d
H u n t ing t o n D r
O l i v e S t
Daines Dr
W Duarte Rd
RosemeadBlvdEncinita AveState Rte 19L ower Azusa Rd
C:\Users\msahimi\Documents\ArcGIS\Packages\fig02_Ped_B7D62842-4FC8-4AA9-8585-E7B76238F4AD\v103\fig02_Ped.mxdCitywide Sidewalk Conditions
Figure 4
Sidewalk Presence
Both Sides
One Side
kkkkk None
Temple City Boundary
" " "Temple City Sphere of Influence
""
""""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkNPeckRdMcClintock AveKings Row
W Norman Ave
Campus Dr
S Santa Anita AveE Garibaldi Ave SGolden WestAveEllisLnCherrylee DrNMuscatelAve7thPlVal St
S King StLentaLnS Baldwin Ave9thAveLiviaAve
ShastaPlM i l o a n n S tAlster Ave
Esto AveAlabama StLemon AveNOakAve
S8thAveRyland AveHeleo AveBurt
on Ave
Gidley S t
Kennerly St
C a llit a S tBogue StBradburyRdVandykeRd
N Earle StV is ta L n Foss AvePitkin St 7thAveBellwoodRd
Green St
Beverly Dr
Palm AveNoel
DrWhitneyDrC l a r y Ave
Mulhall St S 9th Avela Presa DrRubi
oDrFiestaAveLeeAvePal
omarRdE Lemon Ave
NDarocaAveLyndAveCypress AveAvonAveFra
t
usDr
Emer
y
S
tLenoreAveEncinoAveMarshburnAveLasFloresAveCochinAveLongleyWayLovell AveW Le Roy Ave
W la Sierra Dr
N Bartlett AveW Wistaria AveS Sunset BlvdWarr
e
nWayWMission
R
d
Ranger AveKeni
l
worthAveSharon Rd
W Pamela Rd
Shirley AveNSegoviaAveGreenfield AveS Pine StW Chestnut Ave
W Fairview Ave Doreen AveMc Girk AveS Euclid AveBilton WayWalnut StS California StW Hermosa Dr
S Charlotte AveDelta AveEarle AveW Las Tunas D r
A d a irS tMuscatel AveDoolittleAveE Naomi AveRidgewayRd
Welland AvePersi
mmonAveW Broadway
S del Mar AveR o blesAve
Agostino Rd Ivar AveRowland AveN Gerona AveE Santa Ynez St
AcaciaStdel
MarAveE Hermosa Dr
Golden West AveRose
montBlvdWinstonAveP e n tla n d S t
Missi
o
n
D
r CamelliaAveBroadway
el Monte St Agnes AveFarnaAveL y n r o se S tReno AveSere
noDr S 3rd AveHart AveHermosa Dr S 4th AveEmperor Av
e
Elm Ave
E G r e e n w oo d A v e
Wal
nut
Gr
oveAve8th AveN Charlotte AveS 5th AveElroviaAveW Huntington Dr
Alessandro AveE Grand Ave
E F a i r v i e w A v e
E A r c a d i a A v e
W Naomi Ave
S Gladys AveN del Mar AveE Mis
s
i
o
n
R
d Kauffman AveRose AveNSanMarinoAveE Ardendal
e
A
v
e
CedarAveN Burton AveW Woodruff AveHolly AveSheffield Rd
Loma AveWoodruff Ave
TylerAveWLongden AveWalnut Ave
SultanaAveW Lemon Ave
Grand Ave SantaAni
t
a
Av
eHal
i
f
axRdNVi
staStW Camino Real Ave
Arden DrCloverly AveFreer St S 1st Aveel MonteAveNWillardAveTempleCity
Bl
vdL o r a i n R d
la Rosa Dr
Garib a l d i A v e
E Live Oak Ave
Ranchito St
W Palm Dr
Las Tunas Dr
E Longden Ave
E Camino Real Ave
PalM
a
lAveOak AveSan Marino AveS San Gabriel BlvdBaldwinAveE Las Tunas DrNSanGabrielBlvd Longden Ave
E Broadway S 10th AveArcadia Av
e
Fairview Ave
S 6th AveS 2nd AveD u a r t e R d
H u n t ing t o n D r
O l i v e S t
Daines Dr
W Duarte Rd
RosemeadBlvdEncinita AveState Rte 19L ower Azusa Rd
C:\Users\msahimi\Documents\ArcGIS\Packages\fig02_Ped_B7D62842-4FC8-4AA9-8585-E7B76238F4AD\v103\fig02_Ped.mxdCitywide Sidewalk Conditions
Figure 4
Sidewalk Presence
Both Sides
One Side
kkkkk None
Temple City Boundary
" " "Temple City Sphere of Influence
""
""""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkNPeckRdMcClintock AveKings Row
W Norman Ave
Campus Dr
S Santa Anita AveE Garibaldi Ave SGolden WestAveEllisLnCherrylee DrNMuscatelAve7thPlVal St
S King StLentaLnS Baldwin Ave9thAveLiviaAve
ShastaPlM i l o a n n S tAlster Ave
Esto AveAlabama StLemon AveNOakAve
S8thAveRyland AveHeleo AveBurt
on Ave
Gidley S t
Kennerly St
C a llit a S tBogue StBradburyRdVandykeRd
N Earle StV is ta L n Foss AvePitkin St 7thAveBellwoodRd
Green St
Beverly Dr
Palm AveNoel
DrWhitneyDrC l a r y Ave
Mulhall St S 9th Avela Presa DrRubi
oDrFiestaAveLeeAvePal
omarRdE Lemon Ave
NDarocaAveLyndAveCypress AveAvonAveFra
t
usDr
Emer
y
S
tLenoreAveEncinoAveMarshburnAveLasFloresAveCochinAveLongleyWayLovell AveW Le Roy Ave
W la Sierra Dr
N Bartlett AveW Wistaria AveS Sunset BlvdWarr
e
nWayWMission
R
d
Ranger AveKeni
l
worthAveSharon Rd
W Pamela Rd
Shirley AveNSegoviaAveGreenfield AveS Pine StW Chestnut Ave
W Fairview Ave Doreen AveMc Girk AveS Euclid AveBilton WayWalnut StS California StW Hermosa Dr
S Charlotte AveDelta AveEarle AveW Las Tunas D r
A d a irS tMuscatel AveDoolittleAveE Naomi AveRidgewayRd
Welland AvePersi
mmonAveW Broadway
S del Mar AveR o blesAve
Agostino Rd Ivar AveRowland AveN Gerona AveE Santa Ynez St
AcaciaStdel
MarAveE Hermosa Dr
Golden West AveRose
montBlvdWinstonAveP e n tla n d S t
Missi
o
n
D
r CamelliaAveBroadway
el Monte St Agnes AveFarnaAveL y n r o se S tReno AveSere
noDr S 3rd AveHart AveHermosa Dr S 4th AveEmperor Av
e
Elm Ave
E G r e e n w oo d A v e
Wal
nut
Gr
oveAve8th AveN Charlotte AveS 5th AveElroviaAveW Huntington Dr
Alessandro AveE Grand Ave
E F a i r v i e w A v e
E A r c a d i a A v e
W Naomi Ave
S Gladys AveN del Mar AveE Mis
s
i
o
n
R
d Kauffman AveRose AveNSanMarinoAveE Ardendal
e
A
v
e
CedarAveN Burton AveW Woodruff AveHolly AveSheffield Rd
Loma AveWoodruff Ave
TylerAveWLongden AveWalnut Ave
SultanaAveW Lemon Ave
Grand Ave SantaAni
t
a
Av
eHal
i
f
axRdNVi
staStW Camino Real Ave
Arden DrCloverly AveFreer St S 1st Aveel MonteAveNWillardAveTempleCity
Bl
vdL o r a i n R d
la Rosa Dr
Garib a l d i A v e
E Live Oak Ave
Ranchito St
W Palm Dr
Las Tunas Dr
E Longden Ave
E Camino Real Ave
PalM
a
lAveOak AveSan Marino AveS San Gabriel BlvdBaldwinAveE Las Tunas DrNSanGabrielBlvd Longden Ave
E Broadway S 10th AveArcadia Av
e
Fairview Ave
S 6th AveS 2nd AveD u a r t e R d
H u n t ing t o n D r
O l i v e S t
Daines Dr
W Duarte Rd
RosemeadBlvdEncinita AveState Rte 19L ower Azusa Rd
C:\Users\msahimi\Documents\ArcGIS\Packages\fig02_Ped_B7D62842-4FC8-4AA9-8585-E7B76238F4AD\v103\fig02_Ped.mxdCitywide Sidewalk Conditions
Figure 4
Sidewalk Presence
Both Sides
One Side
kkkkk None
Temple City Boundary
" " "Temple City Sphere of Influence
5. Environmental Analysis
Specific Plan Boundary
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 5.13-20 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
""
""""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""NPeckRdMcClintock AveKings Row
W Norman Ave
Campus Dr
S Santa Anita AveE Garibaldi Ave SGolden WestAveEllisLnCherrylee DrNMuscatelAve7thPlVal St
S King StLentaLnS Baldwin Ave9thAveLiviaAve
ShastaPlM i l o a n n S tAlster Ave
Esto AveAlabama StLemon AveNOakAve
S8thAveRyland AveHeleo AveBurt
on Ave
Gidley S t
Kennerly St
C a llit a S tBogue StBradburyRdVandykeRd
N Earle StV is ta L n Foss AvePitkin St 7thAveBellwoodRd
Green St
Beverly Dr
Palm AveNoel
DrWhitneyDrC l a r y Ave
Mulhall St S 9th Avela Presa DrRubi
oDrFiestaAveLeeAvePal
omarRdE Lemon Ave
NDarocaAveLyndAveCypress AveAvonAveFra
t
usDr
Emer
y
StLenoreAveEncinoAveMarshburnAveLasFloresAveCochinAveLongleyWayLovell AveW Le Roy Ave
W la Sierra Dr
N Bartlett AveW Wistaria AveS Sunset BlvdWarr
e
nWayWMission
R
d
Ranger AveKeni
l
worthAveSharon Rd
W Pamela Rd
Shirley AveNSegoviaAveGreenfield AveS Pine StW Chestnut Ave
W Fairview Ave Doreen AveMc Girk AveS Euclid AveBilton WayWalnut StS California StW Hermosa Dr
S Charlotte AveDelta AveEarle AveW Las Tuna s D r
A d a irS tMuscatel AveDoolittleAveE Naomi AveRidgewayRd
Welland AvePersimmonAveW Broadway
S del Mar AveR o blesAve
Agostino Rd Ivar AveRowland AveN Gerona AveE Santa Ynez St
AcaciaStdel
MarAveE Hermosa Dr
Golden West AveRose
montBlvdWinstonAveP e n tla n d S t
Missi
o
n
D
r CamelliaAveBroadway
el Monte St Agnes AveFarnaAveL y n r o se S tReno AveSere
noDr S 3rd AveHart AveHermosa Dr S 4th AveEmperor Av
e
Elm Ave
E G r e e n w oo d A v e
Wal
nut
Gr
oveAve8th AveN Charlotte AveS 5th AveElroviaAveW Huntington Dr
Alessandro AveE Grand Ave
E F a i r v i e w A v e
E A r c a d i a A v e
W Naomi Ave
S Gladys AveN del Mar AveE Mi
s
s
i
o
n
R
d Kauffman AveRose AveNSanMarinoAveE Ardendal
e
A
v
e
CedarAveN Burton AveW Woodruff AveHolly AveSheffield Rd
Loma AveWoodruff Ave
TylerAveWLongden AveWalnut Ave
SultanaAveW Lemon Ave
Grand Ave SantaAni
t
a
A
v
eHal
i
f
axRdNVi
staStW Camino Real Ave
Arden DrCloverly AveFreer St S 1st Aveel MonteAveNWillardAveTempleCity
Bl
vdL o r a i n R d
la Rosa Dr
Garib a l d i A v e
E Live Oak Ave
Ranchito St
W Palm Dr
Las Tunas Dr
E Longden Ave
E Camino Real Ave
PalM
a
lAveOak AveSan Marino AveS San Gabriel BlvdBaldwinAveE Las Tunas DrNSanGabrielBlvd Longden Ave
E Broadway S 10th AveArcadia Ave
Fairview Ave
S 6th AveS 2nd AveD u a r t e R d
H u n t ing t o n D r
O l i v e S t
Daines Dr
W Duarte Rd
RosemeadBlvdEncinita AveState Rte 19L ower Azusa Rd
C:\Users\msahimi\Documents\ArcGIS\Packages\fig02_Ped_B7D62842-4FC8-4AA9-8585-E7B76238F4AD\v103\fig02_Ped.mxdCitywide Bicycle Facilities
Figure 5
Class II Bike Lanes Temple City Boundary
" " "Temple City Sphere of Influence PlaceWorks
Base Map Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017
Figure 5.13-4 - Citywide Bicycle Facilities
0
Scale (Miles)
0.5
Temple City Sphere of Influence
Temple City Boundary Class II Bike Lanes
""
""""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""NPeckRdMcClintock AveKings Row
W Norman Ave
Campus Dr
S Santa Anita AveE Garibaldi Ave SGolden WestAveEllisLnCherrylee DrNMuscatelAve7thPlVal St
S King StLentaLnS Baldwin Ave9thAveLiviaAve
ShastaPlM i l o a n n S tAlster Ave
Esto AveAlabama StLemon AveNOakAve
S8thAveRyland AveHeleo AveBurt
on Ave
Gidley S t
Kennerly St
C a llit a S tBogue StBradburyRdVandykeRd
N Earle StV is ta L n Foss AvePitkin St 7thAveBellwoodRd
Green St
Beverly Dr
Palm AveNoel
DrWhitneyDrC l a r y Ave
Mulhall St S 9th Avela Presa DrRubi
oDrFiestaAveLeeAvePal
omarRdE Lemon Ave
NDarocaAveLyndAveCypress AveAvonAveFra
t
usDr
Emer
y
S
tLenoreAveEncinoAveMarshburnAveLasFloresAveCochinAveLongleyWayLovell AveW Le Roy Ave
W la Sierra Dr
N Bartlett AveW Wistaria AveS Sunset BlvdWarr
e
nWayWMission
R
d
Ranger AveKeni
l
worthAveSharon Rd
W Pamela Rd
Shirley AveNSegoviaAveGreenfield AveS Pine StW Chestnut Ave
W Fairview Ave Doreen AveMc Girk AveS Euclid AveBilton WayWalnut StS California StW Hermosa Dr
S Charlotte AveDelta AveEarle AveW Las Tuna s D r
A d a irS tMuscatel AveDoolittleAveE Naomi AveRidgewayRd
Welland AvePersi
mmonAveW Broadway
S del Mar AveR o blesAve
Agostino Rd Ivar AveRowland AveN Gerona AveE Santa Ynez St
AcaciaStdel
MarAveE Hermosa Dr
Golden West AveRose
montBlvdWinstonAveP e n tla n d S t
Missi
o
n
D
r CamelliaAveBroadway
el Monte St Agnes AveFarnaAveL y n r o se S tReno AveSere
noDr S 3rd AveHart AveHermosa Dr S 4th AveEmperor Av
e
Elm Ave
E G r e e n w oo d A v e
Wal
nut
Gr
oveAve8th AveN Charlotte AveS 5th AveElroviaAveW Huntington Dr
Alessandro AveE Grand Ave
E F a i r v i e w A v e
E A r c a d i a A v e
W Naomi Ave
S Gladys AveN del Mar AveE Mis
s
i
o
n
R
d Kauffman AveRose AveNSanMarinoAveE Ardendal
e
A
v
e
CedarAveN Burton AveW Woodruff AveHolly AveSheffield Rd
Loma AveWoodruff Ave
TylerAveWLongden AveWalnut Ave
SultanaAveW Lemon Ave
Grand Ave SantaAni
t
a
A
v
eHal
i
f
axRdNVi
staStW Camino Real Ave
Arden DrCloverly AveFreer St S 1st Aveel MonteAveNWillardAveTempleCity
Bl
vdL o r a i n R d
la Rosa Dr
Garib a l d i A v e
E Live Oak Ave
Ranchito St
W Palm Dr
Las Tunas Dr
E Longden Ave
E Camino Real Ave
PalM
a
lAveOak AveSan Marino AveS San Gabriel BlvdBaldwinAveE Las Tunas DrNSanGabrielBlvd Longden Ave
E Broadway S 10th AveArcadia Av
e
Fairview Ave
S 6th AveS 2nd AveD u a r t e R d
H u n t ing t o n D r
O l i v e S t
Daines Dr
W Duarte Rd
RosemeadBlvdEncinita AveState Rte 19L ower Azusa Rd
C:\Users\msahimi\Documents\ArcGIS\Packages\fig02_Ped_B7D62842-4FC8-4AA9-8585-E7B76238F4AD\v103\fig02_Ped.mxdCitywide Bicycle Facilities
Figure 5
Class II Bike Lanes Temple City Boundary
" " "Temple City Sphere of Influence
5. Environmental Analysis
Specific Plan Boundary
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 5.13-22 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
""
""""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""NPeckRdMcClintock AveKings Row
W Norman Ave
Campus Dr
S Santa Anita AveE Garibaldi Ave SGolden WestAveEllisLnCherrylee DrNMuscatelAve7thPlVal St
S King StLentaLnS Baldwin Ave9thAveLiviaAve
ShastaPlM i l o a n n S tAlster Ave
Esto AveAlabama StLemon AveNOakAve
S8thAveRyland AveHeleo AveBurt
on Ave
Gidley S t
Kennerly St
C a llit a S tBogue StBradburyRdVandykeRd
N Earle StV is ta L n Foss AvePitkin St 7thAveBellwoodRd
Green St
Beverly Dr
Palm AveNoel
DrWhitneyDrC l a r y Ave
Mulhall St S 9th Avela Presa DrRubi
oDrFiestaAveLeeAvePal
omarRdE Lemon Ave
NDarocaAveLyndAveCypress AveAvonAveFra
t
usDr
Emer
y
StLenoreAveEncinoAveMarshburnAveLasFloresAveCochinAveLongleyWayLovell AveW Le Roy Ave
W la Sierra Dr
N Bartlett AveW Wistaria AveS Sunset BlvdWarr
e
nWayWMission
R
d
Ranger AveKeni
l
worthAveSharon Rd
W Pamela Rd
Shirley AveNSegoviaAveGreenfield AveS Pine StW Chestnut Ave
W Fairview Ave Doreen AveMc Girk AveS Euclid AveBilton WayWalnut StS California StW Hermosa Dr
S Charlotte AveDelta AveEarle AveW Las Tuna s D r
A d a irS tMuscatel AveDoolittleAveE Naomi AveRidgewayRd
Welland AvePersimmonAveW Broadway
S del Mar AveR o blesAve
Agostino Rd Ivar AveRowland AveN Gerona AveE Santa Ynez St
AcaciaStdel
MarAveE Hermosa Dr
Golden West AveRose
montBlvdWinstonAveP e n tla n d S t
Missi
o
n
D
r CamelliaAveBroadway
el Monte St Agnes AveFarnaAveL y n r o se S tReno AveSere
noDr S 3rd AveHart AveHermosa Dr S 4th AveEmperor Av
e
Elm Ave
E G r e e n w oo d A v e
Wal
nut
Gr
oveAve8th AveN Charlotte AveS 5th AveElroviaAveW Huntington Dr
Alessandro AveE Grand Ave
E F a i r v i e w A v e
E A r c a d i a A v e
W Naomi Ave
S Gladys AveN del Mar AveE Mi
s
s
i
o
n
R
d Kauffman AveRose AveNSanMarinoAveE Ardendal
e
A
v
e
CedarAveN Burton AveW Woodruff AveHolly AveSheffield Rd
Loma AveWoodruff Ave
TylerAveWLongden AveWalnut Ave
SultanaAveW Lemon Ave
Grand Ave SantaAni
t
a
A
v
eHal
i
f
axRdNVi
staStW Camino Real Ave
Arden DrCloverly AveFreer St S 1st Aveel MonteAveNWillardAveTempleCity
Bl
vdL o r a i n R d
la Rosa Dr
Garib a l d i A v e
E Live Oak Ave
Ranchito St
W Palm Dr
Las Tunas Dr
E Longden Ave
E Camino Real Ave
PalM
a
lAveOak AveSan Marino AveS San Gabriel BlvdBaldwinAveE Las Tunas DrNSanGabrielBlvd Longden Ave
E Broadway S 10th AveArcadia Ave
Fairview Ave
S 6th AveS 2nd AveD u a r t e R d
H u n t ing t o n D r
O l i v e S t
Daines Dr
W Duarte Rd
RosemeadBlvdEncinita AveState Rte 19L ower Azusa Rd
C:\Users\msahimi\Documents\ArcGIS\Packages\fig03_Transit_68905E80-8E8A-4D22-8579-5E8255FBBB2F\v103\fig03_Transit.mxdCitywide Transit Facilities
Figure 6
LA Metro
Line 266
Line 268
Line 487
Line 489
Line 78/79/378
Foothill Transit
Line 492
Temple City Boundary
" " "Temple City Sphere of Influence PlaceWorks
Base Map Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017
Figure 5.13-5 - Citywide Transit Facilities
0
Scale (Miles)
0.5
Temple City Sphere of Influence
Temple City Boundary LA Metro Line 266
LA Metro Line 268
LA Metro Line 487
LA Metro Line 489
LA Metro Line 78/79/378
Foothill Transit Line 492
5. Environmental Analysis
Specific Plan Boundary
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 5.13-24 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
June 2017 Page 5.13-25
Public Transit
Two transportation agencies provide transit services in the Plan Area, Foothill Transit and Metro. Foothill
Transit service includes Line 492, which runs east-west beginning in El Monte, traveling along Arrow
Highway until the Montclair transit center. Metro service includes Line 78/79/378, which runs east-west
connecting the cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena, San Marino, Alhambra, Temple City, and Arcadia. Just before
Alhambra, the line splits and Line 78/378 travels along Las Tunas Drive, while Line 79 travels along
Huntington Drive. A map of all the existing transit service in the Plan Area is provided on Figure 5.13-5,
Citywide Transit Facilities. Route 266 operates between Lakewood and Pasadena, Route 264/267 operates
between Altadena and El Monte, Route 268 operates between La Cañada Flintridge and El Monte, and
Routes 487 and 489 operate between San Gabriel and Arcadia.
Specific Plan Area
Intersections and Roadway Segments
The study area for the Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan consists of the same 10 intersections analyzed
for the Temple City General Plan Update. Described below are the primary streets forming the transportation
network around the Specific Plan:
Rosemead Boulevard. The largest street in the Plan Area, Rosemead Boulevard, travels north-south
through the Specific Plan Area. It is one of the primary connections to I-210 and I-10 and is thus a key
part of the regional road network. Within the Specific Plan Area, the street is developed in a four-lane,
partially divided configuration with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. The roadway is surrounded by
commercial development near the intersection of Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive. With the
recent Rosemead Boulevard Project, there are now bicycle lanes along both sides of Rosemead
Boulevard. Additionally, striped or physical landscaped bicycle lane buffers are present along some
segments. ADT counts taken in May 2014 recorded approximately 32,500 vehicles traveling between Las
Tunas Drive and Hermosa Drive. The section between Las Tunas Drive and Broadway recorded
approximately 35,200 vehicles during the same time period.
East Las Tunas Drive. Las Tunas Drive is one of the primary east-west corridors in the Plan Area and
runs through the Specific Plan Area. Within the Specific Plan Area, the road is developed in a five- to six-
lane, divided configuration and a posted speed limit of 30 mph. The roadway is primarily commercial,
providing a mix of uses for residents. On-street parking is currently allowed on both sides of Las Tunas
drive east and west of Rosemead Boulevard. Counts to the west of Rosemead Boulevard recorded
approximately 30,000 vehicles, while approximately 27,000 vehicles were recorded on the east side of
Rosemead Boulevard.
Broadway. Classified as a secondary road, Broadway travels east-west in the southern portion of the
Specific Plan Area. The street is developed in an undivided, two-lane configuration and a posted speed
limit of 30 mph. Uses along the roadway are primarily single-family residences. There is some
commercial development near the intersection of Rosemead Boulevard and Broadway. Broadway
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 5.13-26 PlaceWorks
terminates on the west side at South Mission Drive in San Gabriel and on the east side at South Baldwin
Avenue in the City. Broadway provides access to the Specific Plan Aare from many surrounding
residential areas. Counts taken on Broadway to the west of Rosemead Boulevard recorded approximately
14,700 vehicles in May 2014.
The study intersections and roadway segments evaluated under the Mid-Century Plan also include the study
intersections and roadway segments for the Specific Plan Area. According to the analysis conducted above for
the Plan Area, all study intersections and roadway segments within the Specific Plan Area currently operate at
acceptable LOS.
Pedestrian Facilities
The limited number of intersections with marked pedestrian crossings in the Specific Plan area creates
barriers for pedestrians wanting to cross the major roadways. Pedestrians wanting to cross Rosemead
Boulevard north of Las Tunas Drive must travel over one-quarter mile north before reaching a signalized
intersection with crosswalks. Shopping Center Drive provides a signal and marked crosswalk mid-block for
pedestrians wishing to cross Rosemead Boulevard between Las Tunas Drive and Broadway. Pedestrians
traveling south of Broadway along Rosemead Boulevard also must travel more than one-quarter mile south
from Broadway before reaching another marked and signalized intersection allowing them to cross Rosemead
Boulevard.
Another challenge to pedestrians in the area is the number of driveways providing drivers access to and from
the retail currently located along Rosemead Boulevard. These driveways create a conflict zone for pedestrians
and drivers. The large number of driveways not only creates dangerous conflict zones between drivers and
pedestrians, they can also make pedestrians attempting to travel in the area uncomfortable and thus less likely
to walk. Additional pedestrian and sidewalk conditions in the Specific Plan area are detailed below:
Sidewalk Conditions: Sidewalks are in good condition, free of cracks and fissures.
Shading: Shading is common, with large, shade bearing trees lining most streets.
Grade: Streets are generally flat.
Amenities Offered: Amenities are plentiful, with public space, shopping, dining, benches, and shade.
Buffers: Buffered space is common, particularly along roads with more traffic. Rosemead Boulevard
benefits from bike lane buffers, both striped and landscaped
Bicycle Facilities
Currently, bicycle facilities in in the Specific Plan Area consist of protected bicycle lanes along Rosemead
Boulevard, as shown in Figure 5.13-4. Protective buffers are present along several portions of the bicycle
lanes north of Las Tunas Drive and south of Broadway, and are either striped or consist of physical
landscaping. There is one section of Rosemead Boulevard in the northbound direction that features a Class
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
June 2017 Page 5.13-27
III bicycle facility. This shared lane covers approximately 200 feet of Rosemead Boulevard south of
Broadway. Immediately south of the shared lane is a protected section forcing cyclists to transition from a
period of protected travel to being exposed to motorists near an intersection, which is oftentimes the most
dangerous point for cyclists. A similar condition exists to the south of Hermosa Drive in the northbound
direction.
Driveways can also create a conflict between drivers and bicyclists even when a dedicated bicycle lane is
present. The driveways can often create an even more dangerous environment for bicyclists than they do for
pedestrians due to the fact that when a striped bike lane is present, motorists will often use the extra space as
a turn lane for the driveways, even if the lane is not marked as a de facto right-turn lane. This often results in
bicyclists feeling uncomfortable in these conflict zones. During a field visit, a bicyclist on Rosemead
Boulevard was observed riding on the sidewalk even though a dedicated bicycle lane was present. While the
conflict points created by driveways could be one reason for a rider to prefer to ride on the sidewalk, limited
access to the other side of Rosemead Boulevard, much like the issues for pedestrians, could also increase the
likelihood that a cyclist would choose to ride on the sidewalk.
Temple City has a Bicycle Master Plan that provides a broad vision, strategies, and actions to improve
conditions for bicycling in Temple City. Recommendations have been made in the Bicycle Master Plan for on-
street bike lanes along Las Tunas Drive and a Bicycle Boulevard along Olive Street.
Public Transit
Transit service to and within the Specific Plan Area is provided by Metro, which services six bus stops. Routes
that provide riders direct access to the Specific Plan area are Route 78, 378, 266, and 489. Routes 78 and 378
operate with 15-minute headways, Route 266 operates on 30-minute headways, and Route 489 operates with
45-minute headways. Route 78 and 378 operates between Downtown Los Angeles and Arcadia while Route
266 operates between Lakewood and Pasadena, and Route 489 operates between San Gabriel and Arcadia. All
the bus stops along Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive in the Specific Plan Area have stops with
shelters and benches for the convenience and comfort of users.
5.13.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project could:
T-1 Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and mass transit.
T-2 Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level
of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 5.13-28 PlaceWorks
T-3 Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial safety risks.
T-4 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
T-5 Result in inadequate emergency access.
T-6 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds
would be less than significant:
Threshold T-3, T-4, and T-5
These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis.
City of Temple City Intersection and Roadway LOS Thresholds
As previously discussed, for Category A intersections and segments, LOS F is allowed. For facilities classified
as Category B, the minimum acceptable LOS is E for intersections and LOS D for roadway segments. For
facilities classified as Category C, the minimum acceptable LOS is D for intersections and LOS C for roadway
segments. Impacts were determined for each classification based on the criteria shown in Table 5.13-2, Temple
City Impact Thresholds.
CMP Thresholds
The Congestion Management Plan (CMP) designates LOS E as the minimum acceptable level of service on
CMP facilities. The Proposed Project would have a significant impact related to the CMP if it would exceed
the established threshold. The CMP traffic impact analysis guidelines indicate that a significant impact occurs
when a proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2 percent of capacity (V/C ≥ 0.02),
causing LOS F (V/C > 1.00). If the facility is already at LOS F, a significant impact occurs when a proposed
project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2 percent of capacity (V/C ≥ 0.02).
5.13.3 Relevant General Plan Policies
The following are relevant policies of the Mid-Century Plan Land Use, Mobility, Community Services, and
Natural Resources Elements, which are designed to reduce potential transportation and traffic impacts as a
result of implementation of the Proposed Project.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
June 2017 Page 5.13-29
Land Use Element
LU 2.3 Places to Shop. Provide for and encourage the development of a diversity of uses in Temple
City’s downtown core, commercial centers, and corridors to enable residents and business persons to
shop locally and reduce the need to travel to adjoining communities.
LU 3.1 Development Pattern and Urban Form. Maintain and enhance Temple City’s urban form with
distinct, compact, and walkable residential neighborhoods and business districts containing a diversity of
uses, densities, and physical characteristics.
LU 3.6 Pedestrian-Active Districts. Maintain a robust network of streetscape and pedestrian amenities
within the downtown core and mixed-use and commercial centers supporting pedestrian activity and
enhancing walkability.
LU 3.7 Connected Greenways Network. Explore opportunities to develop trails along Eaton and
Arcadia Wash to serve as the backbone of a citywide greenway network incorporating greenbelts,
parklands, bicycle and pedestrian paths, and trails. Encourage properties that are redeveloped along their
length to incorporate setbacks and landscape amenities that extend the open space character and
recreational amenity into their sites.
LU 3.8 A Connected Community. Maintain an interconnected network of pedestrian and bicycle
pathways facilitating access among residential, retail, and industrial districts, schools, open spaces, and
recreation areas.
LU 7.7 Alternative Fuels. Provide locations for alternative fuel facilities such as electrical re-charging
stations and hydrogen fuel supplies.
LU 9.6 Walkable Neighborhoods. Maintain sidewalks, parkways, the urban forest, and landscaping
throughout residential neighborhoods to promote a safe and pleasant pedestrian environment.
LU 9.7 Connected Neighborhoods. Ensure safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connectivity
between residential neighborhoods and commercial centers, recreation and open spaces, schools, work
places, and other community activity centers.
LU 11.5 Streetscapes. Provide ample public spaces and landscaped sidewalks furnished with pedestrian
amenities that contribute to comfortable and attractive settings for pedestrian activity in multi-family
residential neighborhoods.
LU 13.5 Retail Streetscapes. Maintain, and where deficient, increase street trees, plantings, furniture,
signage, public art, and other streetscape amenities that encourage pedestrian activity in retail corridors.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 5.13-30 PlaceWorks
LU 13.9 Connectivity to Neighborhoods. Link commercial corridors and districts to adjoin residential
neighborhoods and other districts by well designed and attractive pedestrian sidewalks, corridors, and
trails.
Mobility Element
M 1.1 Complete Streets. Require that the planning, design, and construction of all transportation
projects consider the needs of all modes of travel to create safe, livable, and inviting environments for
pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and public transit users of all ages and abilities.
M 1.2 Transportation System Impacts. Evaluate transportation and development projects to account
for the full benefits and impacts on all modes of transportation, not just automobiles.
M 1.3 Transportation Improvements. Require that the City consider improvements to add roadway or
intersection capacity only after evaluating improvements to other modes of travel.
M 1.4 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety. Balance the safety concerns of pedestrians and cyclists with
motor vehicles to ensure that the safety of all users of the transportation system is considered.
M 1.7 System Efficiency. Prioritize traffic signal coordination and traffic signal retiming efforts to
accommodate changes in travel patterns and traffic flows to limit unnecessary delay and congestion.
M 1.8 Wayfinding. Develop a comprehensive and visible pedestrian and cyclist friendly way-finding
signage system in the city to direct pedestrians and cyclists to transit facilities, local and regional trails and
routes, civic and cultural amenities, and visitor and recreation destinations. The way-finding system
should make an effort to connect with the region and surrounding cities.
M 3.1 Pedestrian Network. Create a safe and convenient circulation system for pedestrians that
addresses crosswalks; improves the connections between neighborhoods and commercial areas; provides
places to sit or gather, pedestrian-scaled street lighting, buffers from moving vehicle traffic; and includes
amenities that attract people of all ages and abilities.
M 3.2 Pedestrian Improvement Prioritizations. Prioritize pedestrian improvements in areas of the
City with community facilities, supportive land use patterns, and facilities that provide connectivity to
other modes of travel such as bicycling and transit.
M 3.3 Sidewalks for Roadways. Require adequate and well maintained sidewalks along all City roadways
to allow residents of all ages and abilities to walk in a safe and accessible manner.
M 3.4 Pedestrian Connections for Development. Require that all development or redevelopment
projects provide pedestrian connections to the external pedestrian network.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
June 2017 Page 5.13-31
M 3.5 Pedestrian Education and Awareness. Support pedestrian education, encouragement,
awareness and enforcement activities for pedestrian and automobile users.
M 4.1 Bicycle Networks. Require that the City provide additional bicycle facilities along roadways in the
City, where appropriate and feasible, in support of the City’s Bicycle Master Plan and other planning
documents.
M 4.2 Priority Bike Improvements. Prioritize improvements that address bicycling in existing areas of
the City with community facilities, complementary land use patterns, and connections to other modes of
travel including walking and transit.
M 4.3 Bicycle Parking. Require that public and private development in the City provide sufficient
bicycle parking.
M 4.4 Bicycle Share Program. Explore the feasibility of developing a citywide bike share program.
Work with the local business community to identify and coordinate with possible corporate sponsors.
M 4.5 Bicycle Education and Awareness. Encourage bicyclists and automobile users to be aware of
bicycling issues, and lawful/responsible riding. Work with TCUSD, bicycle-related organizations, public-
safety agencies, and other groups to support bicycle education events and classes that help new and
experienced bike riders become more knowledgeable and effective at bike riding and bike maintenance.
M 5.1 Transit Improvements. Promote transit service in areas of the City with sufficient density and
intensity of uses, mix of appropriate uses, and supportive bicycle/pedestrian networks.
M 5.2 Local Transit Alternatives. Work with Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Metro) and other transit providers to investigate the feasibility of local transit alternatives
including a local shuttle or trolley system and enhanced transit options for local students.
M 5.3 Bus Stops. Review existing bus stop locations to determine their accessibility to key destinations
such as schools, residential areas, retail centers, and civic facilities. Work with Metro and other transit
providers to relocate bus stop locations as needed to provide greater access to these key destinations.
Prioritize those bus stop locations which are connected to bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
M 5.4 Transit Supportive Development. Encourage mixed-use development in areas with high levels
of transit accessibility.
M 5.5 Senior Transit. Maintain existing paratransit service in the City to provide affordable and reliable
transportation options for older adults and persons with disabilities.
M 5.6 Safe Routes to Transit. Regularly review and improve pedestrian and cyclist access to transit.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 5.13-32 PlaceWorks
M 6.1 Fair Share Costs. Require that new development pay for its fair share of construction costs for
new and/or upgraded transportation infrastructure needed to accommodate the development.
M 6.6 Alternative Fueled City Vehicles. Prioritize the purchase of alternative fueled vehicles for City
use as appropriate within the limitations of existing City resources, the availability of support services,
and anticipated O&M costs.
M 6.7 Alternative Fueled Resident Vehicles. Promote the purchase and use of alternative fueled
vehicles by City residents through informational strategies such as fact sheets and materials regarding
alternative fuel benefits and state and federal incentives.
M 6.8 Travel Demand Management. Encourage and promote travel demand management strategies
that are aimed at reducing vehicle trips by providing greater travel options for residents, employees and
visitors of Temple City.
M 8.1 Regional Transit. Collaborate with SCAG, Metro, and other agencies to coordinate regional
transit planning activities to enhance regional transit accessibility for residents, employees, and visitors.
M 8.5 Truck Routes. Identify and designate routes for efficient truck movement that protect and reduce
impacts to residential neighborhoods.
Community Services Element
CS 10.1 Connections. Connect residential neighborhoods, schools, recreational and open space areas,
and key commercial and activity centers to the extent feasible, with trails, walking paths, and bikeways.
CS 10.2 Safe Trails. Ensure that trails are safe, well-marked, and well lit.
CS 10.3 Linear Park/Greenbelt. Strive towards the development of a linear park/greenbelt system that
includes trails along the Eaton Wash and Arcadia Wash that is linked with neighborhoods, recreation and
open spaces, and adjoining communities.
CS 10.4 Regional Trail System. Cooperate and collaborate with adjacent jurisdictions in developing a
regional trail system.
Natural Resources Element
NR 2.1 Land Use and Urban Form. Encourage a compact, mixed-use, pedestrian and bike friendly
environment that reduces automobile use, improves air quality, and reduces the impacts of climate
change, as defined by the Land Use Element.
NR 3.4 Fleet Operations. Continue to purchase low-emission vehicles for the City’s fleet and use
available clean fuel sources for trucks and heavy equipment.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
June 2017 Page 5.13-33
5.13.4 Environmental Impacts
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 5.13-1: Project-related trip generation would not impact levels of service for the existing area
roadway system. [Threshold T-1]
Impact Analysis: Following is a discussion of the potential transportation impacts as a result of
development that would be accommodated under each component of the Proposed Project.
Methodology
Traffic volume forecasts were developed using the SCAG 2012 RTP Regional Travel Demand Model—the
model is a regional model that is based on the traditional four-step sequential modeling methodology with
“feedback loop” procedures to insure internal modeling consistency. Regional transportation models use
socioeconomic data to estimate trip generation, mode choice, as well as several sub-models to address
complex travel behavior and multi-modal transportation issues. The model responds to changes in land use
types, household characteristics, transportation infrastructure, and travel costs such as transit fares, parking
costs, tolls, and auto operating costs.
The following model scenarios for each component of the Proposed Project (Mid-Century Plan and
Crossroads Specific Plan) were utilized in the forecasting process:
Base Year Model – This scenario contains the base year (2015) land use and roadway network
assumptions.
Future Year Model– This scenario contains the future year (2035) land use and roadway network
assumptions. Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) within the Plan Area were updated with land uses consistent
with the Mid-Century Plan.
Following is a discussion of the potential traffic impacts that could occur under each component of the
Proposed Project.
Mid-Century Plan
Roadway Segment Operations
For Ca tegory B roadways, the minimum acceptable LOS is D, and for Category C roadways the minimum
acceptable LOS is C. There are no minimum LOS standards for Category A roadway segments. As shown in
Table 5.13-7, all roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS under Existing (Year 2016) and Future (Year
2035) Plus Mid-Century Plan conditions, and none of the study roadway segments exceed impact thresholds.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 5.13-34 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
June 2017 Page 5.13-35
Table 5.13-7 Roadway Segment Level of Service, Future (Year 2035) Plus Mid-Century Plan Conditions
Functional Class Roadway Segment Lanes Capacity
Existing (Year 2016) Future (Year 2035) Plus Mid-Century Plan
Category Volume V/C Ratio LOS Volume V/C Ratio LOS
Primary Baldwin Avenue s/o Live Oak Avenue 4 36,000 28,725 0.80 C 29,500 0.82 D Category B
n/o La Rosa Drive 4 36,000 26,471 0.74 C 28,200 0.78 C Category B
Las Tunas Drive w/o Rosemead Boulevard 6 54,000 30,121 0.56 A 36,000 0.67 B Category A
w/o Cloverly Avenue 4 36,000 25,594 0.71 C 28,900 0.80 D Category A
w/o Golden West Avenue 4 36,000 24,348 0.68 B 27,000 0.75 C Category A
Lower Azusa Road w/o Cloverly Avenue 4 36,000 17,458 0.48 A 18,700 0.52 A Category B
w/o Golden West Avenue 4 36,000 23,411 0.65 B 25,400 0.71 C Category B
w/o Halifax. 4 36,000 26,004 0.72 C 26,300 0.73 C Category B
Rosemead Boulevard s/o Emperor Avenue 4 36,000 34,711 0.96 E 36,900 1.03 F Category A
s/o Garibaldi Avenue 4 36,000 33,617 0.93 E 36,100 1.00 F Category A
n/o Pentland Street 4 36,000 36,193 1.01 F 38,300 1.06 F Category A
Santa Anita Avenue s/o Daines Drive 4 36,000 22,654 0.63 B 24,500 0.68 B Category B
Temple City Boulevard s/o Lemon Avenue 4 36,000 29,119 0.81 D 30,700 0.85 D Category B
s/o Garibaldi Avenue 4 36,000 29,734 0.83 D 29,800 0.83 D Category B
s/o Live Oak Avenue 4 36,000 22,579 0.63 B 22,900 0.64 B Category B
n/o La Rosa Drive 4 36,000 23,329 0.65 B 23,400 0.65 B Category B
n/o Ellis Ln. 4 36,000 18,493 0.51 A 20,300 0.56 A Category B
Secondary El Monte Avenue s/o Live Oak Avenue 2 16,000 7,806 0.49 A 7,900 0.49 A Category B
n/o Grand Avenue 2 16,000 7,123 0.45 A 7,200 0.45 A Category B
Collector Live Oak Avenue w/o Cloverly Avenue 2 15,000 3,194 0.21 A 4,300 0.29 A Category C
w/o Golden West Avenue 2 15,000 5,075 0.34 A 6,200 0.41 A Category C
w/o Halifax. 2 15,000 9,536 0.64 B 10,000 0.67 B Category C
Longden Avenue w/o Reno Avenue 2 15,000 7,022 0.47 A 7,800 0.52 A Category C
e/o Oak Avenue 2 15,000 6,634 0.44 A 7,800 0.52 A Category C
w/o Golden West Avenue 2 15,000 6,183 0.41 A 7,100 0.47 A Category C
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 5.13-36 PlaceWorks
Table 5.13-7 Roadway Segment Level of Service, Future (Year 2035) Plus Mid-Century Plan Conditions
Functional Class Roadway Segment Lanes Capacity
Existing (Year 2016) Future (Year 2035) Plus Mid-Century Plan
Category Volume V/C Ratio LOS Volume V/C Ratio LOS
Local Broadway e/o Acacia Street 4 24,000 12,377 0.52 A 15,900 0.68 B Category C
w/o Cloverly Avenue 2 12,000 5,692 0.47 A 5,700 0.48 A Category C
Olive Street w/o Cloverly Avenue 2 12,000 2,682 0.22 A 2,700 0.23 A Category B
w/o Golden West Avenue 2 12,000 3,974 0.33 A 4,000 0.33 A Category B
w/o Halifax 2 12,000 2,669 0.22 A 2,700 0.23 A Category B
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.
Note: Bold indicates unacceptable level of service. Shading indicates significant impact.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
June 2017 Page 5.13-37
Intersection Operations
Traffic operations at study intersections were evaluated under the future year (2035) conditions with the Mid-
Century Plan in the AM and PM peak hours. The results are summarized in Table 5.13-8. As discussed
previously, for Category B intersections, the minimum acceptable LOS is E, and for Category C intersections
the minimum acceptable LOS is D. There are no minimum LOS standards for Category A intersections. As
shown in Table 5.13-8, all intersections would operate at acceptable LOS under Existing (Year 2016) and
Future (Year 2035) Plus Mid-Century Plan conditions. Consistent with the thresholds approved by the City,
none of the study intersections exceed impact thresholds.
Table 5.13-8 Intersection Level of Service, Future (Year 2035) Plus Mid-Century Plan Conditions
Intersection Control Peak Hour
Existing (Year 2016) Future (Year 2035) Plus Mid-Century Plan
Category V/C LOS V/C LOS
1. Rosemead Boulevard & Longden
Avenue Signal AM 0.61 B 0.75 C Category C PM 0.71 C 0.82 D
2. Temple City Boulevard &
Longden Avenue Signal AM 0.69 B 0.77 C Category C PM 0.73 C 0.79 C
3. Muscatel Avenue & Las Tunas
Drive Signal AM 0.75 C 0.91 E Category A PM 0.63 B 0.70 B
4. Rosemead Boulevard & Las
Tunas Drive1 Signal AM 0.75 C 0.94 E Category A PM 0.86 D 0.97 E
5. Encinita Avenue & Las Tunas
Drive Signal AM 0.65 B 0.82 D Category A PM 0.68 B 0.76 C
6. Temple City Boulevard & Las
Tunas Drive Signal AM 0.85 D 0.93 E Category A PM 0.91 E 0.98 E
7. Rosemead Boulevard &
Broadway Signal AM 0.69 B 0.94 E Category B PM 0.80 C 0.92 E
8. Temple City Boulevard &
Broadway Signal AM 0.64 B 0.69 B Category C PM 0.59 A 0.66 B
9. Temple City Boulevard & Lower
Azusa Road Signal AM 0.76 C 0.94 E Category B PM 0.88 D 0.95 E
10. Baldwin Avenue & Lower Azusa
Road Signal AM 0.86 D 0.97 E Category B PM 0.91 E 0.95 E
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017. Bold indicates unacceptable operations. Shading indicates significant impact. (1): Rosemead Boulevard & Las Tunas Drive is a CMP intersection.
In summary, the traffic analysis found that implementation of the Mid-Century Plan would not significantly
impact the study intersections and roadway segments under the City’s criteria and thresholds.
Vehicle Miles Travelled
As stated in Section 5.16.1.1, Regulatory Setting, SB 743 started a process that could fundamentally change
transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. These changes in many parts of California (if
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 5.13-38 PlaceWorks
not statewide) will include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or
traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts. As part of the new CEQA Guidelines, the
new criteria “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal
transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources Code Section
21099(b)(1)). Certification of the new guidelines are expected in the fall of 2017. However, since OPR has
not yet amended the CEQA Guidelines to implement this change, automobile delay is still considered a
significant impact, and Temple City will continue to use the established LOS criteria.
For informational purposes, the VMT under Existing (Year 2016) and Future (Year 2035) Mid-Century Plan
conditions was calculated. Estimates of daily citywide VMT were obtained using the SCAG 2012 RTP
Regional Travel Demand Model. These VMT estimates were developed by isolating only those trips that start
or end within the City boundaries using the OD Methodology, which was also used in the Mid-Century Plan
analysis. Detailed methodology used to calculate VMT and VMT reductions are provided in Appendix H of
this DEIR.
Table 5.13-9 shows the daily estimates from the travel demand model for Existing (Year 2016) conditions
citywide for VMT, vehicle trips, average trip length, and VMT per service population (residents and
employees). Table 5.13-10 shows the daily estimates from the travel demand model for Future (Year 2035)
Plus Mid-Century Plan conditions for citywide VMT, vehicle trips, average trip length, and VMT per service
population. As shown in these tables, the estimated average trip length for trips beginning and ending in the
City decreases from 10.1 miles in the Existing (Year 2016) conditions to 9.6 miles in the Future (Year 2035)
Plus Mid-Century Plan conditions. As a result, VMT per capita (residents and employees) decreases from 20.9
to 17.5 with implementation of the Mid-Century Plan.
Table 5.13-9 Existing (Year 2016) Conditions, Citywide VMT
Trip Type Vehicle Miles Travelled Vehicle Trips Average Trip Length
Internal (II) 8,000 9,000 0.9
External (IX and XI) 869,000 78,000 11.1
Total 877,000 87,000 10.1
Per Capita 20.9 2.1 --
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.
Table 5.13-10 Future (Year 2035) Plus mid-century plan Conditions, Citywide VMT
Trip Type Vehicle Miles Travelled Vehicle Trips Average Trip Length
Internal (II) 11,000 13,000 0.8
External (IX and XI) 953,000 87,000 11.0
Total 964,000 100,000 9.6
Per Capita 17.5 1.8 --
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
June 2017 Page 5.13-39
Crossroads Specific Plan
Intersection Operations
The Existing (Year 2016) Plus Crossroads Specific Plan peak hour traffic volume forecasts were developed to
evaluate traffic operations at the study intersections in the AM and PM peak hours with implementation of
the Crossroads Specific Plan. The results are summarized in Table 5.13-11. As shown in the table, all of the
study intersections meet the City’s level of service criteria.
Table 5.13-11 Intersection Level of Service, Existing (Year 2016) Plus Crossroads Specific Plan
Intersection Control Peak Hour
No Project Plus Project Intersection Type V/C LOS V/C LOS
1. Rosemead Blvd. & Longden Ave. Signal AM 0.61 B 0.61 B Category C PM 0.71 C 0.71 C
2. Temple City Blvd. & Longden Ave. Signal AM 0.69 B 0.69 B Category C PM 0.73 C 0.76 C
3. Muscatel Ave. & Las Tunas Dr. Signal AM 0.75 C 0.81 D Category A PM 0.63 B 0.66 B
4. Rosemead Blvd. & Las Tunas Dr.1 Signal AM 0.75 C 0.80 D Category A PM 0.86 D 0.89 D
5. Encinita Ave. & Las Tunas Dr. Signal AM 0.65 B 0.68 B Category A PM 0.68 B 0.70 B
6. Temple City Blvd. & Las Tunas Dr. Signal AM 0.85 D 0.86 D Category A PM 0.91 E 0.92 E
7. Rosemead Blvd. & Broadway Signal AM 0.69 B 0.85 D Category B PM 0.80 C 0.90 D
8. Temple City Blvd. & Broadway Signal AM 0.64 B 0.66 B Category C PM 0.59 A 0.62 B
9. Temple City Blvd. & Lower Azusa Rd. Signal AM 0.76 C 0.77 C Category B PM 0.88 D 0.88 D
10. Baldwin Ave. & Lower Azusa Rd. Signal AM 0.86 D 0.88 D Category B PM 0.91 E 0.92 E
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017. Bold indicates unacceptable operations. Shading indicates significant impact.
For long range 2035 conditions with project, the Crossroads Specific Plan was included in the land use
assumptions to evaluate long-range conditions in combination with the Mid-Century Plan. Therefore, the
same analysis provided above for the Future (Year 2035) Plus Mid-Century Plan conditions applies to the
Crossroads Specific Plan.
Vehicle Miles Travelled
For informational purposes, the VMT under the Existing (Year 2016) and Future (Year 2035) Plus Crossroads
Specific Plan conditions was calculated. Estimates of daily VMT were obtained using the SCAG 2012 RTP
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 5.13-40 PlaceWorks
Regional Travel Demand Model. The VMT estimates were developed by isolating only those trips that start or
end within the Specific Plan boundaries.
Table 5.13-12 shows the daily estimates from the travel demand model for Existing (Year 2016) conditions,
and Table 5.13-13 shows the daily estimates from the travel demand model for Future (Year 2035) Plus
Crossroads Specific Plan conditions VMT, vehicle trips, average trip length, and VMT per service population.
As shown in these tables, the estimated average trip length for Specific Plan Area trips decreases from 10.0
miles in the Existing (Year 2016) conditions to 9.1 miles in the Existing (Year 2016) Plus Crossroads Specific
Plan conditions. As a result, VMT per capita (residents and employees) decreases from 37.9 to 22.9 with
implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan.
Table 5.13-12 Existing (Year 2016) Conditions, Specific Plan Area VMT
Trip Type Vehicle Miles Travelled Vehicle Trips Average Trip Length
Internal (II) 30 100 0.3
External (IX and XI) 65,000 6,400 10.2
Total 65,000 6,500 10.0
Per Capita 37.9 3.7 —
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.
Table 5.13-13 Existing (Year 2016) Plus Project Conditions, Specific Plan Area VMT
Trip Type Vehicle Miles Travelled Vehicle Trips Average Trip Length
Internal (II) 160 700 0.2
External (IX and XI) 150,000 15,700 9.6
Total 150,000 16,400 9.1
Per Capita 22.9 2.4 —
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.
Impact 5.13-2: Project-related trip generation in combination with existing and proposed cumulative development would not result in designated road and/or highways exceeding county congestion management agency service standards. [Threshold T-2]
Impact Analysis: Following is a discussion of the potential impacts to CMP facilities that could occur under
each component of the Proposed Project.
Mid-Century Plan
The CMP was created statewide as a result of Proposition 111 and has been implemented locally by Metro.
The CMP in effect in Los Angeles County was issued by Metro in 2010 and requires that the traffic impact of
individual development projects of potential regional significance be analyzed. The CMP system comprises a
specific system of arterial roadways plus all freeways, and 164 intersections are identified for monitoring on
the system in Los Angeles County. The only CMP location in the study area is the intersections of Rosemead
Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
June 2017 Page 5.13-41
According to the CMP Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines developed by Metro, a traffic impact analysis is
required if a proposed project would add 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours
to a CMP intersection, including freeway on- or off-ramps. For CMP-designated intersections, the acceptable
LOS is E. Implementation of the Mid-Century Plan would add 50 or more trips to the Rosemead Boulevard
and Las Tunas Drive intersection, which is considered a CMP intersection.
As discussed previously, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a
CMP facility by 2 percent of capacity (V/C ≥ 0.02), causing LOS F (V/C > 1.00). If the facility is already at
LOS F, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2
percent of capacity (V/C ≥ 0.02).
As shown in Table 5.13-14, Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive operates acceptably (LOS E or better)
in both peak hours under CMP standards under Existing (Year 2016) conditions without and with the project.
The CMP analysis for the Future (Year 2035) Plus Project Conditions also found no significant impacts at
Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive. Based on CMP criteria, this intersection performs at an
acceptable LOS in Existing (Year 2016) Conditions and is projected to perform at an acceptable LOS in
Future (Year 2035) Plus Project Conditions. Therefore, impacts at CMP intersections are not anticipated to be
significant.
Table 5.13-14 LOS Summary for Study-Area CMP Intersection (Rosemead Boulevard at Las Tunas
Drive)
Year Scenario
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C1 or Delay2 LOS V/C1 or Delay2 LOS
Existing (Year 2016) Without Project 0.75 C 0.86 D
With Project 0.80 D 0.89 C
Future (Year 2035) (Mid-Century
Buildout)
Without Project 0.75 C 0.94 E
With Project 0.86 C 0.97 D
Source: Fehr & Peers 2017. Notes: V/C = Volume-to-Capacity Intersections operating below acceptable LOS are shown in bold.
Crossroads Specific Plan
The analysis above applies to the Crossroads Specific Plan.
Impact 5.13-3: The Proposed Project complies with adopted policies, plans, and programs for alternative
transportation. [Threshold T-6]
Impact Analysis: The potential impacts to adopted policies, plans, and programs for alternative
transportation resulting from each component of the Proposed Project are addressed below.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 5.13-42 PlaceWorks
Mid-Century Plan
The Mobility Element of the General Plan Update contains several policies that support access to and the
performance of public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. These policies include:
M 1.1 Complete Streets. Require that the planning, design, and construction of all transportation
projects consider the needs of all modes of travel to create safe, livable, and inviting environments for
pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and public transit users of all ages and abilities.
M 1.2 Transportation System Impacts. Evaluate transportation and development projects to account
for the full benefits and impacts on all modes of transportation, not just automobiles.
M 3.1 Pedestrian Network. Create a safe and convenient circulation system for pedestrians that
addresses crosswalks; improves the connections between neighborhoods and commercial areas; provides
places to sit or gather, pedestrian-scaled street lighting, buffers from moving vehicle traffic; and includes
amenities that attract people of all ages and abilities.
M 3.2 Pedestrian Improvement Prioritizations. Prioritize pedestrian improvements in areas of the
City with community facilities, supportive land use patterns, and facilities that provide connectivity to
other modes of travel such as bicycling and transit.
M 4.1 Bicycle Networks. Require that the City provide additional bicycle facilities along roadways in the
City, where appropriate and feasible, in support of the City’s Bicycle Master Plan and other planning
documents.
M 4.2 Priority Bike Improvements. Prioritize improvements that address bicycling in existing areas of
the City with community facilities, complementary land use patterns, and connections to other modes of
travel including walking and transit.
M 5.1 Transit Improvements. Promote transit service in areas of the City with sufficient density and
intensity of uses, mix of appropriate uses, and supportive bicycle/pedestrian networks.
M 5.3 Bus Stops. Review existing bus stop locations to determine their accessibility to key destinations
such as schools, residential areas, retail centers, and civic facilities. Work with Metro and other transit
providers to relocate bus stop locations as needed to provide greater access to these key destinations.
Prioritize those bus stop locations connected to bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
In addition, Mobility Element Policies 1.3, 1.4, 1.8, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 5.2, 5.5, and 5.6 support
access to and the performance of public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. These policies would also be
aligned with policies in SCAG’s RTP/SCS that encourage active transportation and promote land use and
growth patterns that facilitate transit and active transportation. Therefore, implementation of the Mid-
Century Plan would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
June 2017 Page 5.13-43
Crossroads Specific Plan
The focus of the Crossroads Specific Plan’s mobility plan is improving circulation and access for pedestrians,
bicycles, transit users, and vehicular travel. The mobility plan provides guidance for future improvements to
the existing public right-of-way and potential new streets associated with new development projects. It also
describes multi-modal mobility concepts for the Specific Plan Area, including pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and
vehicular networks, with potential improvements to each of these systems to best serve residents, employees,
and visitors. Section 3.3.2.2, Proposed Specific Plan, of Chapter 3, Project Description, discusses the improvements
to the Specific Plan Area to accommodate transit, pedestrians, bicycles, and autos, which would create an
efficient, balanced, multimodal mobility network by integrating autos, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians into a
complete street.
Various components of the Crossroads Specific Plan’s Mobility Plan contain strategies that support access to
and the performance of public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in the Specific Plan Area, including.
Key components of the Pedestrian Concept Plan include:
Street Crossings. Enhanced street crossings, including the use of bulb-outs, special materials or textures,
and lighting at key street intersections, are particularly important to an improved pedestrian environment
given the character and function of Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive. Enhanced street
crossings will improve pedestrian circulation within the plan area, particularly east/west across Rosemead
Boulevard and north/south across Las Tunas Drive, as well as improve access to the Plan area from
adjacent residential neighborhoods and commercial districts.
Pedestrian Amenities. The addition of pedestrian amenities, such as street furniture, street trees, and
greenery will enhance the pedestrian experience in the Specific Plan area. Street trees and landscaping
provide shade during warm seasons, add visual interest for pedestrians, and generally soften the
appearance of the built environment. Street trees can also add to the sense of safety for the pedestrian by
providing a physical separation from vehicular traffic, as well as a sense of comfort and enclosure. Street
furniture should not impede pedestrian circulation or interfere with vehicular safety, and should be of a
high-quality design and constructed of durable materials.
Internal Circulation. Much like the pedestrian environment, enhanced internal bicycle routes,
particularly through the MU-C district, will greatly improve the ability of residents to bicycle for
transportation, recreation, or leisure in the Crossroads area. While the Class II bike lanes on Rosemead
Boulevard provide local and regional connectivity, internal routes are necessary to provide access to
destinations within the Specific Plan area from Rosemead Boulevard.
Key components of the Bicycle Concept Plan include:
Bicycle Storage. Secure and well-lit bicycle storage facilities ensure that cyclists are able to confidently
store their bicycles without concern of bikes being stolen, vandalized, or otherwise harmed. Secure
bicycle parking should be provided at key destinations throughout the Specific Plan area, including as part
of mixed-use developments, open space and recreation areas, and nodes of activity and gathering spaces.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 5.13-44 PlaceWorks
Bicycle Parking. Requiring on-site bicycle parking as part of a development and allowing this parking to
contribute to the overall parking requirement for a development will further the viability and awareness
of bicycling within the Specific Plan area.
Internal Circulation. Much like the pedestrian environment, enhanced internal bicycle routes,
particularly through the MU-C district, will greatly improve the ability of residents to bicycle for
transportation, recreation, or leisure within the Crossroads area. While the Class II bike lanes on
Rosemead Boulevard provide local and regional connectivity, internal routes are necessary to provide
access to destinations within the Specific Plan area from Rosemead Boulevard.
Bicycle Amenities. Bicycle amenities, such as “fix-it” stations, water fountains, way-finding signage, and
shaded areas help to make bicycle riding a more inviting option, particularly to those residents,
employees, and visitors who are less experienced cyclists. Helping to alleviate or reduce the fear of being
stranded, lost, or exhausted is a key consideration in encouraging residents, employees, and visitors to
bicycle within the Specific Plan area.
Key components of the Transit Concept Plan include:
Pedestrian Access. Enhanced pedestrian access to transit stops can encourage new transit users and
may also entice people who currently drive to the area and do not consider transit a viable option. Safe
and convenient pedestrian access between transit stops and destinations within the Plan Area should be
considered as part of all development proposals and public-realm improvements.
Land Use Mix. The mix of uses in the Crossroads area has a significant impact on the transit user
experience. As the Specific Plan area transitions to a denser, mixed-use neighborhood, more residents will
live within close proximity to the transit stops and likely support increased transit service. Additionally, as
commercial and recreational opportunities increase in the Plan area, residents of surrounding
neighborhoods and communities may be more likely to travel to the Specific Plan area via transit, as they
will be able to accomplish and participate in more activities per trip.
The following describes proposed improvements to pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes of travel that would
occur under the Crossroads Specific Plan.
Pedestrian
The Crossroads Specific Plan proposes an improved pedestrian access and circulation concept focusing on
potential new pedestrian connections, crossings, amenities, and a new multi-use pedestrian and bicycle path
along Eaton Wash (see Figure 3-6, Specific Plan Pedestrian Concept Plan). The proposed pedestrian improvements
are envisioned to facilitate a more inviting and comfortable pedestrian environment that encourages walking
for transportation, recreation, or leisure. Therefore, the Crossroads Specific Plan would have a beneficial
impact to pedestrian facilities.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
June 2017 Page 5.13-45
Bicycle
Temple City has a Bicycle Master Plan, which features proposed improvements to the bicycle network
throughout the City. In helping implement the City’s Bicycle Master Plan, proposed improvements in the
Specific Plan Area consist of a Bicycle Boulevard along Olive Street, as well as a proposed Class II bicycle
lane along Las Tunas Drive. With the proper cycling infrastructure and facilities in place and secure bicycle
storage and amenities available at key destinations, many trips to and within the Specific Plan Area would be
achieved by bicycle.
The Crossroads Specific Plan’s bicycle concept plan (see Figure 3-7, Specific Plan Bicycle Concept Plan), is
intended to leverage the City’s existing investment in bicycle infrastructure through additional amenities and
enhancements, enable safe, convenient, and accessible bicycle transportation and recreation for residents,
employees, or visitors of all ages and abilities. In summary, the Crossroads Specific Plan would have a
beneficial impact to bicycle facilities.
Transit
The transit concept plan calls for several improvements throughout the Specific Plan Area, such as the
provision of enhanced pedestrian access to transit and the provision of a mix of land uses, which would in
turn have a positive impact on the transit user experience. As the Specific Plan Area transitions to a more
dense, mixed-use neighborhood, more residents would live within proximity to transit stops and likely
support increased transit service. Additionally, as commercial and recreational opportunities increase in the
Specific Plan Area, residents of surrounding neighborhoods and communities may be more likely to travel to
the Specific Plan Area via transit. The improvements proposed under the Crossroads Specific Plan would
help improve public transit in the area, thereby resulting in a beneficial impact.
Conclusion
In summary, the Crossroads Specific Plan would improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities and infrastructure
throughout the Specific Plan Area to promote active and alternative modes of transportation. Additionally, it
would promote an increase in transit ridership.
5.13.5 Existing Regulations
State and Regional
The California Complete Streets Act (Assembly Bill 1358)
SCAG 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program
Local
City of Temple City Municipal Code, Chapters 3 (Traffic Regulations), 9-1E (Congestion Management
Program), 9-1J (Off-Street Parking Requirements)
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 5.13-46 PlaceWorks
5.13.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon adherence to regulatory requirements, implementation of the policies contained in the Mid-Century
Plan, and compliance with the provisions of the Crossroads Specific Plan, the following impacts would be
less than significant: 5.13-1, 5.13-2, and 5.13-3.
5.13.7 Mitigation Measures
No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary.
5.13.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No significant adverse impacts related to transportation and traffic were identified.
5.13.9 References
Fehr & Peers. 2017, March. Temple City General Plan and Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan
Tra nsportation Impact Analysis.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). 2010. 2010 Congestion Management
Program. http://media.metro.net/docs/cmp_final_2010.pdf.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2017 Page 5.14-1
5.14 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section has been added to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) based on Assembly Bill 52
(AB 52) regulations adopted by the California Natural Resources Agency and recently approved by the Office
of Administrative Law on September 29, 2016. These regulations will appear in the California Code of
Regulations.1
This section of the DEIR evaluates the potential for implementation of the Proposed Project, which includes
the Temple City 2050 Mid-Century General Plan (Mid-Century Plan) and Temple City Crossroads Specific
Plan (Crossroads Specific Plan), to impact tribal cultural resources. This section discusses state laws and
regulations protecting resources, along with the existing cultural resource conditions on and near the Plan
Area. The following definitions aid in analysis of tribal cultural resources.
Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR). TCRs are defined sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places,
and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources
(CRHR); or
Included in a local register of historical resources; or
A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, and
considering the stated importance to the tribe, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 of the Public Resources Code.
5.14.1 Environmental Setting
5.14.1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND
Federal and state regulations, plans, and guidelines applicable to the Proposed Project are summarized below.
Federal
United States Code, Title 16, Sections 470aa-mm
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act became law on October 31, 1979, and has been amended four
times. It regulates the protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on federal and Indian lands.
United States Code, Title 25, Sections 3001 et seq.
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is a federal law passed in 1990 that provides a
process for museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items, such as human
1 Copies of the rulemaking materials can be found at http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
C ITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Page 5.14-2 PlaceWorks
remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony, to lineal descendants and culturally
affiliated Indian tribes.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Chapter I, Part 60
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is authorized by National Historic Preservation Act of
1966. It is the nation’s official list of buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts worthy of preservation
because of their significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The
NRHP recognizes resources of local, state, and national significance that have been documented and
evaluated according to uniform standards and criteria.
The NRHP includes districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history,
architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. The NRHP is administered by the National Park Service
and currently consists of more than 76,000 listings, including all historic areas in the National Park System,
over 2,300 National Historic Landmarks, and properties that have been listed because they are significant to
the nation, a state, or a community.
Properties are nominated to the NRHP by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) of the state in
which the property is located, by the Federal Preservation Officer for properties under federal ownership or
control, or by the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer if a property is on tribal lands.
Any individual or group may prepare a NRHP nomination. Thorough documentation of physical appearance
and historic significance of the property is required. In California, completed nominations are submitted to
the Office of Historic Preservation for review. It is then submitted to the State Historical Resources
Commission, who determines whether or not the property meets criteria for evaluation and recommends
approval or disapproval to the SHPO. Nominations approved by the SHPO are forwarded for consideration
to the Keeper of the National Register at the National Park Service in Washington, D.C.
During the time the proposed nomination is reviewed by the SHPO, property owners and local officials are
notified of the intent to nominate. Local officials and property owners are given the opportunity to comment
on the nomination, and owners of private property are given an opportunity to object to or concur with the
nomination. If the owner of a private property or the majority of owner’s objects to the nomination, the
SHPO may forward the nomination to the National Park Service for a determination of eligibility only.
Properties may qualify for the NRHP when they meet any of four basic criteria:
Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history.
Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work
of a master; possess high artistic values; or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
June 2017 Page 5.14-3
Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
A final critical component of eligibility is “integrity.” Integrity refers to the ability of a property to convey its
significance and the degree to which the property retains the identity, including physical and visual attributes,
for which it is significant under the four basic criteria. The NRHP criteria recognize seven aspects or qualities
of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
State
Assembly Bill 52
The Native American Historic Resource Protection Act (AB 52) took effect July 1, 2015, and incorporates
tribal consultation and analysis of impacts to TCR into the CEQA process. It requires TCRs to be analyzed
like any other CEQA topic and establishes a consultation process for lead agencies and California tribes.
Projects that require a Notice of Preparation of an EIR or Notice of Intent to adopt a ND or MND are
subject to AB 52. A significant impact on a TCR is considered a significant environmental impact, requiring
feasible mitigation measures.
TCRs must have certain characteristics:
1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (must be geographically defined), sacred places, and
objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included or
determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources or
included in a local register of historical resources. (PRC § 21074(a)(1))
2) The lead agency, supported by substantial evidence, chooses to treat the resource as a TCR.
(PRC § 21074(a)(2))
The first category requires that the TCR qualify as a historical resource according to PRC Section 5024.1. The
second category gives the lead agency discretion to qualify that resource—under the conditions that it
support its determination with substantial evidence and consider the resource’s significance to a California
tribe. The following is a brief outline of the process (PRC §§ 21080.3.1–3.3).
1) A California Native American tribe asks agencies in the geographic area with which it is
traditionally and culturally affiliated to be notified about projects. Tribes must ask in writing.
2) Within 14 days of deciding to undertake a project or determining that a project application is
complete, the lead agency must provide formal written notification to all tribes who have
requested it.
3) A tribe must respond within 30 days of receiving the notification if it wishes to engage in
consultation.
4) The lead agency must initiate consultation within 30 days of receiving the request from the
tribe.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
C ITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Page 5.14-4 PlaceWorks
5) Consultation concludes when both parties have agreed on measures to mitigate or avoid a
significant effect to a TCR, OR a party, after a reasonable effort in good faith, decides that
mutual agreement cannot be reached.
6) Regardless of the outcome of consultation, the CEQA document must disclose significant
impacts on TCRs and discuss feasible alternatives or mitigation that avoid or lessen the
impact.
California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5
This code requires that if human remains are discovered in the project site, disturbance of the site shall halt
and remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause
of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains
have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative. If the
coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and recognizes or has reason to
believe the human remains are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24
hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.
California Public Resources Code, Sections 5020–5029.5
This code continued the former Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee as the State Historical Resources
Commission. The commission oversees the administration of the California Register of Historical Resources
and is responsible for the designation of State Historical Landmarks and Historical Points of Interest.
Public Resources Code Sections 5097-5097.994
Native American Historic Resource Protection Act; Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Sites;
Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites (Public Resources Code Section 5097-5097.994)
specifies the procedures to be followed in the event of the unexpected discovery of human remains on non-
federal public lands. California Public Resources Code 5097.9 states that no public agency or private party on
public property shall “interfere with the free expression or exercise of Native American Religion.” The code
further states that:
No such agency or party [shall] cause severe or irreparable damage to any Native American
sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine… except
on a clear and convincing showing that the public interest and necessity so require. County
and city lands are exempt from this provision, expect for parklands larger than 100 acres.
California Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is the State version of the NRHP program. The
CRHR was enacted in 1992 and became official January 1, 1993. The CRHR was established to serve as an
authoritative guide to the state’s significant historical and archaeological resources (PRC §5024.1, Title 14
CCR, Section 4850 et seq).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
June 2017 Page 5.14-5
Resources that may be eligible for listing include buildings, sites, structures, objects, and historic districts.
CEQA identifies a historic resource as a property that is listed on—or eligible for listing on—the NRHP,
CRHR, or local registers. NRHP-listed properties are automatically included on the CRHR. The criteria for
both are similar and described below. The NRHP criterion letter (A, B, C, and D) is followed by the
corresponding CRHR number (1, 2, 3, and 4).
Criterion A/1: For an association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
Criterion B/2: For an association with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national
history.
Criterion C/3: As an embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method
of construction, representative of the work of a master or high artistic values.
Criterion D/4: Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or
history of the local area, California, or the nation.
Resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be
“recognizable as historic resources and to convey the reasons for their significance.” Under CRHR
regulations, “it is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for
listing in the NRHP, but they may still be eligible for listing in the California Register” (PRC §5024.1, Title 14
CCR, Section 4850 et seq). The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) has consistently interpreted this to
mean that a California Register–eligible property must retain “substantial” integrity. Because CRHR
regulations do not provide substantial written guidance on evaluating integrity, the NRHP bulletin, “How to
Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation,” is used (NPR 2017).
The CRHR also includes properties that: have been formally determined eligible for listing or are listed in the
NRHP; are registered State Historical Landmark Number 770 and above; are points of historical interest that
have been reviewed and recommended to the State Historical Resources Commission for listing; or are city-
and county-designated landmarks or districts (if criteria for designation are determined by OHP to be
consistent with CRHR criteria).
5.14.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Cultural Setting
The Plan Area, which includes the Specific Plan Area, is in the traditional and ethnographic boundary of the
Tongva tribe, a hunter-gatherer tribe that traded goods extensively throughout present-day Southern
California and Nevada. The San Gabriel Valley was settled by the Tongva tribe approximately 3,000 years ago.
The Tongva are also referred to as the Gabrieleños, a name given to them by Spanish monks in the late 18th
Century.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
C ITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Page 5.14-6 PlaceWorks
5.14.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR, defined in
Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is:
TCR-1 Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
TCR-2 A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
5.14.3 Relevant General Plan Policies
The following are relevant policies of the Mid-Century Plan Land Use Element, which are designed to reduce
the potential impacts on TCRs from implementation of the Proposed Project.
LU 5.1 Consultation. Consult with the appropriate organizations and individuals (e.g. California
Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC),
etc.) to minimize potential impacts to historic and cultural resources.
LU 5.7 Education. Provide information to the public on Temple City’s historic and cultural resources
through landmark plaques, wayfinding signage, and collateral materials that provide residents and visitors
with an understanding of the City’s heritage.
5.14.4 Environmental Impacts
5.14.4.1 CONSULTATION PROCESS
A Sacred Lands File search conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in April 2016
conducted for the USGS quadrangle that encompasses the Plan Area did not identify sacred lands in the Plan
Area.
In August 2016, the City sent letters to seven Native American representatives identified by NAHC, notifying
them of the Proposed Project. The representatives notified include:
Gabrieliño/Tongva Nation
Gabrieliño-Tongva Tribe
Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
June 2017 Page 5.14-7
Gabrieliño-Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
One response was received from the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. The tribe did not identify any TCRs
in the Plan Area. However, the tribe requested that it continue to be informed about projects in the area and
that Native American monitors be present during future ground disturbance activities.
The following outlines the AB 52 process to date:
1) A California Native American tribe asks agencies in the geographic area with which it is
traditionally and culturally affiliated to be notified about projects.
Seven tribal representatives requested to be notified (see above).
2) Within 14 days of deciding to undertake a project or determining that a project application is
complete, the lead agency must provide formal written notification to all tribes who have
requested it.
The City notified the tribal representatives on August 16, 2016, via letters sent by mail.
3) A tribe must respond within 30 days of receiving the notification if it wishes to engage in
consultation.
Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians responded. However, a formal consultation was not
requested.
The other six tribal representatives did not respond.
4) The lead agency must initiate consultation within 30 days of receiving the request from the
tribe.
No consultation was requested.
5.14.4.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study, included as
Appendix A, disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets
after the impact statement.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
C ITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Page 5.14-8 PlaceWorks
Impact 5.14-1: Implementation of the Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources
as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). [Threshold TCR-1]
Impact Analysis: Following is a discussion of the potential impacts to TCRs (as it relates to historic resource
listings) as a result of development that would be accommodated under each component of the Proposed
Project.
Mid-Century Plan
Assembly Bill 52 requires meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes on potential
impacts to TCRs, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074. TCRs are sites, features, places, cultural
landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either
eligible or listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or local register of historical resources
(PRC § 21074). As outlined above, the City sent letters to seven Native American representatives identified by
NAHC in August 2016, notifying them of the Proposed Project in accordance with AB 52. However, the
tribe did not identify any TCRs in the Plan Area.
Additionally, no sites were documented in NAHC’s Sacred Lands File search conducted for the USGS
quadrangle that encompasses the Plan Area. Furthermore, there are not site or properties in the Plan Area
that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of
historical resources. Therefore, impacts to TCRs are not anticipated to be significant as a result of
implementation of the Mid-Century Plan.
Crossroads Specific Plan
The analysis above applies to the Crossroads Specific Plan, which is a subset of the Mid-Century Plan.
Impacts to TCRs are not anticipated to be significant.
Impact 5.14-2: Implementation of the Proposed Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource that is determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to criteria in Public Resources Code section 5024.1(c). [Threshold TCR-2]
Impact Analysis: Following is a discussion of the potential impacts to TCRs (as it relates to the City’s
determination to be significant pursuant to criteria in Public Resources Code section 5024.1[c]) as a result of
development that would be accommodated under each component of the Proposed Project.
Mid-Century Plan
Buildout of the Mid-Century Plan, including redevelopment of parcels throughout the Plan Area, would
involve grading and earthwork activities. However, the entire Plan Area is built out with urbanized land uses
that previously disturbed site soils upon their construction. Additionally, as discussed under Impact 5.14-1,
above, there is no substantial evidence that TCRs are present in the Plan Area. There are also no resources
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
June 2017 Page 5.14-9
within the Plan Area determined by the City to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.
Furthermore, the City sent letters to seven Native American representatives identified by NAHC in August
2016, notifying them of the Proposed Project in accordance with AB 52. The City did not receive a request
for consultation on the Proposed Project. However, one response was received from the Soboba Band of
Luiseño Indians. The tribe did not identify any TCRs in the Plan Area—the tribe did however, request that it
continue to be informed about projects in the area and that Native American monitors be present during
future ground disturbance activities.
Lastly, adherence with Mitigation Measure CUL-2 (see Section 5.3, Cultural Resources) would aid in the
protection of subsurface TCRs should they be discovered during future ground-disturbance activities
associated with development that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan. The mitigation measure
includes accommodation for Native American monitors and procedures for the discovery, if any, of Native
American cultural resources. With implementation of the mitigation measure, impacts to TCRs are not
anticipated to be significant
Crossroads Specific Plan
The analysis above applies to the Crossroads Specific Plan, which is a subset of the Mid-Century Plan.
Impacts to TCRs are not anticipated to be significant.
5.14.5 Existing Regulations
Federal
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (United States Code, Title 16, Sections 470aa-mm)
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (United States Code, Title 25, Sections 3001 et
seq.)
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Chapter I, Part 60)
Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
State
Native American Historic Resource Protection Act (Assembly Bill 52; California Public Resources Code
Sections 21073 et seq.)
California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5
California Public Resources Code, Sections 5020–5029.5
Native American Historic Resource Protection Act (Public Resources Code Sections 5097-5097.994)
California Register of Historical Resources (California Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1)
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
C ITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Page 5.14-10 PlaceWorks
5.14.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon adherence to regulatory requirements, implementation of the policies contained in the Mid-Century
Plan, and compliance with the provisions of the Crossroads Specific Plan, the following impacts would be
less than significant: Impact 5.14-1.
Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant:
Impact 5.14-2 Ground disturbance activities associated with future development projects that
would be accommodated by the Proposed Project may damage unknown buried
TCRs.
5.14.7 Mitigation Measures
Impact 5.14-2
Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure CUL-2 from Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, applies here.
5.14.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2.
5.14.9 References
National Park Service (NPR). 2017. National Register Bulletin, “How to Apply the National Register Criteria
for Evaluation”. https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
June 2017 Page 5.15-1
5.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This Section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential impacts of the
Proposed Project, which includes the Temple City 2050 Mid-Century General Plan (Mid-Century Plan) and
Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan (Crossroads Specific Plan) to wastewater conveyance and treatment;
water supplies, treatment, and conveyance; storm drainage systems; solid waste disposal; and electricity and
natural gas supplies. Impacts to fire protection, police protection, schools, and libraries are addressed in
Section 5.11, Public Services, of this DEIR. Impacts to parks are addressed in Section 5.12, Recreation.
The information in this section is based in part on the following technical studies:
Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. Infrastructure Report for Hydrology, Sewer, Water, and Water Quality. February
8, 2017.
Harris & Associates for Sunny Slope Water Company. Water Supply Assessment. July 2016.
A complete copy of these technical reports is included in Appendices F and J of this DEIR.
5.15.1 Wastewater Treatment and Collection
5.15.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Background
State and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are applicable to the Proposed Project are
summarized below.
Federal
Clean Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act (CWA), United States Code, Title 33, Sections 1251 et seq. establishes
regulations to control the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulates water
quality standards for surface waters. Under the CWA, the U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) is
authorized to set wastewater standards for industry and runs the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit program. Under the NPDES program, permits are required for all new
developments that generate discharges that go directly into Waters of the United States. Additionally, Sections
1251 et seq. of the CWQ requires wastewater treatment of all effluent before it is discharged into surface
waters.
Regional
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
Capital improvements to the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (LACSD) water reclamation plants
are funded from connection fees charged to new developments, redevelopments, and expansions of existing
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-2 PlaceWorks
land uses. The connection fee is a capital facilities fee used to provide additional conveyance, treatment, and
disposal facilities (capital facilities) required by new users connecting to LACSD’s sewerage system or by
existing users who significantly increase the quantity or strength of their wastewater discharge. The
Connection Fee Program ensures that all users pay their fair share for any necessary expansion of the system.
Estimated wastewater generation factors used in determining connection fees in LACSD’s 22-member
districts are set forth in the Connection Fee Ordinance for each respective district available on LACSD’s
website. The Plan Area is in District 15 of LACSD (LACSD 2016).
Los Angeles Regional Water Resources Control Board
Waste Discharge requirements pursuant to NPDES regulations for the two LACSD water reclamation plants
(WRPs) treating wastewater from the Plan Area – the San Jose Creek WRP and Whittier Narrows WRP – are
set forth in Los Angeles Regional Water Resources Control Board Order No. R4-2015-0070, issued in 2015,
for the San Jose Creek WRP; and amended Order No. R4-2014-0213-A01, issued in 2015, for the Whittier
Narrows WRP. The aforementioned Orders set forth discharge prohibitions – for instance, high-level
radiological wastes or discharges degrading water supplies; and effluent limitations and discharge
specifications (for instance, discharges of total residual chlorine from the San Jose Creek WRP to the San
Gabriel River shall not exceed 0.1 mg/L concentration or a total of 83 pounds per day).
Existing Conditions
Wastewater Conveyance
Plan Area
The City owns approximately 75 miles of sewer pipelines varying in diameter from 6 to 21 inches, which are
illustrated in Figure 5.15-1, Existing Sewers Map. City-owned sewers are maintained by the Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works (LADPW). Several sewers owned by LACSD – ranging from 8 to 42 inches in
diameter – pass through the Plan Area, mostly north-south (see Figure 5.15-1).
Specific Plan Area
The Specific Plan Area is served by LADPW sewer lines, ranging in diameter from 8 to 15 inches (sewer lines
are listed below). The majority of sewer flows in the Specific Plan Area are southerly and connect to the
LADPW 15-inch line off Broadway and ultimately into a larger LACSD 21-inch trunk line along Encinita
Avenue. Following is a description of the LADPW sewer lines serving the Specific Plan Area:
8-inch line along Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive
8-12-inch line along internal streets and Rosemead Boulevard
15-inch line along Broadway
City of Temple City
Temple City Existing Sewer System
X:\Projects\511\17\MXD\TempleCity_Exhibits_160622\7_TempleCityExistingSewer_160622.mxd
Figure 7
12/12/2016
0 3,0001,500
FeetEATON WASHARCADIA WASHRIO HONDO CHANNELTemple City Boundary - 2,570 AC
Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5 AC
Sewer Line (Temple City + LADPW )
Sewer Line (LACSD)
PlaceWorks
Figure 5.15-1 - Existing Sewer Map
0
Scale (Feet)
1,500City of Temple City
Temple City Existing Sewer System
X:\Projects\511\17\MXD\TempleCity_Exhibits_160622\7_TempleCityExistingSewer_160622.mxd
Figure 7
12/12/2016
0 3,0001,500
FeetEATON WASHARCADIA WASHRIO HONDO CHANNELTemple City Boundary - 2,570 AC
Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5 AC
Sewer Line (Temple City + LADPW )
Sewer Line (LACSD)
City of Temple City
Temple City Existing Sewer System
X:\Projects\511\17\MXD\TempleCity_Exhibits_160622\7_TempleCityExistingSewer_160622.mxd
Figure 7
12/12/2016
0 3,0001,500
FeetEATON WASHARCADIA WASHRIO HONDO CHANNELTemple City Boundary - 2,570 AC
Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5 AC
Sewer Line (Temple City + LADPW )
Sewer Line (LACSD)City of Temple City
Temple City Existing Sewer System
X:\Projects\511\17\MXD\TempleCity_Exhibits_160622\7_TempleCityExistingSewer_160622.mxd
Figure 7
12/12/2016
0 3,0001,500
FeetEATON WASHARCADIA WASHRIO HONDO CHANNELTemple City Boundary - 2,570 AC
Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5 AC
Sewer Line (Temple City + LADPW )
Sewer Line (LACSD)
City of Temple City
Temple City Existing Sewer System
X:\Projects\511\17\MXD\TempleCity_Exhibits_160622\7_TempleCityExistingSewer_160622.mxd
Figure 7
12/12/2016
0 3,0001,500
FeetEATON WASHARCADIA WASHRIO HONDO CHANNELTemple City Boundary - 2,570 AC
Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5 AC
Sewer Line (Temple City + LADPW )
Sewer Line (LACSD)
Temple City
Temple City Boundary - 2,570 AC Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5 AC Sewer Line (Temple City + LADPW)Sewer Line (LACSD)
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Base Map Source: Fuscoe Engineering, 2016
5. Environmental Analysis
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-4 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank
City of Temple City
Temple City Existing Sewer System Deficiencies
X:\Projects\511\17\MXD\TempleCity_Exhibits_160622\8_TempleCityExistingSewerSystemDeficiencies_160623.mxd
Figure 8
12/12/2016
0 3,0001,500
FeetEATON WASHARCADIA WASHRIO HONDO CHANNELTemple City Boundary - 2,570 AC
Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5
Areas Subject to Land Use Change
Sewer Line (Temple City + LADPW )
Sewer Line (LACSD)
Priority 1
Priority 2
Priority 3 & 4
PlaceWorks
Figure 5.15-2 - Temple City Existing Sewer System Deficiencies
0
Scale (Feet)
1,500
City of Temple City
Temple City Existing Sewer System Deficiencies
X:\Projects\511\17\MXD\TempleCity_Exhibits_160622\8_TempleCityExistingSewerSystemDeficiencies_160623.mxd
Figure 8
12/12/2016
0 3,0001,500
FeetEATON WASHARCADIA WASHRIO HONDO CHANNELTemple City Boundary - 2,570 AC
Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5
Areas Subject to Land Use Change
Sewer Line (Temple City + LADPW )
Sewer Line (LACSD)
Priority 1
Priority 2
Priority 3 & 4City of Temple City
Temple City Existing Sewer System Deficiencies
X:\Projects\511\17\MXD\TempleCity_Exhibits_160622\8_TempleCityExistingSewerSystemDeficiencies_160623.mxd
Figure 8
12/12/2016
0 3,0001,500
FeetEATON WASHARCADIA WASHRIO HONDO CHANNELTemple City Boundary - 2,570 AC
Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5
Areas Subject to Land Use Change
Sewer Line (Temple City + LADPW )
Sewer Line (LACSD)
Priority 1
Priority 2
Priority 3 & 4
City of Temple City
Temple City Existing Sewer System Deficiencies
X:\Projects\511\17\MXD\TempleCity_Exhibits_160622\8_TempleCityExistingSewerSystemDeficiencies_160623.mxd
Figure 8
12/12/2016
0 3,0001,500
FeetEATON WASHARCADIA WASHRIO HONDO CHANNELTemple City Boundary - 2,570 AC
Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5
Areas Subject to Land Use Change
Sewer Line (Temple City + LADPW )
Sewer Line (LACSD)
Priority 1
Priority 2
Priority 3 & 4
City of Temple City
Temple City Existing Sewer System Deficiencies
X:\Projects\511\17\MXD\TempleCity_Exhibits_160622\8_TempleCityExistingSewerSystemDeficiencies_160623.mxd
Figure 8
12/12/2016
0 3,0001,500
FeetEATON WASHARCADIA WASHRIO HONDO CHANNELTemple City Boundary - 2,570 AC
Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5
Areas Subject to Land Use Change
Sewer Line (Temple City + LADPW )
Sewer Line (LACSD)
Priority 1
Priority 2
Priority 3 & 4
City of Temple City
Temple City Existing Sewer System Deficiencies
X:\Projects\511\17\MXD\TempleCity_Exhibits_160622\8_TempleCityExistingSewerSystemDeficiencies_160623.mxd
Figure 8
12/12/2016
0 3,0001,500
FeetEATON WASHARCADIA WASHRIO HONDO CHANNELTemple City Boundary - 2,570 AC
Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5
Areas Subject to Land Use Change
Sewer Line (Temple City + LADPW )
Sewer Line (LACSD)
Priority 1
Priority 2
Priority 3 & 4
Temple City
Temple City Boundary - 2,570 AC Specific Plan Boundary - 72.5 AC Sewer Line (Temple City + LADPW)
Sewer Line (LACSD)
Areas Subject to Land Use Change Priority 2
Priority 3 and 4
Priority 1
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Base Map Source: Fuscoe Engineering, 2016
5. Environmental Analysis
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-6 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-7
2008 Sewer Master Plan Update
A 2008 Sewer Master Plan Update for the City of Temple City developed a new sewer model based on the
current conditions and a 20-year projection of future population growth and land use changes. The sewer
model assessed only the hydraulic conditions (flow and capacity) of the existing 8-inch and larger diameter
City-owned sewer pipelines. LADPW guidelines allow for up to 50 percent sewer depth over diameter (d/D)
for pipes less than or equal to 15 inches. The findings of the 2008 study identified specific areas within the
City that require upsizing to meet existing sewer flows and additional improvements to meet the projected
population growth and land use changes. The recommended improvements were categorized into four
priority levels, from Priority 1 (existing deficiency) as the most important though Priority 4 (would require
upgrades in the future based on projected growth) as the least important; and total 7.7 miles of the existing
sewer lines (over 200 individual segments) within the next 12 years.
The majority of replacements within the City are listed as Priority 3 and Priority 4 projects. One location is
listed as Priority 1: 92 linear feet along Encinita Street and Longden Avenue in the northwest portion of the
City. See Table 5.15-1 for a summary of the priority level and length of replacement and Figure 5.15-2, Temple
City Existing Sewer System Deficiencies, for locations of prioritized sewer lines requiring upsizing.
Table 5.15-1 Recommended Sewer Replacements, City of Temple City
Priority Level Total Length of Replacement, feet
Priority 1 92
Priority 2 10,685
Priority 3 21,602
Priority 4 18,905
Source: Fuscoe Engineering 2016.
Such findings do not warrant immediate replacement/upsizing but rather allow LACSD and the County of
Los Angeles to better monitor these lines. It also assists LACSD in identifying which sewer lines may require
additional study once individual projects are proposed that may increase sewer demands. LACSD also has
mechanisms in place that account for proposed sewer demand changes related to General Plans, Specific
Plans and individual projects. This information is used to issue will-serve letters for individual projects and
also helps LACSD determine when regional trunk lines will need to be upsized in the future.
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
LACSD has regional mechanisms and databases in place to track growth projections, changes in land use and
flow monitors to determine if certain trunk lines may be impacted in the future. In addition, all site-specific
flow monitoring required by Temple City and LADPW is provided to LACSD so they can track the capacity
of the lines connecting with LACSD trunk lines within a certain region. Through this process, long term
capacity is monitored closely to determine when trunk lines are nearing their design capacity (>0.75d/D). If
LACSD identifies that specific trunk lines are nearing their design capacity, the line will be added to their
comprehensive Capital Improvement Project list for future upgrade.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-8 PlaceWorks
Wastewater Treatment
Plan Area
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) provides treatment of all sewage flows from the Plan Area
while Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LADPW) maintains all city-owned collection
systems. Due to this relationship, the County receives all sewer fees from the residents and businesses. The
wastewater generated by the Plan Area is treated at the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) next
to the City of Industry, which has a capacity of 100 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently processes an
average flow of 65.7 mgd; or the Whittier Narrows WRP near the City of South El Monte, which has a
capacity of 15 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 7.3 mgd.
Approximately 42 million gallons per day of reclaimed water from the San Jose Creek WRP is reused at over
130 different reuse sites including groundwater recharge and irrigation of parks, schools, and greenbelts. The
remainder is discharged to the San Gabriel River (LACSD 2017a). All of the reclaimed water from the
Whittier Narrows WRP is reused at the plant, at the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, and
as groundwater recharge into the Rio Hondo and San Gabriel Coastal Spreading Grounds (LACSD 2017b).
Specific Plan Area
The preceding description also applies to the Crossroads Specific Plan Area.
Existing Wastewater Generation
Plan Area and Specific Plan Area
Existing wastewater generation in the Plan Area and Specific Plan Area is estimated in Table 5.15-2.
Table 5.15-2 Estimated Existing Wastewater Generation
Land Use Quantity and Units
Wastewater Generation, Gallons per day
Per unit Total
Plan Area
Residential 15,300 units 156 per unit 2,386,000
Nonresidential 2,819,497 square feet 0.2 per square foot 563,899
Total Not applicable Not applicable 2,950,699
Specific Plan Area
Residential 50 units 156 per unit 7,800
Nonresidential 627,348 square feet 0.2 per square foot 125,470
Total Not applicable Not applicable 133,270
Source: Fuscoe Engineering 2017.
5.15.1.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project:
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-9
U-1 Would exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
U-2 Would require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects.
U-5 Would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that is has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitments.
5.15.1.3 RELEVANT GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The following are relevant policies of the Mid-Century Plan Land Use, Economic Development, and
Community Services Elements, which are designed to reduce potential impacts to wastewater treatment and
collection facilities from implementation of the Proposed Project.
Land Use Element
LU 1.6 Development and Public Services Concurrency. Work with applicable public entities and
service providers to coordinate the timing of new development with the provision of public facilities and
infrastructure assuring that adequate services are available at the time of occupancy.
Economic Development Element
ED 6.3 Infrastructure Coordination. Coordinate the scope, timing, and financing of infrastructure
required in connection with prospective development projects to optimize the benefit of the City’s capital
improvement projects.
Community Services Element
CS 12.1 Sewer System Management. Work with the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
(LACSD) to provide adequate wastewater treatment, collection capacity, infrastructure, and maintenance
that complies with applicable discharge standards.
CS 12.2 Wastewater Best Practices. Work with LACSD to identify and implement, as feasible, best
practices and technologies for wastewater collection and treatment including those that reduce the
amount of wastewater requiring treatment, avoid sewage spills affecting the Eaton Wash and Arcadia
Wash, maintain the highest possible energy efficiency, and reduce costs and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.
CS 12.3 New Development. Ensure that new development pays its fair share contribution to the
wastewater treatment and collection system necessary to serve the demands created by the development.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-10 PlaceWorks
CS 12.4 Sewer Deposit Management. Continue to work with LACSD to enforce the restriction of
material or liquid deposits (e.g. storm drain discharge, ground water discharge, and toxic gases) into the
City’s sewer system and raise public awareness of proper disposal practices to prevent contamination of
water and wastewater.
5.15.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 5.15-1: Project-generated wastewater could result in an impact to the wastewater service provider
for the Plan Area. [Thresholds U-1, U-2 (part), and U-5]
Impact Analysis: Following is a discussion of the potential impacts to wastewater treatment and collection
facilities as a result of development that would be accommodated under each component of the Proposed
Project.
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Mid-Century Plan
Wastewater generation as a result of development that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan is
estimated to be approximately 3.97 million gallons per day (mgd), for a net increase of about 1.02 mgd over
existing conditions; see Table 5.15-3.
Table 5.15-3 Forecast Buildout Wastewater Generation
Land Use Quantity and Units
Wastewater Generation, Gallons per day
Per unit Total
Mid-Century Plan
Buildout
Residential 20,520 units 156 per unit 3,201,120
Nonresidential 3,867,597 square feet 0.2 per square foot 773,519
Total Not applicable Not applicable 3,974,639
Existing
Residential 15,300 units 156 per unit 2,386,000
Nonresidential 2,819,497 square feet 0.2 per square foot 563,899
Total Not applicable Not applicable 2,950,699
Net Increase
Net Increase 1,023,940
Crossroads Specific Plan
Buildout
Residential 1,887 units 156 per unit 294,372
Nonresidential 1,082,061 square feet 0.2 per square foot 216,412
Total Not applicable Not applicable 510,784
Existing
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-11
Table 5.15-3 Forecast Buildout Wastewater Generation
Land Use Quantity and Units
Wastewater Generation, Gallons per day
Per unit Total
Residential 50 units 156 per unit 7,800
Nonresidential 627,348 square feet 0.2 per square foot 125,470
Total Not applicable Not applicable 133,270
Net Increase
Net Increase 377,514
Source: Fuscoe Engineering 2017.
As stated previously, there is approximately 34.3 mgd remaining capacity at the San Jose Creek WRP and 7.7
mgd at the Whittier Narrows WRP. Since the Mid-Century Plan would add approximately 1.02 mgd, there is
sufficient wastewater treatment capacity in the region for forecast wastewater generation at Mid-Century Plan
buildout, and Mid-Century Plan implementation would not require construction of new or expanded
wastewater treatment facilities.
Furthermore, the Mid-Century Plan contains policies designed to minimize impacts on wastewater treatment
facilities. The detailed list of applicable policies is provided in Section 5.15.1.3, Relevant General Plan Policies,
above. Therefore, impacts to wastewater treatment facilities are not anticipated to be significant.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Crossroads Specific Plan buildout is forecast to increase wastewater generation from the Specific Plan Area
by about 377,500 gallons per day, as shown in Table 5.15-3. Buildout under the Crossroads Specific Plan is
within the buildout assumed for the Mid-Century Plan. As with the Mid-Century Plan, there is adequate
wastewater treatment capacity in the region for wastewater generation by development that would be
accommodated by the Crossroads Specific Plan, and buildout would not require construction of new or
expanded wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, impacts to wastewater treatment facilities are not
anticipated to be significant.
Regional Water Quality Control Board Wastewater Treatment Requirements
Mid-Century Plan
LACSD establishes discharge limits for wastewater discharges within its service areas to prevent discharge of
substances to LACSD sewers that would exceed the treatment capacities, or otherwise damage, LACSD water
reclamation facilities (LACSD 2017c). The discharge limits thus enable water reclamation facilities to maintain
their effluents within LARWQCB wastewater discharge requirements. LACSD has an industrial pre-treatment
program where industries generating wastes exceeding discharge limits pre-treat liquid wastes before such
wastes are discharged to sewers.
The current (1987) Temple City General Plan includes 9 acres of Light Industrial land use designation
developed with about 162,000 square feet of building area, and 25 acres of Heavy Industrial land use
designation developed with about 518,000 square feet of building area. The Mid-Century Plan includes 29
acres of Industrial land use designation that would permit development of approximately 518,000 square feet
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-12 PlaceWorks
of building area. Therefore, implementation of the Mid-Century Plan would decrease the total amount of
permitted industrial development in the Plan Area.
Land uses that would be developed under the Mid-Century Plan would comply with LACSD discharge limits,
through industrial pre-treatment where necessary, so that wastewater generated by Mid-Century Plan buildout
would not cause exceedances of LARWQCB waste discharge requirements for LACSD water reclamation
facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, impacts on wastewater treatment requirements are
not anticipated to be significant.
Crossroads Specific Plan
The preceding analysis applies to the Crossroads Specific Plan.
Wastewater Collection Facilities
Mid-Century Plan
Mid-Century Plan land use changes would cause increases in sewer flows throughout the Plan Area. The
existing sewer systems serving the Plan Area range in diameter from 8 to 15 inches for the City/LADPW
lines and 12 to 42 inches for the LACSD sewer trunk lines. All flows ultimately end up in the LACSD-owned
sewer lines.
Seven of the prioritized upgrade projects identified in the Sewer Master Plan are in or abut regions subject to
land use changes within the Plan Area; all seven upgrade projects are either Priority 3 or Priority 4. Future
development in accordance with the Mid-Century Plan could impact these deficient sewer lines, thereby
requiring improvements. These recommended improvements and their respective priorities are shown in
Figure 5.15-2, Temple City Existing Sewer System Deficiencies.
Numerous other LACSD trunk lines provide sewer service within the Plan Area and areas subject to
redevelopment and individual LACSD trunk lines could potentially be impacted. To prevent this from
happening, LACSD has regional mechanisms and databases in place to track growth projections, changes in
land use and flow monitors to determine if certain trunk lines may be impacted in the future. In addition, all
site-specific flow monitoring required by Temple City and LADPW is provided to LACSD so they can track
the capacity of the lines connecting with LACSD trunk lines within a certain region. Through this process,
long term capacity is monitored closely to determine when trunk lines are nearing their design capacity
(>0.75d/D). If LACSD identifies that over time, specific trunk lines are nearing their design capacity, the line
will be added to their comprehensive Capital Improvement Project list for future upgrade.
If implementation of upgrades is required, conformance with the General Construction Permit for Linear
Projects would be followed, which serves to reduce the impacts of construction through the use of sediment-
and erosion-based BMPs.
Furthermore, the Mid-Century Plan contains policies designed to minimize impacts on wastewater collection
facilities. The detailed list of applicable policies is provided in Section 5.15.1.3, Relevant General Plan Policies,
above.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-13
Crossroads Specific Plan
The Specific Plan Area is served by LADPW sewer lines, ranging in diameter from 8 to 15 inches. The
majority of sewer flows in the Specific Plan Area are southerly and connect to the LADPW 15-inch line off
Broadway Avenue and ultimately into a larger LACSD 21-inch trunk line along Encinita Avenue.
Buildout under the Crossroads Specific Plan could cause impacts to the sewer lines serving the Specific Plan
Area. As a part of the Technical Infrastructure Report prepared for the Crossroads Specific Plan (see
Appendix F), Fuscoe Engineering performed a sewer capacity study on the LADPW 15-inch line along
Broadway to determine existing capacity and any impacts to the sewer line with the proposed land use
changes of the Crossroads Specific Plan. The maximum design capacity of the 15-inch line is 3.08 cfs (cubic
feet per second) at 75 percent full (d/D = 0.75) and 1.56 cfs at 50 percent full (d/D = 0.50). Under existing
conditions, the capacity of the 15-inch line is estimated at 1.42 cfs, which equates to approximately 46 percent
full (d/D of 0.46). Therefore, under existing conditions the 15-inch line has sufficient capacity to handle
existing flows based on a regional sewage coefficient evaluation method (Fuscoe 2017).
With development that would be accommodated by the Crossroads Specific Plan, the 15-inch line would
experience an increase in flows of approximately 0.324 MGD, or 0.5 cfs. Under the proposed condition, the
capacity of the line is estimated at 1.92 cfs or a d/D value of 0.62 (62 percent full), which falls within the
design capacity of the line. Therefore, the existing 15-inch line has sufficient capacity to accommodate the
proposed sewer flows anticipated under the Crossroads Specific Plan. However, individual development
projects tributary to the 15-inch line would require flow tests to be conducted to validate flow capacity within
the 8- and 12-inch lines in Rosemead Boulevard that deliver sewer flows to the 15-inch line in Broadway. See
Figure 13 (Temple City Specific Plan Sewer System Tributary to 15" Sewer Line on Broadway Avenue) of the
Technical Infrastructure Report (see Appendix F) for more detail on the 15-inch line capacity analysis.
In addition to the capacity of the 15-inch LADPW line, there is also sufficient capacity within the 21-inch
tr unk line within Encinita Avenue, which is owned and operated by LACSD. This line receives flows from
LADPW’s 15-inch line at the intersection of Broadway and Encinita Avenue. The 21-inch line has a
maximum capacity of 12.4 mgd within this region and the maximum peak flow observed by LACSD was 6.2
mgd in 2015. Therefore, there is sufficient capacity within this line to accommodate the estimated addition of
0.324 MGD under the Crossroads Specific Plan.
5.15.1.5 EXISTING REGULATIONS FEDERAL
United States Code, Title 33, Sections 1251 et seq.: Clean Water Act
Regional
LARWQCB, Order No. R4-2015-0070: Waste Discharge Requirements, San Jose Creek Water
Reclamation Plant
LARWQCB, Order No. R4-2014-0213-A01: Waste Discharge Requirements, Whittier Narrows Water
Reclamation Plant
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-14 PlaceWorks
5.15.1.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION
Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant:
Impact 5.10-2 Development under the Mid-Century Plan would result in an impact to wastewater
collection facilities and infrastructure.
5.15.1.7 MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 5.15-1
USS-1 Individual development projects tributary to the 15-inch line in Broadway shall require flow
tests to be conducted to validate flow capacity within the 8- and 12-inch lines in Rosemead
Boulevard that deliver sewer flows to the 15-inch line in Broadway. Prior to issuance of
grading permits for development projects tributary to the 15-inch line, project applicants
shall conduct/prepare site specific flow tests to verify actual flow depths and capacity. A
report shall be prepared documenting the methods and findings of such tests in accordance
with the City of Temple City and Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LADPW)
requirements. The report shall be submitted to the City of Temple City Community
Development Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits.
If development of such project(s) would generate wastewater exceeding the capacities of
one or more LADPW sewers, the project applicant of the affected project(s) shall make fair-
share payments toward the needed upsizing if it has been identified in a Capital
Improvement Plan/Program, or construct the improvement.
5.15.1.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.
5.15.2 Water Supply and Distribution Systems
5.15.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Background
State laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are applicable to the Proposed Project are summarized below.
Urban Water Management Planning Act
The Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983, California Water Code Sections 10610 et seq., requires
publicly- or privately-owned water suppliers that provide more than 3,000 acre-feet (af) of water annually, or
supply more than 3,000 customers, to prepare a plan that:
Plans for water supply and assesses reliability of each source of water over a 20-year period in 5-year
increments.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-15
Identifies and quantifies adequate water supplies, including recycled water, for existing and future
demands, in normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years.
Implements conservation and the efficient use of urban water supplies. Significant new requirements for
quantified demand reductions have been added by the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill 7 of
Special Extended Session 7 [SBX7-7]), which amends the act and adds new water conservation provisions
to the Water Code.
AB 3030, California Groundwater Management Act
The Groundwater Management Act of the California Water Code (Sections 10750 et seq.; AB 3030) provides
guidance for applicable local agencies to develop a voluntary Groundwater Management Plan in state-
designated groundwater basins.
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan
The 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan, issued by the Department of Water Resources in 2010 pursuant to
the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBX7-7), established a water conservation target of 20 percent
reduction in water use by 2020 compared to 2005 baseline use.
Senate Bill 610, Water Supply Planning
Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) (2001) amended the Urban Water Management Planning Act to mandate that a city
or county approving certain projects subject to CEQA: 1) identify any public water system that may supply
water for the project and 2) request those public water systems to prepare a specified water supply
assessment.1 The assessment must include:
A discussion of whether the public water system’s total projected water supplies available during normal,
single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection would meet the projected water
demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system’s existing and
planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.
The identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant
to the identified water supply for the proposed project and water received in prior years pursuant to those
entitlements, rights, and contracts.
A description of the quantities of water received in prior years by the public water system under the
existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts.
A demonstration of water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts.
1 Under Water Code § 10912(a)(7), SB 610 applies to a CEQA project that "would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or
greater than, the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling unit project." Additional criteria are listed in Section 5.14.2.4,
Cumulative Impacts. A water supply assessment was prepared for the proposed project.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-16 PlaceWorks
The identification of other public water systems or water service contract holders that receive a water
supply or have existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts with the same
source of water as the public water system.
Additional information is required if groundwater is included in the supply for the proposed project.
The water supply assessment must be included in any environmental document prepared for the project and
may include an evaluation of any information in that environmental document. The assessment must
determine if the projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project as well as
existing and planned future uses. A WSA was prepared for the Proposed Project and is included as Appendix
J to this DEIR.
Additionally, SB 610 requires new information to be included as part of an urban water management plan
(UWMP) if groundwater is identified as a source of water available to the supplier. Information must include
a description of all water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken to meet total projected water
use. SB 610 prohibits eligibility for funds from specified bond acts until the UWMP is submitted to the state.
2012-2017 California Drought: Executive Orders and Emergency Regulations
California is in its fifth consecutive year of drought, and much of California remains in exceptional drought
conditions.2 California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued Executive Order B-37-16 on May 9, 2016,
including the following provisions:
Making permanent several previous temporary prohibitions on wasteful outdoor water uses such as
hosing off paved areas, washing automobiles with hoses not equipped with a shut-off nozzle, and
watering lawns in a manner that causes runoff.
Water providers’ Water Shortage Contingency Plans must be strengthened to include plans for droughts
lasting at least five years.
The Department of Water Resources and the State Water Resources Control Board will require urban
water suppliers to report water use, conservation, and enforcement monthly; and will develop new water
efficiency targets for water suppliers (Executive Department 2016).
The State Water Resources Control Board issued an emergency regulation on May 18, 2016, pursuant to
Executive Order B-37-16 requiring water providers to certify that they had sufficient water supplies to meet
demands in their service areas for three consecutive dry years. This requirement replaced the mandatory
water use reductions, averaging 25 percent compared to 2013 use, ordered by SWRCB in July 2015 (SWRCB
2016).
State Water Resources Control Board staff are developing extended emergency conservation regulations. The
Department of Water Resources and State Water Board are directed to develop new water use targets as part
2 Exceptional drought is the most severe of five stages of dry to drought conditions defined by the National Drought Mitigation
Center at the University of Nebraska Lincoln (NDMC 2016).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-17
of a permanent framework for urban water agencies. The proposed regulations were scheduled to be
published in February 2017 (SWRCB 2017).
Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-40-17 on April 17, 2017, lifting the drought emergency for most
of the State, while asking Californians to make water conservation a way of life (Brown 2017).
Existing Conditions
Water Supplies and Demands
Plan Area
Four levels of water agencies participate in delivering water from its source to households and other retail
customers in the Plan Area.
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) operates and maintains the State Water Project
(SWP).
Water Wholesalers: Two levels of water wholesalers are involved in acquiring and delivering water to
customers in the Plan Area:
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) buys imported SWP water; imports
water from the Colorado River; and wholesales water to its member agencies.
The Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District (Upper District), an MWD member agency,
purchases MWD imported water and wholesales it to retail water purveyors in Upper District’s
service area.
Water purveyors provide water to retail customers; some are agencies of cities, some private companies,
and some are special districts.
A description of each of the six water purveyors that serve the Plan Area is provided below; Figure 5.15-3,
Water Provider Service Areas, illustrates the boundaries of the service areas of each of the water purveyors.
Water supplies and water demands for each water provider are listed in Table 5.15-4. It should be noted that
water providers generally have emergency interconnections with neighboring water providers. Such
interconnections are not identified in detail for each water provider.
Sunny Slope Water Company. Sunny Slope Water Company’s (SSWC)’s service area, which spans
approximately three-square miles, includes parts of the cities of Arcadia, Pasadena, San Gabriel, Temple
City and San Marino (see Figure 5.15-3). SSWC relies on groundwater for all of its existing and planned
water supplies. SSWC produces water from two groundwater basins, the Raymond Groundwater Basin
and the Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin. Projected groundwater pumping from both basins
combined over the 2020-2035 period, compared to water demands in SSWC’s service area, shown in
Table 5.15-4, ranges from about 3,827 acre-feet per year (afy) in 2020 to 3,865 afy in 2035 (Civitec 2016).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-18 PlaceWorks
SSWC uses demand management measures including water rate discounts for customers who use less
than 800 cubic feet (6,000 gallons) per month; public education and school education programs; water
audits and leak inspections; and rebate programs (Civiltec 2016).
SSWC has a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) consisting of four mandatory stages ranging from
Stage 1 (15 percent water use reduction) to Stage 4 (emergency condition; 50 percent water use
reduction). Water use regulations in a Stage 1 shortage include limiting irrigation to three days per week;
prohibitions in a Stage 4 shortage include those on watering or irrigating landscaping, with certain
exceptions; draining or refilling pools; and no new potable water services with certain exceptions. The
WSCP requires that leaks, breaks, and malfunctions be repaired during all four stages (Civiltec 2016).
SSWC instituted a Stage 2 Water Shortage on May 26, 2015, in response to emergency conservation
regulations set forth by the SWRCB on May 5 2015 (SSWC 2015).
City of Pasadena Water and Power. The City of Pasadena Water and Power (PWP) serves a 23-square-
mile area including the City of Pasadena and portions of the unincorporated areas of Altadena, East
Pasadena, and East San Gabriel, as well as a portion of the Plan Area (in the norther end of the City’s
sphere of influence) (see Figure 5.15-3). PWP’s water supplies consist of imported water purchased from
MWD; groundwater from the Raymond Basin; and surface water (RMC 2016).
East Pasadena Water Company. The East Pasadena Water Company (EPWC) serves parts of the cities
of Arcadia, Pasadena, San Gabriel, and Temple City (see Figure 5.15-3). EPWC’s water supplies are
mostly groundwater from the Main San Gabriel and Raymond groundwater basins (EPWC 2016).
California-American Water Company. California-American Water Company’s (CAWC) San Marino
Service Area spans about 8.6 square miles and includes parts of the cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, El
Monte, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Temple City, and in portions of the
unincorporated communities of San Pasqual, East Pasadena, and East San Gabriel (see Figure 5.15-3).
CAWC’s water supplies consist of groundwater from the Raymond and Main San Gabriel groundwater
basins, and imported water purchased through Upper District (WSC 2016).
Golden State Water Company. Golden State Water Company’s (GSWC) South Arcadia System serves
parts of the cities of Temple City, Arcadia, El Monte, Irwindale and Monrovia, and portions of adjacent
unincorporated county land (see Figure 5.15-3). GSWC’s water supplies consist of groundwater from the
Main San Gabriel Basin (Kennedy-Jenks 2016). Water use and outdoor irrigation restrictions that were in
place during the recent drought emergency were lifted after Governor Brown’s Executive Order B-40-17
on April 17, 2017 lifted the drought emergency (GSWC 2017).
San Gabriel County Water District. San Gabriel County Water District (SGCWD)’s service area, which
encompasses approximately 4.2 square miles, includes parts of the cities of San Gabriel, Rosemead, and
Temple City, as well as some areas of unincorporated Los Angeles County (see Figure 5.15-3). SGCWD’s
water supplies are groundwater from the Main San Gabriel and Raymond groundwater basins (Stetson
2016).
PlaceWorks
Figure 5.15-3 - Water Provider Service Areas
0
Scale (Miles)
0.5
5. Environmental Analysis
Temple City Boundary
Temple City SOI
California American W.C.
City of Pasadena
East Pasadena W.C.
Golden State W.C.
San Gabriel County W.D.
Sunny Slope W.C.
Water Service Providers
Base Map Source: Fuscoe Engineering, 2016
Specific Plan Boundary
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-20 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-21
Table 5.15-4 Water Supplies Compared to Demands Under Normal Water Conditions, Water Providers Serving the Plan Area
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Sunny Slope Water Company1
Supply
Groundwater,
Main San
Gabriel Basin
2,015 2,449 2,457 2,465 2,473 Not available
Groundwater,
Raymond
Basin
1,222 1,379 1,383 1,387 1,392 Not available
Total 3,237 3,828 3,840 3,852 3,865 Not available
Demand, Total 3,237 3,828 3,840 3,852 3,865 Not available
Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Not available
Pasadena Water and Power2
Supplies
Groundwater,
Raymond
Basin
12,023 20,934 20,986 21,237 21,529 21,617
Imported
Water, MWD 15,229 12,684 12,684 12,684 12,684 12,684
Potable
Supplies,
Total
27,252 33,618 33,670 34,851 35,143 35,231
Recycled
Water:
Groundwater
Recharge
0 0 0 930 930 930
Recycled
Water: Other
Uses
0 700 1,100 2,280 2,670 3,060
Total, All Supplies 27,252 34,318 34,770 37,131 37,813 38,291
Demands, Total 27,326 32,586 32,611 32,719 32,891 33,000
Difference -743 1,732 2,159 4,412 4,922 5,291
East Pasadena Water Company
East Pasadena Water Company serves approximately 2,900 connections; water supplies are mostly groundwater from the Main San
Gabriel and Raymond groundwater basins.4 Detailed water supply and demand information is not available.
California-American Water Company San Marino Service Area5
Supplies
Groundwater,
Main San
Gabriel Basin
7,007 8,588 8,910 9,215 9,536 Not available
Groundwater,
Raymond
Basin
1,099 1,609 1,609 1,609 1,609 Not available
Imported
Water, MWD 972 1,442 1,442 1,442 1,442 Not available
Total 9,078 11,639 12,022 12,267 12,588 Not available
Demands, Total 8,969 11,639 12,022 12,267 12,588 Not available
Difference 109 0 0 0 0 Not available
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-22 PlaceWorks
Table 5.15-4 Water Supplies Compared to Demands Under Normal Water Conditions, Water Providers Serving the Plan Area
Golden State Water Company South Arcadia System6
Supplies
Groundwater,
Main San
Gabriel Basin
2,866 3,733 3,803 3,874 3,946 4,019
Demands, Total 2,866 3,733 3,803 3,874 3,946 4,019
Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0
San Gabriel County Water District7
Supplies
Groundwater,
Main San
Gabriel Basin
5,203 5,676 5,837 6,003 6,172 6,346
Groundwater,
Raymond
Basin
599 764 764 764 764 764
Total 5,802 6,440 6,601 6,767 6,936 7,110
Demands, Total 4,964 6,440 6,601 6,767 6,936 7,110
Difference 838 0 0 0 0 0
1 Source: Civiltec 2016
2 Source: RMC 2016
3 The deficit of -74 af in PWP’s service area in 2015 was made up using stored groundwater; PWP met demands in its service area in 2015.
4 Source: East Pasadena Water Company 2016
5 Source: Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (WSC) 2016
6 Source: Kennedy-Jenks 2016
7 Source: Stetson 2016a
Water Supplies Summary by Source
Water supplies in 2015, for the five water providers for which supply and demand information are available,
(see Table 5.15-4) consisted of about 81 percent groundwater and 19 percent imported water. By 2035
supplies are forecast to consist of about 87 percent groundwater, seven percent imported water, and six
percent recycled water (Civiltec 2016; RMC 2016; WSC 2016; Kennedy-Jenks 2016; Stetson 2016).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-23
Estimated Existing Water Demands
Estimated existing water demands in the Plan Area and Specific Plan Area are shown in Table 5.15-5.
Table 5.15-5 Estimated Existing Water Demand
Land Use Quantity and Units
Water Demand, Gallons per day
Per unit Total
Plan Area
Residential 15,300 units 223 per unit 3,411,900
Nonresidential 2,819,497 square feet 0.2 per square foot 563,899
Total Not applicable Not applicable 3,975,799
Specific Plan Area
Residential 50 units 223 per unit 11,150
Nonresidential 627,348 square feet 0.2 per square foot 125,470
Total Not applicable Not applicable 136,620
Source: Fuscoe Engineers 2016.
Water System Upgrades
Three of the water providers serving the Plan Area reported planned water system upgrades –listed in Table
5.15-6 – in the course of preparation of the Infrastructure Technical Report for the Proposed Project (see
Appendix F).
Table 5.15-6 Planned Water System Upgrades
Water Purveyor Projects Timeline
Golden State Water Company Installation of 8-inch water lines along Fratus
Dr between Rio Honda Ave and Pentland
2014-2016
Golden State Water Company Installation of 8-inch water lines along Rio
Honda Ave from Lower Azusa Rd to La Rose
Dr
2014-2016
Golden State Water Company Installation of 8-inch water lines Kennerly St
from Fratus Dr
2014-2016
California American Water Company Pump and Motor Replacement within three
existing Temple City wells
2014-2024
East Pasadena Water Company None planned Not applicable
Sunny Slope Water Company Replace water mains on Loma Ave between
Garibaldi Ave and Hermosa Dr
2016-2019
Sunny Slope Water Company Replace water mains on Loma Ave between
Garibaldi Ave and Hermosa Dr
2016-2019
Source: Fuscoe Engineering 2016.
Specific Plan Area
Three water providers serve the Specific Plan Area: Sunny Slope Water Company, San Gabriel County Water
District, and Golden State Water Company. Water supplies and demands for the three providers are shown in
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-24 PlaceWorks
Table 5.15-4, Water Supplies Compared to Demands Under Normal Water Conditions, Water Providers Serving the Plan
Area.
Water System Upgrades
A 2014 Sunny Slope Water Company Water Master Plan Update did not identify deficient water lines in the
Specific Plan Area that needed replacement or upgrading. Recent Sunny Slope Water Company water line
upgrades include replacement of a six-inch water main on the north side of Las Tunas Drive from Sultana
Avenue to about 200 feet west of Rosemead Boulevard in 2013.
Water Supply Reliability
Water supplies of the five water providers for which supply and demand information was available are reliable
in normal water conditions over the 2020-2035 or 2020-2040 period, as shown in Table 5.15-4, Water
Supplies Compared to Demands Under Normal Water Conditions, Water Providers Serving the Plan Area.
The five providers forecast in their 2015 urban water management plans that they will have sufficient water
supplies to meet demands in their respective service areas over similar periods in single-dry-year and multiple-
dry-year conditions (Civiltec 2016; RMC 2016; WSC 2016; Kennedy-Jenks 2016; Stetson 2016).
Groundwater Management
Groundwater quantity and quality are managed in the Main San Gabriel Basin by the Main San Gabriel Basin
Watermaster, and in the Raymond Groundwater Basin by the Raymond
Basin Management Board, both pursuant to court judgments. Functions of the two agencies include
managing groundwater withdrawal and replenishment; determining the annual Operating Safe Yield – that is,
the amount of groundwater that can be safely withdrawn without overdrafting the respective basins; and
assisting other agencies in enforcing water quality regulations. The Operating Safe Yield (OSY) for the Main
San Gabriel Basin for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 (July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017) is 150,000 af; and the OSY for
the fiscal years starting in 2017 through 2020 is 130,000 af each (Stetson 2016b). Adjudicated groundwater
rights from the Raymond Basin total 30,662 afy (RBMB 2013).
Groundwater Recharge
During the 12 months from July 2014 through June 2015, approximately 44,231 af of imported water was
purchased for replenishment of the Main San Gabriel Basin (Stetson 2016b). The main source of
replenishment for the Raymond Basin is rainfall.
Imported Water Reliability
MWD forecasts that the region can provide reliable water supplies in single-dry-year and multiple-dry-year
conditions over the 2020-2040 period. MWD acknowledges that it faces a number of challenges associated
with providing adequate, reliable, and high-quality supplies for the region. A summary of risks and
uncertainties that may affect imported water availability include:
Risks Affecting Supplies:
Drought conditions
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-25
Endangered species protection and conveyance needs in the Sacramento ‐San Joaquin R
Delta System
Changing climate patterns
Difficulty and implications of environmental review, documentation, and permitting for water
supply projects
Public perception of recycled water use
Opposition to local seawater desalination
Risks Affecting Operations and Water Quality:
Cost and use of energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
Water quality regulations and issues such as quagga mussels3
Salt and concentrate balance from a variety of sources
Risks Affecting Demands:
Fluctuations in population and economic growth
Uncertain location of growth
Uncertain housing stock and density
Changes in outdoor water use patterns
Distribution System Water Losses
Climate Change
MWD has outlined planned actions intended to address the aforementioned risks and uncertainties (RMC
2016).
2012-2017 California Drought
California Governor’s executive orders and State Water Resources Control Board emergency regulations
responding to the 2012-2017 California drought are summarized above in Section 5.15.1.1 under the
Regulatory Background discussion.
Water Shortage Contingency Plans
Urban water suppliers are required to prepare and implement water shortage contingency plans (WSCPs).
The Sunny Slope Water Company’s WSCP is summarized as follows as an example. The WSCP prescribes
four stages of action, from Stage 1, requiring a 15 percent water use reduction, to Stage 4, requiring a 50
percent water use reduction. The WSCP sets forth required water conservation measures for each stage,
ranging from limits on outdoor irrigation and a requirement to fix leaks for Stage 1, to prohibition of
outdoor watering (with certain exceptions), and of draining or refilling of pools, in Stage 4 (Civiltec 2016).
3 Quagga mussels (Dreissena rostriformis bugensis) are an invasive species of mussel that clog water intake structures and cause adverse
impacts to aquatic ecosystems (USGS 2016).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-26 PlaceWorks
Pasadena Water and Power implements water conservation for areas it serves via the City of Pasadena’s Water
Waste Prohibitions and Water Shortage Ordinance, which is codified in Section 13.10 of the City of
Pasadena’s Municipal Code (Pasadena 2017). Golden State Water Company South Arcadia System has
requested its customers reduce water consumption by 10 percent, and limits outdoor watering (GSWC 2016).
San Gabriel County Water District adopted water conservation measures on June 9, 2015 including Stage 1
water supply emergency (15 to 20 percent reduction in water use) and a Stage 2 water supply emergency (20
to 30 percent reduction in water use). The 20 percent water conservation target required by SWRCB in July
2015 corresponds to a Stage 2 emergency (Stetson 2016a).
Water Treatment Facilities
Plan Area
Groundwater
PWP operates two groundwater treatment systems: the Monk Hill Treatment System, which removes
perchlorate, carbon tetrachloride and other contaminants from groundwater from part of the Raymond
Groundwater Basin and has capacity of 7,000 gallons per minute or approximately 10 mgd; and the Eastside
Well Collector Project, which disinfects water from five wells (RMC 2016).
The portion of groundwater provided by Sunny Slope Water Company from the Raymond Groundwater
Basin is treated at a Liquid-Phase Granular Activated Carbon (LGAC) filtration plant (Civiltec 2016).
California American Water Company water supplies relevant to the Plan Area are partly groundwater from
the Central Basin. Some groundwater produced from the Central Basin is treated for contaminants (including
perchloroethylene and trichloroethylene) at the Water Quality Protection Project, which has approximately 5.2
mgd capacity and is operated by the Central Basin Municipal Water District (Arcadis 2016).4
Golden State Water Company uses granular-activated carbon treatment at three wellheads to remove volatile
organic compound (VOC) contamination (Kennedy-Jenks 2016).
Imported Water
Imported water purchased by PWP is treated at MWD’s Weymouth Water Treatment Plant in the City of La
Verne. The facility has capacity of 520 million gallons per day (mgd; MWD 2016a) and, in 2015, produced an
average of about 301 mgd of treated water daily (MWD 2016b); thus, residual capacity at the facility is
approximately 219 mgd.
Specific Plan Area
The existing conditions outlined above apply to the Specific Plan Area.
4 The capacity of 5.2 mgd is estimated assuming that the Water Quality Protection Project operates continuously at the capacity of
3,600 gallons per minute identified in California American Water Company’s Urban Water Management Plan.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-27
5.15.2.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project:
U-2 Would require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects.
U-4 Would not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, and new and/or expanded entitlements would be needed.
5.15.2.3 RELEVANT GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The following are relevant policies of the Mid-Century Plan Land Use, Economic Development, Community
Services, and Natural Resources Elements, which are designed to reduce potential impacts to water supply
and treatment facilities from implementation of the Proposed Project.
Land Use Element
LU 1.6 Development and Public Services Concurrency. Work with applicable public entities and
service providers to coordinate the timing of new development with the provision of public facilities and
infrastructure assuring that adequate services are available at the time of occupancy.
Economic Development Element
ED 6.3 Infrastructure Coordination. Coordinate the scope, timing, and financing of infrastructure
required in connection with prospective development projects to optimize the benefit of the City’s capital
improvement projects.
Community Services Element
CS 11.1 Reliable Supply and Cost-Effective Distribution. Continue to maintain cooperative contracts
with water service providers, including East Pasadena, Sunny Slope, Golden State, and California
American Water Companies, and San Gabriel County Water District (water service providers) to ensure a
reliable supply of high quality potable water and a cost-effective distribution system to meet existing and
future needs.
CS 11.2 Adequate Water Infrastructure. Ensure that the City’s potable water infrastructure is sized
adequately for storage capacity and treatment to serve existing and future needs.
CS 11.3 Infrastructure Maintenance. Ensure adequate capital improvement funding for the
rehabilitation or replacement of critical infrastructure that has reached the end of its useful life.
CS 11.4 Drinking Water Standards. Continue to work with water service providers to provide domestic
water that meets or exceeds state and federal drinking water standards.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-28 PlaceWorks
CS 11.5 Best Practices. Employ best practices to maintain the highest possible energy efficiency in the
water infrastructure system to reduce costs and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.
Natural Resources Element
NR 6.1 Protection of Water Resources. Work with Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
(LADPW), private property owners, and neighboring jurisdictions to conserve areas for the purpose of
groundwater recharge and stormwater management.
NR 6.2 Flood Control Channels. Work with LADPW, to explore the removal of the concrete-lining
along the Eaton Wash and Arcadia Wash where flood protection is not compromised allowing for greater
groundwater recharge and wildlife habitat.
NR 6.3 Groundwater Management Plan. Support the monitoring of groundwater quality and ensure
compliance of groundwater management plans with the California Water Code.
NR 6.4 New Development and Post-Development Stormwater Runoff. Require new development
and post-development stormwater runoff to control sources of pollutants and improve and maintain
urban runoff water quality through site design, stormwater treatment and protection measures, and best
management practices (BMPs) consistent with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit.
NR 6.5 Low Impact Development Standards. Incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) strategies
and BMPs into new development or substantial renovation projects in an effort to restore the pre-
development hydrograph.
NR 6.6 Development in Adjoining Communities. Participate in the review of proposed development
projects located within the Main San Gabriel Basin to assure that there are no adverse impacts on local
surface or groundwater quality.
NR 6.7 Landscaping. Require public and private landscaping in new development and renovation
projects to be designed to reduce water demand, detain runoff, decrease flooding, and recharge
groundwater through activities such as the selection of plant material, soil preparation, and the
installation of irrigation systems.
NR 6.8 Pervious Surfaces. Maximize pervious surfaces within new or substantially renovated
development projects, to capture stormwater runoff and percolate into the groundwater basin, to the
extent feasible.
NR 6.9 Efficient Use. Explore the development of public and private programs to reduce water use
and water waste associated with landscape irrigation, including the planting of native and drought-
tolerant plans, use of efficient irrigation systems, and collection and recycling of runoff.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-29
NR 6.10 Regional Coordination. Coordinate with local and regional jurisdictions on groundwater use
to minimize overdraft conditions of aquifers and to address water quality issues in the Main San Gabriel
Valley Basin.
NR 6.11 Water Resilience. Maintain contingency plans for continuing water service in the event of
large-scale emergencies.
5.15.2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 5.15-2: Adequate water supply and delivery systems are available to meet project requirements. [Thresholds U-2 (part) and U-4]
Impact Analysis: Following is a discussion of the potential impacts to water supply and delivery systems as a
result of development that would be accommodated under each component of the Proposed Project.
Water Demands
Mid-Century Plan
Buildout of the Proposed Project would result in a population increase of 12,778 persons to a total of
59,228. The water use factors from the Sunny Slope Water Company (SSWC) UWMP were used to determine
proposed water usage because the majority of Plan changes would occur within SSWC’s service area. As a
result of SBX7-7, SSWC established a water conservation target of 95 percent of the South Coast
Hydrologic Region target. Using a baseline per capita water use of 146 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), the
minimum water use compliance target is 138 gpcd (Civiltec 2016). Consequently, the rate for determining
water demand would decrease and buildout would increase water demand at a reduced rate citywide.
Using the 2015 SSWC UWMP baseline potable water use factor of 146 gpcd, the existing population of
46,450 persons would demand 6.8 mgd (7,596 afy) of water. Using the target water rate of 138 gpcd Mid-
Century Plan buildout of 59,228 persons would require approximately 8.1 mgd (9,155 afy), or an increase of
1.3 mgd (1,559 afy). However, 2015 actual water use was 94 gpcd (Civiltec 2016). Therefore, with existing and
planned water conservation measures and restrictions, buildout could result in an actual demand of 5.6 mgd,
which is about 17 percent less than existing demand.
The primary areas of change under the Mid-Century Plan are almost entirely within the service areas of three
of the six water providers serving the Mid-Century Plan area: Sunny Slope Water Company, East Pasadena
Water Company, and Golden State Water Company. As shown in Table 5.15-4, the anticipated water demand
is within the projected water demand for the water suppliers covering the Plan area.
UWMPs are important source documents for cities and counties as they update their general plans. Similarly,
general plans are source documents for water suppliers updating the UWMPs. The accuracy and usefulness
of these planning documents are interdependent. If a project was included as part of the projected water
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-30 PlaceWorks
demand of the current UWMP, the water demand for the proposed development does not need to be
separately analyzed as long as water demand for the project has remained substantially the same. The UWMPs
covering the Proposed Project were prepared in 2015, and its service population was based on SCAG
forecasts. As growth is evaluated and accounted for in its General Plan, SCAG forecasts are updated and
these numbers will be reflected in the 2020 UWMP that is currently being prepared.
Impacts related to water supply would be less than significant because the projected water demand from the
Mid-Century Plan buildout is within the demands forecast in the applicable UWMPs, which demonstrate that
supply meets the demand of the City. Furthermore, buildout would not result in any new or expanded water
supplies or facilities beyond those planned and assumed in the 2015 UWMPs. Impacts would be less than
significant.
The water suppliers have a number of water conservation programs that customers can participate in such as
residential and nonresidential rebate and landscape retrofit programs. The Mid-Century Plan also contains
policies designed to minimize impacts on water supply. The detailed list of applicable policies is provided in
Section 5.15.1.3, Relevant General Plan Policies, above.
Regulations are in place to ensure sufficient water supply for the City of Temple City. First, the Urban Water
Management Planning Act requires that water districts plan for water supply and assess reliability of each
source of water over a 20-year period by updating their UWMPs in five-year increments. General Plans are
source documents as water suppliers update the UWMPs. The next round of UWMP updates in 2020 will
include the General Plan Update’s population projections and land use plan.
Second, under SB 610, a WSA would be required for any project if it is a residential development of 500
units or more; a shopping center or business establishment project employing more than 1,000 persons or
having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space; a commercial office building employing more than
1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space; or an industrial, manufacturing, or
processing plant or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres
of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. Individual development projects implemented
under the proposed Land Use Diagram would be required to prepare a WSA if they meet these requirements.
Finally, under SB 221, approval by a city or county of certain residential subdivisions requires an affirmative
verification of sufficient water supply. SB 221 is intended as a fail-safe mechanism to ensure that
collaboration on finding the needed water supplies to serve a new large subdivision occurs before
construction begins. Therefore, impacts to water supply and delivery systems would be less than significant.
Crossroads Specific Plan
A water supply assessment was prepared by SSWC for the Crossroads Specific Plan. As determined by SSWC,
the Specific Plan would result in additional water demand during average/normal year of up to 589 afy by the
year 2035. Active and effective groundwater management enables water producers in the Main San Gabriel
Basin to historically meet water demands, including during single and multiple dry years. Based on reduced
per capita water use targets required pursuant to Senate Bill SBX7-7, along with the demonstrated reliability
of water resources available to SSWC, including access to the Main San Gabriel Basin water
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-31
supplies/imported replacement water and SSWC’s access to Raymond Basin groundwater, SSWC has
sufficient and reliable water supplies to meet its future demands with the Specific Plan for the next 20-year
period (2015 to 2035), including during single and multiple dry years. Impacts are less than significant.
Water Delivery Systems
Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan
Fuscoe Engineering prepared an Infrastructure Report to analyze Proposed Project impacts to the water
distribution system. Water generation factors used to evaluate infrastructure related impacts are land use
based as opposed to a per capita rate in order to determine adequate pipe sizing. Based on this analysis, Mid-
Century Plan buildout is forecast to generate approximately 1.37 mgd net increase in water demands over
existing conditions, as shown in Table 5.15-7.
Table 5.15-7 Forecast Buildout Water Demand
Land Use Quantity and Units
Water Demand, Gallons per day
Per unit Total
Mid-Century Plan
Buildout
Residential 20,520 units 223 per unit 4,575,960
Nonresidential 3,867,597 square feet 0.2 per square foot 773,519
Total Not applicable Not applicable 5,349,479
Existing
Residential 15,300 units 223 per unit 3,411,900
Nonresidential 2,819,497 square feet 0.2 per square foot 563,899
Total Not applicable Not applicable 3,975,799
Net Increase
Net Increase 1,373,680
Crossroads Specific Plan
Buildout
Residential 1,887 units 223 per unit 420,801
Nonresidential 1,082,061 square feet 0.2 per square foot 216,412
Total Not applicable Not applicable 637,213
Existing
Residential 50 units 223 per unit 11,150
Nonresidential 627,348 square feet 0.2 per square foot 125,470
Total Not applicable Not applicable 136,620
Net Increase
Net Increase 500,594
Source: Fuscoe Engineers 2016.
Implementation of the Project may require the construction of new on-site water lines to better serve the
individual proposed projects based on their specific location and site orientation. Additionally, some water
mains may require upsizing and/or relocation to convey water demands and/or fire flow by land uses upon
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-32 PlaceWorks
buildout of the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan. Any improvements or additions to the water
system will be implemented by the respective water companies. Mid-Century Plan Policy CS 11.2 ensures that
adequate water infrastructure is in adequately sized to serve existing and future needs. Impacts are less than
significant.
Water Treatment Facilities
Groundwater Treatment Facilities
Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan
This analysis applies to water demands for both the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan. The
groundwater treatment facilities described above in Section 5.15.2.1 have a total capacity of over 15.2 mgd.
Groundwater comprised about 81 percent of water supplies in 2015 for the five water purveyors for the Plan
Area for which water supply data are available; and groundwater is estimated to increase to about 87 percent
of such supplies by 2035. Mid-Century Plan buildout is estimated to generate a net increase of about 1.37
mgd in water demands. There is sufficient water treatment capacity in the region to meet the net increase in
water demand due to Mid-Century Plan buildout (which the Crossroads Specific Plan is a subset of and
included in the buildout), and no new or expanded water treatment facilities would be required. Furthermore,
the Mid-Century Plan contains policies designed to minimize impacts water treatment facilities. The detailed
list of applicable policies is provided in Section 5.15.1.3, Relevant General Plan Policies, above.
Imported Water Treatment Facilities
Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan
This analysis applies to water demands for both the Mid-Century Specific Plan and the Crossroads Specific
Plan. MWD’s Weymouth Water Treatment Plant has capacity of 520 million gallons per day (mgd; MWD
2016a) and, in 2015, produced an average of about 301 mgd of treated water daily (MWD 2016b); thus,
residual capacity at the facility is approximately 219 mgd. There is sufficient water treatment capacity in the
region to meet the net increase in water demand due to Mid-Century Plan buildout (which the Crossroads
Specific Plan is a subset of and included in the buildout) of about 1.37 mgd, and no new or expanded water
treatment facilities would be required. Furthermore, the Mid-Century Plan contains policies designed to
minimize impacts water treatment facilities. The detailed list of applicable policies is provided in Section
5.15.1.3, Relevant General Plan Policies, above.
5.15.2.5 EXISTING REGULATIONS
State
California Water Code Sections 10610 et seq.: Urban Water Management Planning Act
Senate Bill X7-7 (2009): Water Conservation Act of 2009
Senate Bill (SB) 610 (Chapter 643, Statutes of 2001) and SB 221 (Chapter 642, Statutes of 2001): Water
Supply Assessments
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-33
California Water Code Sections 10750 et seq.: California Groundwater Management Act
5.15.2.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION
Upon adherence to regulatory requirements, implementation of the policies contained in the Mid-Century
Plan, and compliance with the provisions of the Crossroads Specific Plan, the following impacts would be
less than significant: 5.15-2.
5.15.2.7 MITIGATION MEASURES
No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary.
5.15.2.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
No impacts to water supply and distribution systems were identified.
5.15.3 Storm Drainage Systems
5.15.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Background
Federal, regional and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are applicable to the Proposed Project
are summarized below.
Federal
Clean Water Act
The federal Water Pollution Control Act (or Clean Water Act [CWA]) is the principal statute governing water
quality. It establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United
States and gives EPA authority to implement pollution control programs, such as setting wastewater standards
for industry. The statute’s goal is to completely end all discharges and to restore, maintain, and preserve the
integrity of the nation’s waters. The CWA regulates direct and indirect discharge of pollutants; sets water
quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters; and makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any
pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a permit is obtained under its provisions. The
CWA mandates permits for wastewater and stormwater discharges; requires states to establish site-specific
water quality standards for navigable bodies of water; and regulates other activities that affect water quality,
such as dredging and the filling of wetlands. The CWA funds the construction of sewage treatment plants
and recognizes the need for planning to address nonpoint sources of pollution. Section 402 of the CWA
requires a permit for all point source (a discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, such as a pipe, ditch,
or channel) discharges of any pollutant (except dredge or fill material) into waters of the United States.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program (under Section 402 of the
CWA), all facilities that discharge pollutants from any point source into waters of the United States must have
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-34 PlaceWorks
a NPDES permit. The term “pollutant” broadly applies to any type of industrial, municipal, and agricultural
waste discharged into water. Point sources can be publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), industrial
facilities, and urban runoff. (The NPDES program addresses certain agricultural activities, but the majority
are considered nonpoint sources and are exempt from NPDES regulation.) Direct sources discharge directly
to receiving waters, and indirect sources discharge to POTWs, which in turn discharge to receiving waters.
Under the national program, NPDES permits are issued only for direct, point-source discharges. The
National Pretreatment Program addresses industrial and commercial indirect dischargers. Municipal sources
are POTWs that receive primarily domestic sewage from residential and commercial customers. Specific
NPDES program areas applicable to municipal sources are the National Pretreatment Program, the Municipal
Sewage Sludge Program, Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), and the Municipal Storm Water Program.
Nonmunicipal sources include industrial and commercial facilities. Specific NPDES program areas applicable
to these industrial/commercial sources are: Process Wastewater Discharges, Non-Process Wastewater
Discharges, and the Industrial Storm Water Program. NPDES issues two basic permit types: individual and
general. Also, EPA has recently focused on integrating the NPDES program further into watershed planning
and permitting (USEPA 2012).
The NPDES has a variety of measures designed to minimize and reduce pollutant discharges. All counties
with storm drain systems that serve a population of 100,000 or more, as well construction sites one acre or
more in size, must file for and obtain an NPDES permit. Another measure for minimizing and reducing
pollutant discharges to a publicly owned conveyance or system of conveyances (including roadways, catch
basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels and storm drains, designed or used for collecting and
conveying stormwater) is the EPA’s Storm Water Phase I Final Rule. The Phase I Final Rule requires an
operator (such as a City) of a regulated municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) to develop, implement,
and enforce a program (e.g., Best Management Practices [BMPs], ordinances, or other regulatory
mechanisms) to reduce pollutants in post-construction runoff to the County’s storm drain system from new
development and redevelopment projects that result in the land disturbance of greater than or equal to one
acre. The MS4 Permit in effect for West Carson is Order No. R4-2012-0175 issued by the Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2012.
The City of Temple City Community Development Department enforces conditions of the MS4 NPDES
permit on development and redevelopment projects in the City’s jurisdiction.
Local
Los Angeles County Low Impact Development Standards Manual
The Los Angeles County Low Impact Development Standards Manual is described in detail in Section 5.7,
Hydrology and Water Quality, of this DEIR.
City of Temple City Low-Impact Development for Small Sites Technical Guidance Document
The City of Temple City Low-Impact Development for Small Sites Technical Guidance Document is
described in Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this DEIR.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-35
City of Temple City Zoning Code
The City requirements for permeable areas and landscaping in developed land uses are set forth in Title 9
(Zoning Regulations), Chapter 1 (Zoning Code) of the Temple City Municipal Code.
Existing Conditions
Plan Area
Major drainage channels in the Plan Area include Eaton Wash, which passes near the west Plan Area
boundary; and Arcadia Wash, which passes through the east part of the Plan Area. Eaton Wash flows into the
Rio Hondo Channel about one mile south of the Plan Area, while Arcadia Wash discharges into the Rio
Hondo Channel about 850 feet south of the Plan Area boundary.
Eaton Wash and Arcadia Wash in the Plan Area consist of reinforced concrete bed and banks. The Eaton
Wash channel is about 30 feet wide at Huntington Drive at the north end of the Plan Area, and about 44 feet
wide at Temple City Boulevard at the south end of the Plan Area. Arcadia Wash in the Plan Area is about 30
feet wide. Networks of storm drains serve the Plan Area: some discharging to Eaton Wash, and some to
Arcadia Wash (see Figure 5.7-2, Existing Storm Drains).
The Plan Area is almost entirely developed; only two acres of the 2,570-acre Plan Area are vacant. Thus, a
large proportion of the Plan Area is impervious.
Specific Plan Area
The existing drainage system in and abutting the Specific Plan Area consists of Eaton Wash, which passes
along most of the west site boundary and through part of the northwestern part of the site; and four storm
drains, all in the part of the Specific Plan Area west of Rosemead Boulevard. Two storm drains – one 18
inches diameter, the other 24 inches diameter – provide drainage for the Elm Center Shopping Center at the
northwest corner of Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive, and part of the segment of Las Tunas Drive
between Rosemead Boulevard and Eaton Wash. The 24-inch and 18-inch drain join in Las Tunas Drive; from
where a 42-inch drain continues west and southwest to Eaton Wash. A separate 30-inch drain extends north-
south, discharging into Eaton Wash about 450 feet north of Broadway (see Figure 5.7-2, Existing Storm
Drains). The Specific Plan Area is built out and is about 91 percent impervious.
Storm Drain Deficiencies
Several storm drain deficiencies in the City of Temple City mapped by the City’s 2008 Final Drainage Master
Plan are listed in Table 5.15-8 and shown in Figure 5.7-4, Storm Drain Deficiencies. Part of one of the
deficiencies identified above in Table 5.15-8, ID No. B4, passes along the north Specific Plan Area boundary.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-36 PlaceWorks
Table 5.15-8 Existing Storm Drain Deficiencies (2008 Temple City Final Drainage Master Plan)
Priority ID Location Existing Size, inches Replacement Size, inches Total Pipe Length, feet Reason
1 C9 Southwest End of City at Lower
Azusa 60 96 984 Capacity limitation
2 B4 Western portion of City along
Hermosa at Encinita 36-48 72 2,600 Capacity limitation and
extension to flooded area
3 B6 Western portion of City along
Sultana and Broadway 36-48 54 3,200 Capacity limitation
4 C1 Western portion of City along Las
Tunas and Allesandro 36-48 60 1,780 Capacity limitation
5 C10 Southwest End of City at Lower
Azusa and Agnes to Golden West 36 48 810 Replace 36 with 48
Source: Fuscoe Engineering 2016.
5.15.3.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project:
U-3 Would require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
5.15.3.3 RELEVANT GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The following are relevant policies of the Mid-Century Plan Land Use, Economic Development, Community
Services, and Hazards Elements, which are designed to reduce potential impacts to storm drain systems from
implementation of the Proposed Project.
Land Use Element
LU 1.6 Development and Public Services Concurrency. Work with applicable public entities and
service providers to coordinate the timing of new development with the provision of public facilities and
infrastructure assuring that adequate services are available at the time of occupancy.
ED 6.3 Infrastructure Coordination. Coordinate the scope, timing, and financing of infrastructure
required in connection with prospective development projects to optimize the benefit of the City’s capital
improvement projects.
Community Services Element
CS 13.1 Adequate Storm Drainage Infrastructure. Ensure that the City’s storm drainage systems are
adequately sized, maintained, and upgraded to adequately convey stormwater runoff in an
environmentally sustainable method and prevent flooding for existing and new development.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-37
CS 13.2 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. Require new
development and redevelopment to minimize stormwater runoff and pollutants consistent with Temple
City’s NPDES Permit.
CS 13.3 Illegal Connections. Continue to enforce the prohibition of illegal connections and discharges
into the storm drain system.
Hazards Element
H 2.6 On-Site Stormwater. Promote the on-site capture, storage, and use of stormwater to reduce
runoff into the Eaton Wash and Arcadia Wash.
H 2.2 City Storm Drains. Ensure that City-owned storm drains are designed, constructed, operated,
and maintained per Los Angeles County Public Works’ (LADPW) standards to allow for maximum
capacity of the system.
H 2.3 Sustainable Flood Control Practices. Work with LADPW in incorporating improvements in
Eaton Wash and Arcadia Wash that provide opportunities for stormwater detention and groundwater
recharge when major upgrades and/or reconstruction may be required, when feasible.
5.15.3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 5.15-3: Storm drainage systems serving the Plan Area would be adequate to serve the drainage requirements of the Proposed Project. [Threshold U-3]
Impact Analysis: Following is a discussion of the potential impacts to water supply and delivery systems as a
result of development that would be accommodated under each component of the Proposed Project.
Mid-Century Plan
Based on the relatively high, existing impervious conditions of the Plan Area (which includes the Specific
Plan Area) and development that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan (which includes
development under the Crossroads Specific Plan), which generally would have proportional impervious areas
equal to existing conditions, runoff resulting from future development under the Mid-Century Plan is not
anticipated to increase over existing conditions. The majority of the existing storm drain system serving the
Plan Area is adequately sized to accommodate the existing- and proposed-condition runoff. The 2008
Drainage Master Plan recommended five Los Angeles County storm drain improvements, which are listed in
Table 5.7-1, Existing Storm Drain Deficiencies (2008 Temple City Final Drainage Master Plan), and mapped in Figure
5.7-3, Storm Drain Deficiencies. Implementation of improvements to the Los Angeles County storm drain
deficiencies would occur as funding becomes available. These deficiencies do not pose immediate risk to the
Plan Area as impacts to the system will be controlled by “allowable peak flow discharges” issued by the Los
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-38 PlaceWorks
Angeles County Department of Public Works (DPW) for each individual development project. These
allowable discharges would result in a reduction of peak flow discharges as compared to existing conditions
(Fuscoe 2017).
In addition to the recommendations from the 2008 Drainage Master Plan to eliminate any concerns regarding
storm drain deficiencies with associated land use changes of the Mid-Century Plan, the following existing and
established requirements under LA County Department of Public Works are applicable to individual
development projects that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan.
Individual development projects would require that site specific hydrology and hydraulic studies be
conducted of the onsite and immediate offsite storm drain systems to determine capacity and integrity of
the existing systems prior to approval by Temple City and the Los Angeles County Public Works.
Conformance with site specific “allowable discharge rates” as identified by DPW, which limits peak flow
discharges as compared to existing conditions based on regional flood control constraints. Individual
development projects accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan that connects to a Los Angeles County
storm drain line will have to request the “allowable discharge rate” from DPW if there is potential impact
to the storm drain line.
Incorporation of LID BMPs within individual development projects would be required to provide water
quality treatment and runoff reduction and/or detention in accordance with local stormwater permit
requirements. Implementation of LID BMPs would also serve to minimize increase in runoff and would
reduce runoff as compared to existing conditions.
Furthermore, individual development projects would be required to adhere to the provisions of the City’s
requirements for permeable areas and landscaping in developed land uses, as set forth in Chapter 1 (Zoning
Code) of the Temple City Municipal Code. The City’s TGD would also apply to certain types of projects
disturbing 500 or more but less than 5,000 or 10,000 square feet of soil, depending on the type of project.
The TGD sets forth design criteria for several LID measures including flow-through planter boxes, vegetated
swales, rain gardens, Hollywood driveways, and “bottomless trenches”.
Finally, the Mid-Century Plan contains policies designed to minimize impacts on storm drain systems. The
detailed list of applicable policies is provided in Section 5.15.3.3, Relevant General Plan Policies, above.
Therefore, development that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan is not anticipated to result in
an adverse impact on existing or planned storm water drainage systems.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Deficiency ID No. B4 of the 2008 Master Drainage Plan, which is listed in Table 5.7-1, Existing Storm Drain
Deficiencies (2008 Temple City Final Drainage Master Plan), extends in part along the northern Specific Plan Area
boundary (see Figure 5.7-3, Storm Drain Deficiencies). As with development that would be accommodated by
the Mid-Century Plan, runoff resulting from future development under the Crossroads Specific Plan is not
anticipated to increase over existing conditions. Additionally, all additional requirements applicable to the Plan
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-39
Area would also apply to the Specific Plan Area. Regarding allowable discharge rates, for the Specific Plan
Area, DPW has assigned two separate “Q-allowable” discharge limits. The majority of the Specific Plan Area
south of Las Tunas Drive along the Rosemead Boulevard corridor is allowed to discharge no more than 1.48
cubic foot per second per acre (cfs/acre), which is less than existing conditions. Therefore, when individual
development projects under the Crossroads Specific Plan come on board, they will be required to provide
onsite retention/detention to meet the allowed rates. The other area north of Las Tunas Drive has a slightly
higher Q-allowable rate (2.46 cfs/acre), which will still result in a slight reduction of proposed discharges as
compared to existing discharges. Q-allowable discharges within the Specific Plan Area were provided by
DPW.
In addition to the recommendations from the 2008 Drainage Master Plan, to eliminate any concerns
regarding storm drain deficiencies with associated land use changes of the Crossroads Specific Plan, the
existing and established requirements under LA County Department of Public Works (listed in detail above)
are applicable to individual development projects that would be accommodated by the Crossroads Specific
Plan: requirement for site specific hydrology and hydraulic studies to be conducted, conformance with site
specific “allowable discharge rates” as identified by DPW, and incorporation of LID BMPs within individual
development projects.
Furthermore, individual development projects would be required to adhere to the provisions of the City’s
requirements for permeable areas and landscaping in developed land uses, as set forth in Chapter 1 (Zoning
Code) of the Temple City Municipal Code. The City’s TGD would also apply to certain types of projects
disturbing 500 or more but less than 5,000 or 10,000 square feet of soil, depending on the type of project.
The TGD sets forth design criteria for several LID measures including flow-through planter boxes, vegetated
swales, rain gardens, Hollywood driveways, and “bottomless trenches”.
Therefore, development that would be accommodated by the Crossroads Specific Plan is not anticipated to
result in an adverse impact on existing or planned storm water drainage systems.
5.15.3.5 EXISTING REGULATIONS
Federal
United States Code, Title 33, Sections 1251 et seq.: Clean Water Act
Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Parts 122 et seq.: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)
Regional
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
Order No. R4-2012-0175: Municipal Stormwater (MS4) Permit
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-40 PlaceWorks
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
Low Impact Development Standards Manual
Local
City of Temple City, Low-Impact Development for Small Sites Technical Guidance Document
City of Temple City Municipal Code, Chapter 1, Zoning Code
5.15.3.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION
Upon adherence to regulatory requirements, implementation of the policies contained in the Mid-Century
Plan, and compliance with the provisions of the Crossroads Specific Plan, the following impacts would be
less than significant: 5.15-3.
5.15.3.7 MITIGATION MEASURES
No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary.
5.15.3.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
No significant impacts were identified.
5.15.4 Solid Waste
5.15.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Background
Federal, state, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are applicable to the Proposed Project are
summarized below.
Federal
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations), Part 258, contains regulations for municipal solid waste landfills and requires states to
implement their own permitting programs incorporating the federal landfill criteria. The federal regulations
address the location, operation, design (liners, leachate collection, run-off control, etc.), groundwater
monitoring, and closure of landfills.
State
Assembly Bills 939, 341, and 1826
Assembly Bill 939 (Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989; Public Resources Code 40050 et seq.)
established an integrated waste-management system that focused on source reduction, recycling, composting,
and land disposal of waste. AB 939 required every California city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-41
from landfills by the year 2000. Compliance with AB 939 is measured in part by comparing solid waste
disposal rates for a jurisdiction with target disposal rates. Actual rates at or below target rates are consistent
with AB 939. AB 939 also requires California counties to show 15 years of disposal capacity for all
jurisdictions in the county or show a plan to transform or divert its waste.
Assembly Bill 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) increased the statewide solid waste diversion goal to
75 percent by 2020. The law also mandates recycling for commercial and multifamily residential land uses as
well as schools and school districts.
Assembly Bill 1826 (California Public Resources Code Sections 42649.8 et seq.), signed into law in September
2014, requires recycling of organic matter by businesses generating such wastes in amounts over certain
thresholds. This law also requires that on and after January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions across the state
implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses, including
multifamily residential dwellings that consist of five or more units. The law took effect in April 2016.
California Green Building Standards Code
Section 5.408 (Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal, and Recycling) of the California Green Building
Standards Code (CALGreen; Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 11) requires that at least
50 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction
operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. CALGreen is updated on a three-year cycle; the 2016
CALGreen took effect on January 1, 2017.
Local
CALGreen is adopted by reference as Title 7 (Building Regulations), Chapter 6 (Green Building Standards
Code) of the Temple City Municipal Code.
Existing Conditions
Solid Waste Collection
Plan Area
Athens Services collects solid waste and recyclable materials from all residential and commercial customers in
Temple City under a franchise agreement with the City. Residents provide containers and place trash and
recyclable materials in the same containers.
Burrtec Waste Industries collects solid waste and recyclable materials from the unincorporated parts of the
Plan Area (Temple City’s sphere of influence) under a franchise agreement with the Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works. Burr -Tec Industries uses three carts: black for trash, blue for recyclable
materials, and green for greenwaste.
Solid waste is processed through Athens Services’ Material Recovery Facility in the City of Industry where all
viable recyclable materials, such as paper, plastics, glass, wood, metals, and others are sorted, baled, and
transported to recycling facilities.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-42 PlaceWorks
Specific Plan Area
The conditions outlined above apply to the Specific Plan Area.
Solid Waste Recycling and Disposal
Plan Area
In 2015 about 97 percent of the solid waste landfilled from the City of Temple City was disposed of at the
following five facilities:
El Sobrante Landfill near the City of Corona in Riverside County
Frank Bowerman Sanitary Landfill in the City of Irvine in Orange County
Mid-Valley Landfill in the City of Rialto in San Bernardino County
Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill in the City of Brea in Orange County
San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill near the City of Redlands in San Bernardino County (CalRecycle 2016a).
Permitted and actual disposal quantities, remaining capacities, and estimated closing dates for the five facilities
are shown below in Table 5.15-9. The five facilities have combined remaining capacities of over 385 million
tons and combined residual daily disposal capacity of over 21,000 tons.
Table 5.15-9 Existing Landfill Capacity
Landfill and City Current Remaining Capacity
Daily Disposal (tons)
Estimated Date of Closure Maximum Permitted Average Residual Capacity
Mid-Valley
Rialto, San Bernardino
County
67,520,000 cubic yards
(50,640,000 tons) 7,500 3,700 3,800 2053
Olinda Alpha Sanitary
Landfill
Brea, Orange County
34,200,000 cubic yards
(25,650,000 tons) 8,000 6,916 1,084 2021
San Timoteo
Redlands, San
Bernardino County
13,605,488 cubic yards
(10,240,116 tons) 2,000 900 1,100 2054
Frank Bowerman
Sanitary Landfill
Irvine, Orange County
205,000,000 cubic yards
(153,750,000 tons) 11,500 5,357 6,143 2053
El Sobrante Landfill,
Corona, Riverside County 145,530,000 tons 16,054 6,793 9,261 2045
Total 385,820,116 tons
45,054 23,666 21,388 —
Sources: CalRecycle 2016b; CalRecycle 2016c; CalRecycle 2016d; CalRecycle 201e; CalRecycle 2016f; CalRecycle 2016g.
Specific Plan Area
The conditions outlined above apply to the Specific Plan Area.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-43
Solid Waste Diversion
Plan Area
There are 28 solid waste diversion programs serving the City of Temple City, including composting, material
recovery facility, household hazardous waste, recycling, source reduction programs including a business waste
reduction program, and special waste materials including concrete/asphalt/rubble and tires (CalRecycle
2016h).
Specific Plan Area
The conditions outlined above apply to the Specific Plan Area.
Estimated Existing Solid Waste Generation
Plan Area
Existing solid waste generation in the Plan Area is estimated at 160,242 pounds per day (ppd), as shown in
Table 5.15-10.
Specific Plan Area
Existing solid waste generation in the Crossroads Specific Plan Area is estimated at 4,119 ppd, as shown in
Table 5.15-10.
Table 5.15-10 Estimated Existing Solid Waste Generation
Land Use Quantity Units/Square Feet
Solid Waste Generation, pounds per day
Per unit Total
Plan Area
Residential, Single-Family 12,205 units 10 122,050
Residential, Multi-Family 3,095 units 5.31 16,434
Office 320,022 square feet 0.006 1,920
Hotels & Motels 108,314 square feet 0.0055 596
Commercial 1,711,303 square feet 0.006 10,268
Industrial 679,858 square feet 0.0132 8,974
Total 15,300 units and 2,819,497 square feet Not applicable 160,242
Specific Plan Area
Residential, Single-Family 17 units 10 170
Residential, Multi-Family 33 units 5.31 175
Office 23,920 square feet 0.006 144
Commercial 594,180 square feet 0.006 3,565
Religious Facilities 5,263 Square feet 0.007 37
Schools 3,986 Square feet 0.007 28
Total 50 units and 627,348 square feet Not applicable 4,119
Source: CalRecycle 2016.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-44 PlaceWorks
5.15.4.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project:
U-6 Would be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
solid waste disposal needs.
U-7 Would not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
5.15.4.3 RELEVANT GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The following are relevant policies of the Mid-Century Plan Community Services Elements, which are
designed to reduce potential impacts to solid waste facilities from implementation of the Proposed Project.
CS 16.1 Adequate Services and Waste Collection Facilities. Ensure that the City’s refuse hauling
company maintains adequate residential, commercial, and industrial solid waste and mixed recycling
collection service levels and solid waste facilities in accordance with state law.
CS 16.2 Waste Collection Performance. Periodically review waste collection performance to verify
adequacy of service.
CS 16.3 AB 939. Continue to partner, plan for, and document compliance with AB 939 source reduction
and recycling requirements of 50 percent diversion of solid waste from landfills.
CS 16.4 AB 341. Strive to partner, plan for, and document compliance with AB 341 source reduction,
recycling, and composting requirements of 75 percent by 2020.
CS 16.5 Recycling and Reuse of Construction Waste. Continue to enforce the waste management
plan for certain construction and demolition projects to reduce landfill waste by diverting a minimum of
50 percent of the construction and demolition debris (e.g., concrete, asphalt paving, asphalt roofing,
lumber, gypsum board, rock, and soil).
CS 16.6 City’s Role. Increase the City’s role in the source reduction and recycling components of waste
management through recycling programs at City facilities to reduce the quantity of City-generated waste.
CS 16.7 Procurement Policy. Review and revise, as necessary, the City’s procurement policy to include
recycled products and to provide a price differential to specific products with recycled content to
encourage recycling markets.
CS 16.8 Recycling Collection Centers. Continue to support recycling participation through permitted
drop-off and certified recycling collection centers in commercial and industrial areas.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-45
CS 16.9 Compost Markets and Distribution. Explore opportunities to collect and compost greenwaste
to distribute, as feasible, for use in parks, medians, and other areas.
5.15.4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 5.15-4: Solid waste facilities serving the Plan Area would be able to accommodate project-generated solid waste; and project implementation would not adversely affect Temple City’s ability to comply with existing laws and regulations governing solid waste disposal and
recycling. [Thresholds U-6 and U-7]
Impact Analysis: Following is a discussion of the potential impacts to solid waste disposal capacity as a
result of development that would be accommodated under each component of the Proposed Project.
Mid-Century Plan
Mid-Century Plan buildout is forecast to generate about 200,285 ppd of solid waste, as shown in Table 5.15-
11, for a net increase of about 40,043 ppd over existing conditions. As shown in Table 5.15-9, Existing
Landfill Capacity, there is sufficient solid waste disposal capacity in the region to accommodate the forecast net
increase in solid waste generation due to Mid-Century Plan buildout, and no new or expanded solid waste
disposal facilities would be required.
Table 5.15-11 Estimated Buildout Solid Waste Generation
Land Use Quantity Units/Square Feet
Solid Waste Generation, pounds per day
Per unit Total
Mid-Century Plan
Residential, Single-Family 13,963 units 10 139,630
Residential, Multi-Family 6,547 units 5.31 34,765
Commercial and General Commercial 1,253,598 square feet 0.006 7,522
Mixed Use 2,095,583 square feet 0.0055 11,526
Industrial 518,416 square feet 0.0132 6,843
Total 20,520 units and 3,867,597 square feet Not applicable 200,285
Existing Conditions 15,300 units and 2,819,497 square feet Not applicable 160,242
Net Increase 5,220 units and 1,048,100 square feet Not applicable 40,043
Crossroads Specific Plan
Residential, Single-Family 17 units 10 170
Residential, Multi-Family 1,870 units 5.31 9,930
Office 270,515 square feet 0.006 1,623
Retail 811,546 square feet 0.006 4,869
Total 1,887 units and 1,082,061 square feet Not applicable 16,592
Existing Conditions 50 units and 627,348 square feet Not applicable 4,119
Net Increase 1,837 units and 454,713 square feet Not applicable 12,473
Source: CalRecycle 2016
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-46 PlaceWorks
Additionally, Section 5.408 (Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal, and Recycling) of the most current
(2016) CALGreen (incorporated by reference in Chapter 6 [Green Building Standards Code] of the Temple
City Municipal Code) requires that at least 50 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition
waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. Development that
would be accommodate by the Mid-Century Plan would be required to adhere to the waste reduction and
recycling provisions of CALGreen, which would be ensured through the City’s development review and
building plan check process.
Furthermore, recyclable materials from future residential and commercial land uses would also be separated –
at the Materials Recovery Facility serving the Plan Area – and recycled, in accordance with AB 939.
Commercial and multifamily residential land uses and schools would recycle pertinent waste materials in
accordance with Assembly Bill 341, while commercial and multifamily residential land uses would recycle
organic wastes in accordance with AB 1826.
Finally, the Mid-Century Plan contains policies designed to minimize impacts on solid waste facilities. The
detailed list of applicable policies is provided in Section 5.15.4.3, Relevant General Plan Policies, above.
Therefore, impacts on solid waste disposal capacity and the City’s ability to meet existing solid waste
regulations are not anticipated to be significant.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Crossroads Specific Plan buildout is forecast to generate approximately 16,592 ppd of solid waste for a net
increase of about 12,473 ppd over existing conditions, as shown in Table 5.15-11, Estimated Buildout Solid
Waste Generation. As shown in Table 5.15-9, Existing Landfill Capacity, there is adequate solid waste disposal
capacity in the region to accommodate the forecast net increase in solid waste generation due to Crossroads
Specific Plan buildout, and no new or expanded solid waste disposal facilities would be required.
Additionally, as with Mid-Century Plan, development that would be accommodate by the Crossroads Specific
Plan would be required to adhere to the waste reduction and recycling provisions of CALGreen, which would
be ensured through the City’s development review and building plan check process.
Furthermore, recyclable materials from future residential and commercial land uses would also be separated –
at the Materials Recovery Facility serving the Plan Area – and recycled, in accordance with AB 939.
Commercial and multifamily residential land uses would recycle pertinent waste materials in accordance with
Assembly Bill 341, while commercial and multifamily residential land uses would recycle organic wastes in
accordance with AB 1826.
Therefore, impacts on solid waste disposal capacity and the City’s ability to meet existing solid waste
regulations are not anticipated to be significant.
5.15.4.5 EXISTING REGULATIONS
Federal
United States Code Title 42, Sections 6901 et seq.: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-47
State
California Public Resources Code 40050 et seq.: Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989
Assembly Bill 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011)
California Public Resources Code Sections 42649.8 et seq. (Assembly Bill 1826)
Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 11 (California Green Building Standards Code),
Section 5.408
Local
Title 7 (Building Regulations), Chapter 6 (Green Building Standards Code) of the Temple City Municipal
Code
5.15.4.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION
Upon adherence to regulatory requirements, implementation of the policies contained in the Mid-Century
Plan, and compliance with the provisions of the Crossroads Specific Plan, the following impacts would be
less than significant: 5.15-4.
5.15.4.7 MITIGATION MEASURES
No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary.
5.15.4.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
No significant impacts were identified.
5.15.5 Other Utilities
5.15.5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Background
State laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are applicable to the Proposed Project are summarized below.
California Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR Title 24)
Energy conservation standards for new nonresidential buildings were adopted by the California Energy
Resources Conservation and Development Commission in June 1977 and updated triennially (Title 24, Part 6,
of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building
components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and
possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On May 31, 2012, CEC adopted
the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, which went into effect on January 1, 2014. Buildings that
are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-48 PlaceWorks
(residential) to 30 percent (nonresidential) more energy efficient than the 2008 standards as a result of better
windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption in
homes and businesses.
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building
standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11, Title 24, known as CALGreen; adopted by
reference in Chapter 6 [Green Building Standards Code] of the City’s Municipal Code) was adopted as part
of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations). CALGreen established
planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California
Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. The
mandatory provisions of CALGreen became effective January 1, 2011.
Appliance Efficiency Regulations (CCR Title 20)
The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608) were adopted by the
California Energy Commission on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of
Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally and non–
federally regulated appliances.
Existing Conditions
Electricity
Plan Area
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity services to the Plan Area. SCE’s service area spans
much of southern California from Orange and Riverside counties on the south to Santa Barbara County on
the west to Mono County on the north.
Total electricity consumption in SCE’s service area was 99,243 gigawatt-hours (GWH) per year in 2013 and is
forecast to increase to 113,612 GWH in 2024 (CEC 2014); one GWH is equivalent to one million kilowatt-
hours. Sources of electricity sold by SCE in 2014, the latest year for which data are available, were:
24 percent renewable, consisting mostly of geothermal and wind
3 percent large hydroelectric
27 percent natural gas
6 percent nuclear
40 percent unspecified sources—that is, not traceable to specific sources (SCE 2015)
Estimated existing electricity demand in the Plan Area is approximately 110 million kilowatt-hours (kWr) per
year, as shown in Table 5.15-12.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-49
Table 5.15-12 Estimated Existing Electricity Demands
Land Use Category Electricity Demands, kWh per year
Plan Area
Residential 70,742,358
Nonresidential 39,391,628
Total 110,133,986
Specific Plan Area
Strip Retail 9,483,110
Daycare 28,221
General Office 444,749
Single-Family Residential 126,987
Low-Rise Apartments 123,010
Total 10,206,077
Source: PlaceWorks 2017: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling, Appendix D to this DEIR.
Specific Plan Area
The conditions above apply to the Specific Plan Area.
Natural Gas
Plan Area
The Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) provides natural gas services to the Plan Area. SCGC’s
service area spans much of the southern half of California, from Imperial County on the southeast to San
Luis Obispo County on the northwest to part of Fresno County on the north to Riverside County and most
of San Bernardino County on the east (CEC 2012). Total supplies of natural gas available to SCGC are
expected to remain stable at 3.875 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd) between 2015 and 2030. Total natural gas
consumption in SCGC’s service area was 2.615 bcfd for 2015 and is forecast to be 2.619 bcfd in 2030 (CGEU
2015).
Existing natural gas demands in the Plan Area are estimated at approximately 4.9 million therms per year, as
shown in Table 5.15-13.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-50 PlaceWorks
Table 5.15-13 Estimated Existing Natural Gas Demands
Land Use Category Natural Gas Demands, therms per year
Plan Area
Residential 3,954,803
Nonresidential 984,352
Total 4,939,155
Specific Plan Area
Strip Retail 10,814
Daycare 470
General Office 3,630
Single-Family Residential 5,518
Low-Rise Apartments 4,985
Total 25,418
Source: PlaceWorks 2017: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling, Appendix D to this DEIR.
Specific Plan Area
The conditions above apply to the Crossroads Specific Plan Area.
5.15.5.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Although not specifically in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the following additional threshold is also
addressed in the impact analysis: a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the
project:
U-8 Would increase demand for other public services or utilities.
5.15.5.3 RELEVANT GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The following are relevant policies of the Mid-Century Plan Land Use and Community Services Elements,
which are designed to reduce potential impacts to utilities from implementation of the Proposed Project.
Land Use Element
LU 7.7 Alternative Fuels. Provide locations for alternative fuel facilities such as electrical re-charging
stations and hydrogen fuel supplies.
LU 7.8 Green Infrastructure. Utilize best practices that reduce natural resource consumption and
impacts, as defined by the Utilities section of this Plan.
Community Services Element
CS 14.1 Adequate Service and Facilities. Coordinate with Southern California Edison (SCE) and
Southern California Gas (SoCal Gas) to continue to supply adequate electricity and natural gas services
and facilities, while also developing strategies to increase the use of renewable energy sources.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-51
CS 14.2 Undergrounding Utilities. Coordinate with SCE to underground overhead utility lines and
encourage new utility lines be constructed underground and/or along existing utility corridors.
CS 14.3 Energy Efficient Design. Encourage site, building, and landscape designs that reduce energy
demands and utilize renewable energy sources.
CS 14.4 Energy Efficiency Audits. Encourage residents, business and property owners, and energy
service providers to perform energy efficiency audits of existing buildings by evaluating, repairing, and
readjusting heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and lighting systems in public facilities, new
development, and redevelopment.
CS 14.5 City Operations. Promote city operations as a model for energy efficiency and green building
and install, as feasible, energy-efficient lighting, appliances, and alternative-energy infrastructure within
City facilities.
CS 14.6 Public Awareness. Cooperate with SCE and SoCal Gas to increase public awareness of
available energy conservation programs (e.g., best practices, energy rebates) to increase energy efficiency
in older neighborhoods and developments.
5.15.5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed
potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 5.15-5: Electricity and natural gas facilities serving the Plan Area would be able to accommodate project-generated utility demands. [Threshold U-8]
Impact Analysis: Following is a discussion of the potential impacts to solid waste disposal capacity as a
result of development that would be accommodated under each component of the Proposed Project.
Electricity
Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan
Forecast electricity demand in the Plan Area at buildout of the Mid-Century Plan is approximately 153.2
million kWh annually, as shown in Table 5.15-14. Total electricity demand in the Crossroads Specific Plan area
at buildout is estimated at about 22.7 million kWh annually. SCE estimates that it will have sufficient
electricity supplies through 2024 to meet buildout electricity demands, and project impacts on electricity
supplies are not anticipated to be significant.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-52 PlaceWorks
Table 5.15-14 Estimated Buildout Electricity Demands
Land Use Category Electricity Demands, kWh per year
Mid-Century Plan
Residential 94,891,858
Nonresidential 58,335,602
Total 153,227,460
Less Existing Demands
(from Table 5.15-12) 110,133,986
Net Increase 43,093,474
Crossroads Specific Plan
Strip Retail 11,077,600
Daycare
General Office 3,538,070
Single-Family Residential 126,987
Mid-Rise Apartments 7,915,700
Total 22,658,357
Less Existing Demands
(from Table 5.15-12) 10,206,077
Net Increase 12,452,280
Source: PlaceWorks 2017: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling, Appendix D to this DEIR
Additionally, the Mid-Century Plan contains policies designed to minimize impacts on electricity supplies. The
detailed list of applicable policies is provided in Section 5.15.5.3, Relevant General Plan Policies, above.
Natural Gas
Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan
Forecast natural gas demand in the Plan Area at buildout of the Mid-Century Plan is approximately 6.8
million therms annually, as shown in Table 5.15-15. Estimated natural gas demand in the Crossroads Specific
Plan area at buildout is estimated as about 301,000 therms annually. SCGC estimates that it will have adequate
natural gas supplies through 2030 to meet buildout demands, and project impacts on natural gas supplies are
not anticipated to be significant.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-53
Table 5.15-15 Estimated Buildout Natural Gas Demands
Land Use Category Natural Gas Demands, therms per year
Mid-Century Plan
Residential 5,304,864
Nonresidential 1,457,740
Total 6,762,605
Less Existing Demands
(from Table 5.15-12)
4,939,155
Net Increase 1,823,450
Crossroads Specific Plan
Strip Retail 12,920
Daycare
General Office 26,934
Single-Family Residential 5,518
Mid-Rise Apartments 255,617
Total 300,989
Less Existing Demands
(from Table 5.15-12)
25,418
Net Increase 275,571
Source: PlaceWorks 2017: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling, Appendix D to this DEIR
Additionally, the Mid-Century Plan contains policies designed to minimize impacts on natural gas supplies.
The detailed list of applicable policies is provided in Section 5.15.5.3, Relevant General Plan Policies, above.
5.15.5.5 EXISTING REGULATIONS
State
Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 6: Energy Efficiency Standards for Buildings
Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 11: California Green Building Standards Code
Title 20, California Code of Regulations, Sections 1601 et seq: Appliance Efficiency Regulations
5.15.5.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION
Upon adherence to regulatory requirements, implementation of the policies contained in the Mid-Century
Plan, and compliance with the provisions of the Crossroads Specific Plan, the following impacts would be
less than significant: 5.15-5.
5.15.5.7 MITIGATION MEASURES
No significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-54 PlaceWorks
5.15.5.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
No significant impacts were identified.
5.15.5.9 REFERENCES
Arcadis. 2016, June. Central Basin Water District 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
https://www.centralbasin.org/sites/default/files/file-
attachment/FINAL%20CBMWD%20UWMP%20June%202016.pdf.
Brown, Edmund G., Jr. (Office of the Governor of California). 2017, April 17. Executive Order B-40-17.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=19748.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2016a, July 20. Jurisdiction
Disposal by Facility.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/Reports/DRS/Destination/JurDspFa.aspx.
———. 2016b, July 20. Facility/Site Summary Details: Mid-Valley Landfill.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/36-AA-0055/Detail/.
———. 2016c, July 20. Facility/Site Summary Details: Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/30-AB-0035/Detail/.
———. 2016d, July 20. Facility/Site Summary Details: San Timoteo Landfill.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/36-AA-0087/Detail/.
———. 2016e, July 20. Facility/Site Summary Details: Frank Bowerman Sanitary Landfill.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/30-AB-0360/Detail/
———. 2016f, July 20. Facility/Site Summary Details: El Sobrante Landfill.
www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/33-AA-0217/Detail/.
———. 2016g, July 20. Facility/Site Summary Details: El Sobrante Landfill.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/33-AA-0217/Detail/.
———. 2016h, July 20. Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Progress
Report.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/reports/diversionprogram/JurisdictionDiversionPost2006.
aspx.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2014, December. California Energy Demand Updated Forecast, 2015-
2025. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2014publications/CEC-200-2014-009/CEC-200-2014-009-SF-
REV.pdf.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2012a. California Natural Gas Detailed Utility Service Areas.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/serviceareas/natural_gas_detailed_service_areas.pdf.
California Gas and Electric Utilities (CGEU). 2015, July 14. 2015 California Gas Report Supplement.
http://www.pge.com/pipeline_resources/pdf/library/regulatory/downloads/cgr15.pdf.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
June 2017 Page 5.15-55
Civiltec Engineering, Inc. 2016, June. Sunny Slope Water Company 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
http://www.sunnyslopewatercompany.com/s/SSWC-2015-UWMP-Final.pdf.
East Pasadena Water Company. 2016, April 28. 2015 Consumer Confidence Report.
http://media.wix.com/ugd/2aff6e_48c6d221eb9640d798b249151bbeea26.pdf.
East Pasadena Water Company. 2017, June 15. Water Restrictions.
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/2aff6e_657cd0f8e475445f9967df8ad66ca386.pdf.
Executive Department, State of California. 2016, May 9. Executive Order B-37-16.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/docs/5.9.16_Executive_Order.pdf.
Golden State Water Company (GSWC). 2016, July 20. Drought Information.
http://www.gswater.com/drought/.
Golden State Water Company (GSWC). 2017, June 15. Conservation. http://www.gswater.com/san-gabriel/.
Kennedy-Jenks Consultants. 2016, July. Golden State Water Company South Arcadia 2015 Urban Water
Management Plan. http://www.gswater.com/download/SouthArcadia_2015_UWMP-Final-
Draft.pdf.
Maas, Karen (Administrative Assistant/ Conservation Coordinator). 2016, October 21. Comment Letter on
Notice of Preparation for City of Temple City GPU EIR.
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD). 2017a, January 13. San Jose Creek Water Reclamation
Plant. http://www.lacsd.org/wastewater/wwfacilities/joint_outfall_system_wrp/san_jose_creek.asp.
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD). 2017b, January 13. Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation
Plant.
http://www.lacsd.org/wastewater/wwfacilities/joint_outfall_system_wrp/whittier_narrows.asp.
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD). 2017c, January 13. Discharge Limits.
http://www.lacsd.org/wastewater/industrial_waste/iwpolicies/discharge_limits.asp.
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD). 2016, March 23. Districts Map.
http://www.lacsd.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=4445.
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). 2016a, November 10. F. E. Weymouth
Treatment Plant. http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/plants/weymouth01.html.
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). 2016b, October 27. Production Records, 2015,
MWD Treatment Plants.
National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC). 2016, July 20. United States Drought Monitor: California: July
12, 2016. http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA.
Pasadena, City of. 2017. Pasadena Water and Power.
http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/waterandpower/waterwaste/.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
5. Environmental Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Page 5.15-56 PlaceWorks
RMC Water and Environment. 2016, June. Pasadena Water & Power 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
http://www.cityofpasadena.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/Water_and_Power/PDF/2015%20UW
MP_Final%20Compiled%20with%20Appendices(1).pdf
Southern California Edison (SCE). 2015, November 18. Power Content Label: 2014.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sb1305/labels/2013_labels/IOUs/Southern_California_Edison_2013.pd
f.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2015, May 5. Resolution No. 2015-0032 To Adopt an
Emergency Regulation for Statewide Urban Water Conservation.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/docs/emergency_reg
ulations/rs2015_0032_with_adopted_regs.pdf.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2015, July 15. Urban Water Supplier Conservation Tiers.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/docs/supplier_tiers.p
df.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2017, January 6. Notice of Public Workshop: Urban Water
Conservation.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/docs/2017jan/notice
_urban_water.pdf.
Stetson Engineers, Inc. 2016a, May. San Gabriel County Water District 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
http://sgcwd.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/UWMP_Final_Draft.pdf.
Stetson Engineers, Inc. 2016b, May 11. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster Report on Final Determination
of Operating Safe Yield for 2016-17 Through 2020-2021.
http://media.wix.com/ugd/af1ff8_38ef4a25133042f4b97f9952adb7128b.pdf.
US Geological Survey (USGS). 2016, December 19. NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species: Dreissena
rostriformis bugensis. https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=95#.
Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (WSC). 2016, June 30. Final 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the
Southern Division – Los Angeles County District, California American Water.
https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/public/uwmp_attachments/6452893912/Final%20Los%20Angeles%
20County%20District%202015%20Urban%20Water%20Management%20Plan.pdf.
June 2017 Page 6-1
6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Chapter 1, Executive Summary, contains Table 1-2, which summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and
levels of significance before and after mitigation. While mitigation measures would reduce the level of
impact, the following impacts would remain significant, unavoidable, and adverse after mitigation measures
are applied:
Air Quality
Impact 5.2-1:
Mid-Century Plan
The Mid-Century Plan would be inconsistent with the SCAQMD AQMP because buildout under the
plan would exceed the population and employment estimates assumed for the AQMP and would
cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Incorporation of Mitigation
Measures AQ -1 and AQ-4 into future development projects for operation and construction phases
described in Impacts 5.2-2 and 5.2-3, below, would contribute to reduced criteria air pollutant emissions
associated with buildout of the Mid-Century Plan. Additionally, goals and policies included in the Mid-
Century Plan would promote increased capacity for alternative transportation modes and implementation
of transportation demand management strategies. However, due to the magnitude and scale of the land
uses that would be developed, no mitigation measures are available that would reduce operation and
construction impacts below SCAQMD thresholds. In addition, the population and employment
assumptions of the AQMP would continue to be exceeded until the AQMP is revised and incorporates
the projections of the Mid-Century Plan. Therefore, in regard to the Mid-Century Plan, Impact 5.2-1
would remain significant and unavoidable.
Crossroads Specific Plan
The policies and design guidelines of the Crossroads Specific Plan would help minimize criteria air
pollutant emissions from transportation and energy use. Additionally, Mitigation Measures AQ-2, AQ-3,
and AQ-5 through AQ-8 applied for Impact 5.2-2 and Impact 5.2-3, would reduce the specific plan’s
regional construction-related and operational phase criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible.
However, given the potential increase in growth and associated increase in criteria air pollutant emissions,
the Crossroads Specific Plan would continue to be potentially inconsistent with the assumptions in the
AQMP. Therefore, in regard to the Crossroads Specific Plan, Impact 5.2-1 would remain significant and
unavoidable.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Page 6-2 PlaceWorks
Impact 5.2-2:
Mid-Century Plan
Buildout of the Mid-Century Plan would occur over a period of approximately 17 to 18 years or longer.
Construction activities associated with buildout of the Mid-Century Plan could generate short-term
emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’S significance thresholds during this time and cumulatively
contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-
1 would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions from construction-related activities to the extent feasible.
However, construction time frames and equipment for site-specific development projects are not
available at this time and there is a potential for multiple development projects to be constructed at any
one time, resulting in significant construction-related emissions. Therefore, despite adherence to
Mitigation Measure AQ-1, Impact 5.2-2 as it pertains to the Mid-Century Plan would remain significant
and unavoidable.
Crossroads Specific Plan
As with the Mid-Century Plan, buildout under the Crossroads Specific Plan would also likely occur over a
period of 17 years or longer. Incorporation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and AQ -3 would contribute in
minimizing construction-related emissions associated with the individual development projects
accommodated under the Crossroads Specific Plan. However, similar to the Mid-Century Plan, as
construction time frames and equipment for individual site-specific development projects are not
available, there is a potential for multiple developments to be constructed at any one time that could
result in significant construction-related emissions. Therefore, despite adherence to Mitigation Measures
AQ-2 and AQ-3, Impact 5.2-2 as it pertains to the Crossroads Specific Plan would remain significant and
unavoidable.…
Impact 5.2-3:
Mid-Century Plan
Buildout in accordance with the Mid-Century Plan would generate long-term emissions that would
exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment
designations of the SoCAB. Mitigation Measure AQ-4, in addition to the goals and policies of the Mid-
Century Plan, would reduce air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. The measures and policies
covering topics such as expansion of the pedestrian and bicycle networks, promotion of public and active
transit, and support to increase building energy efficiency and energy conservation would also reduce
criteria air pollutants within the Plan Area. However, due to the magnitude of emissions generated by
residential and nonresidential land uses, no mitigation measures are available that would reduce impacts
below SCAQMD’s thresholds. Therefore, Impact 5.2-3 would remain significant and unavoidable.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
June 2017 Page 6-3
Crossroads Specific Plan
Implementation of the Crossroads Specific Plan’s policies and design guidelines, in addition to Mitigation
Measures AQ-5 through AQ-8, would reduce operation-related criteria air pollutants generated from
energy, stationary, and mobile sources to the extent feasible. However, despite implementation of the
policies and design guidelines and adherence to these mitigation measures, Impact 5.2-3 would remain
significant and unavoidable due to the magnitude of land use development associated with the
Crossroads Specific Plan.
Impact 5.2-5:
Mid-Century Plan
Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-4 (applied for Impacts 5.2-2 and 5.2-3, respectively) would reduce the
regional construction and operation emissions associated with buildout of the Mid-Century Plan and
therefore, also result in a reduction of localized construction- and operation-related criteria air pollutant
emissions to the extent feasible. However, because existing sensitive receptors may be close to project-
related construction activities and large emitters of onsite operation-related criteria air pollutant
emissions, construction and operation emissions generated by individual development projects have the
potential to exceed SCAQMD’s LSTs. Impact 5.2-5, in regard to the Mid-Century Plan, would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Crossroads Specific Plan
Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and AQ-3 (applied for Impact 5.2-2) would reduce the Crossroad Specific
Plan’s regional construction emissions and therefore, also result in a reduction of localized construction-
related criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However, because existing sensitive receptors
may be close to project-related construction activities, construction emissions generated by individual
development projects have the potential to exceed SCAQMD’s LSTs. Mitigation Measure AQ-10 requires
preparation of a construction air quality analysis for discretionary projects subject to CEQA if they are
within 25 meters of a sensitive use. However, because of the scale of development activity associated
with buildout of the Crossroads Specific Plan, it is not possible to determine whether the scale and
phasing of individual development projects would result in the exceedance of the localized emissions
thresholds and contribute to known health effects. Therefore, Impact 5.2-5, in regard to construction-
related localized impacts associated with buildout of the Crossroads Specific Plan would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Cultural Resources
Impact 5.3-1:
Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Page 6-4 PlaceWorks
Implementation of mitigation measures set forth above would minimize impacts to historical resources.
However, implementation of the Specific Plan would occur over a number of years and buildings and
structures may become historic during Specific Plan buildout. Additionally, if a future site-specific
development project has met the requirements of CUL-1 and determines that retention or onsite
relocation of the historical resource is not feasible and demolition is allowed to occur, a significant and
unavoidable impact to historical resources would occur.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 5.5-1:
Crossroads Specific Plan
The Crossroads Specific Plan would improve GHG efficiency from 7.59 MTCO2e/year/SP to 3.95
MTCO2e/year/SP, meaning that its implementation would be consistent with local, regional, and state
objectives to increase density along transportation corridors. Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation
Measures AQ-5 through AQ-8 in addition to the Crossroad’s Specific Plan’s policies and design guidelines
would further reduce GHG emissions from stationary and mobile sources to the extent feasible. For
example, Crossroads Policies 1, 5, and 6 focus on mixed used and active transit infrastructure
development, which would contribute in reducing mobile-source GHG emissions. In addition, Mitigation
Measure AQ-6, which prescribes a TDM program, and Mitigation Measures AQ-7 and AQ-7, which
focus on amenities for alternative fueled vehicles and bicycle transit, would contribute in reducing
mobile-source emissions. Crossroads Policy 4 focuses on water and energy conservation, which would
contribute in reducing GHG emissions from the energy sector. While these mitigation measures would
help to offset the increase in energy-related and transportation-related GHG emissions, additional federal
and state measures would be necessary to transform California’s energy economy and reduce GHG
emissions enough to achieve the mid-term GHG reduction target of SB 32, which identified a mid-term
target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030. Although the 2030 Target Scoping
Plan is being prepared by CARB, which will include additional statewide strategies to achieve the 2030
target under SB 32, there is currently no adopted statewide plan past 2020 that achieves the mid-term
GHG reduction target of SB 32 or a plan to achieve the even more aggressive target identified in
Executive Order S-03-05 for which the state cannot meet without major advancements in technology
(CCST 2012). Since no additional federal or state measures are currently available that would ensure that
the Crossroads Specific Plan could achieve the 2035 target, Impact 5.5-1 would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Noise
Impact 5.10-2:
Mid Century Plan
Construction activities associated with development in accordance with the Proposed Project could
expose sensitive land uses to strong levels of short-term groundborne vibration that potentially exceed
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
June 2017 Page 6-5
the FTA vibration criteria for both damage and annoyance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1
would minimize vibration-induced architectural impacts related to construction activities and ensure that
vibration levels at sensitive receptors are below the FTA vibration-induced architectural damage
significance criteria. Therefore, architectural damage impacts due to construction-generated vibration
would be reduced to less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-2 would minimize vibration annoyance impacts related to
construction activities. However, due to the specific circumstances of future development projects,
construction-related vibration annoyance impacts may still occur. Therefore, while architectural damage
impacts would be reduced, Impact 5.10-2 would remain significant and unavoidable due to the potential
for vibration annoyance impacts.
Impact 5.10-3:
Mid Century Plan
Construction activities related to buildout of individual land uses associated with the Proposed Project
could substantially elevate noise levels in the vicinity of noise-sensitive land uses. It is anticipated that the
majority of future development projects would not result in significant construction-related noise
impacts with implementation of Mitigation Measure N-3. However, due to the unknown number of
construction activities that could occur at one time, proximity of construction activities to sensitive
receptors, the length of activities, and other factors that cannot be quantified at this time, construction-
related noise impacts may not be reduced to less than significant levels for some projects. Therefore,
Impact 5.10-3 would remain significant and unavoidable.
Recreation
Impact 5.12-1:
Mid Century Plan
Goals and policies are included in the Mid-Century Plan that would help reduce impacts on park and
recreational facilities as a result of future development that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century
Plan. Additionally, the Crossroads Specific Plan includes development standards that require that a certain
percentage of usable open space be provided with new development projects—it also includes a number
of design guidelines regarding park, open space recreational areas and uses. However, considering the
City’s current parkland deficit and that the acquisition of new parkland cannot be guaranteed to meet the
needs of future growth through the Mid-Century Plan policies or implementation of park fees collected
by the City, Impact 5.12 1 would remain significant and unavoidable.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Page 6-6 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
June 2017 Page 7-1
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.1.1 Purpose and Scope
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an environmental impact report (EIR)
include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives
of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the
comparative merits of the alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6[a]). As required by CEQA, this chapter
identifies and evaluates potential alternatives to the Proposed Project.
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines explains the foundation and legal requirements for the alter natives
analysis in an EIR. Key provisions are:
“[T]he discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are
capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these
alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more
costly.” (15126.6[b])
“The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact.” (15126.6[e][1])
“The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is
published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced,
as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not
approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If
the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” (15126.6[e][2])
“The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to
set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to
ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” (15126.6[f])
“Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site
suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or
regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries…, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire,
control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)”
(15126.6[f][1]).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Page 7-2 PlaceWorks
“Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need
be considered for inclusion in the EIR.” (15126.6[f][2][A])
“An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose
implementation is remote and speculative.” (15126.6[f][3])
For each development alternative, this analysis:
Describes the alterative.
Analyzes the impact of the alternative as compared to the Proposed Project.
Identifies the impacts of the project that would be avoided or lessened by the alternative.
Assesses whether the alternative would meet most of the basic project objectives.
Evaluates the comparative merits of the alternative and the project.
According to Section 15126.6(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, “[i]f an alternative would cause…significant
effects in addition those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the
alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed.”
7.1.2 Project Objectives
As described in Section 3.2, the City established the objectives listed below for the Temple City 2050 Mid-
Century General Plan (Mid-Century Plan) to aid decision makers in their review of the project and associated
environmental impacts. The objectives incorporate the vision and guiding principles established for the Mid-
Century Plan.
Objective 1: Provide a Land Use Element that targets growth to serve the community’s needs and
enhances the quality of life. Direct higher density development within the Crossroads Specific Plan and
downtown areas and away from established residential neighborhoods.
Objective 2: Provide safe, well-designed, accessible, and human-scale residential, commercial, and mix-
use development within the Crossroads Specific Plan and downtown areas where people of all ages can
live, work, shop, and play, including public and semi-public open spaces.
Objective 3: Promote distinct local and regional activity centers, sub-districts, and cultural destinations
within the Crossroads Specific Plan and downtown areas.
Objective 4: Reduce vehicle miles traveled for the City and region by providing a diverse housing stock,
job opportunities, and distinct sub-districts with commercial and entertainment uses, and transit
opportunities within the Crossroads Specific Plan and downtown areas.
Objective 5: Ensure new development builds upon Temple City’s tradition of strong sense of place and
great neighborhoods.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
June 2017 Page 7-3
Objective 6: Help encourage a strong business community that is invested in maintaining the positive
image of Temple City, especially along its corridors and downtown.
Objective 7: Provide a General Plan that establishes the goals and policies to create a socially-,
economically-, and environmentally-sustainable community.
Objective 8: Ensure that Temple City continues to be a safe, vibrant place to live, work and visit by
providing City services that match the needs of the community and promote community engagement.
Objective 9: Be forward thinking and embrace sustainability, innovation, and technology to continually
improve the City.
Objective 10: Cultivate a special sense and quality of place that sets Temple City apart from its
neighboring cities.
Objective 11: Incorporate new goals, policies, and programs that balance multiple modes of
transportation and meet the requirements of the Complete Streets Act.
Objective 12: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage walking, biking, transit, and other
alternatives to motor vehicles by creating strategies to encourage nonautomotive travel and protect
residential neighborhoods consistent with AB 32, SB 375, and SB 743.
7.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE
SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
The following is a discussion of the land use alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process
and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in this EIR.
7.2.1 Alternative Development Areas
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are
capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. The key question and first
step in the analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially
lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any
of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines
§ 15126[5][B][1]). In general, any development of the size and type proposed by the Project would have
substantially the same impacts on air quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public
services, recreation, transportation and traffic and utilities and service systems. Without a site specific analysis,
impacts on aesthetics, cultural resources, geology, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality,
and tribal cultural resources cannot be evaluated. More importantly, the Proposed Project is the General Plan
Update for the City of Temple City. Therefore, the Project is necessarily limited to the City of Temple City
and its sphere of influence (SOI), since the City does not have the authority to impose policies outside its
boundaries. Therefore, no alternative sites were considered.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Page 7-4 PlaceWorks
7.2.2 No-Growth Alternative
The City of Temple City is primarily built out and there are relatively few remaining vacant parcels.
Consequently, the land use changes associated with the Proposed Project focus on select areas that have the
potential for redevelopment.
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are
capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. A no growth alternative
would eliminate impacts associated with historical resources, construction-related noise, and recreation.
However, the significant impact identified for GHG emissions would continue to occur because the state has
set a goal to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels, which requires substantial changes in the
sources of energy and new technologies that are not yet available.
More importantly, the No Growth Alternative was considered and rejected, because growth is allowed under
the current General Plan and there is no way to limit development within the City to its current extent. The
No Growth Alternative would not achieve any of the objectives established for the Proposed Project and
would not be consistent with the regional growth forecasts or be in compliance with the adopted housing
element pursuant to state law. Therefore, the No Growth Alternative is eliminated from further consideration.
7.3 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
Based on the criteria listed above, the following four alternatives have been determined to represent a
reasonable range of alternatives which have the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the
project but which may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. These
alternatives are analyzed in detail in the following sections.
No Project/Current General Plan Alternative (Alternative A)
Mid-Century Plan Without Specific Plan Alternative (Alternative B)
Modified Residential Alternative (Alternative C)
Modified Mixed-Use and Residential Alternative (Alternative D)
An EIR must identify an “environmentally superior” alternative and where the No Project Alternative is
identified as environmentally superior, the EIR is then required to identify as environmentally superior an
alternative from among the others evaluated. Each alternative's environmental impacts are compared to the
Proposed Project and determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. However, only those
impacts found significant and unavoidable are used in making the final determination of whether an
alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the Proposed Project. Impacts involving air quality,
cultural resources, noise, recreation, and traffic were found to be significant and unavoidable. Section 7.7
identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
June 2017 Page 7-5
7.3.1 Alternatives Comparison
The following statistical analysis provides a summary of general socioeconomic build-out projections
determined by the four land use alternatives, including the Proposed Project. It is important to note that these
are not growth projections. That is, they do not anticipate what is likely to occur by a certain time horizon,
but rather provide a build-out scenario that would only occur if all the areas of the City were to develop to
the probable capacities yielded by the land use alternatives. The following statistics were developed as a tool
to understand better the difference between the alternatives analyzed in the DEIR. Table 7-1 identifies City-
wide information regarding dwelling unit, population and employment projections, and also provides the jobs
to housing ratio for each of the alternatives.
Table 7-1 Buildout Statistical Summary
Proposed Project
No Project/Current General Plan Alternative (Alternative A)
Mid-Century Plan Without Specific Plan Alternative (Alternative B)
Modified Residential Alternative (Alternative C)
Modified Mixed-Use and Residential Alternative (Alternative D)
Dwelling Units 20,520 17,529 18,675 19,334 20,520
Population 59,228 53,243 55,580 55,805 59,228
Nonresidential Square
Footage 3,867,597 3,318,313 3,440,046 3,867,597 3,867,597
Employment 9,854 8,088 8,876 8,876 9,854
Jobs-to-Housing Ratio 0.48 0.46 0.47 0.46 0.48
7.4 NO PROJECT/CURRENT GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE
(ALTERNATIVE A)
Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate and analyze the impacts of the
“No-Project” Alternative. When the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy,
or ongoing operation, the no-project alternative is the continuation of the plan, policy, or operation into the
future.
Under the No Project/Current General Plan Alternative (Alternative A), neither of the Proposed Project’s
components—the Mid-Century Plan or Crossroads Specific Plan—would be implemented as proposed. The
current (1987) Temple City General Plan (1987 General Plan), including land use designations shown in
Figure 4-2, Current General Plan Land Use Diagram, would remain in effect and would not undergo any updates.
All elements and policies contained in the 1987 General Plan would remain as is. It should be noted that the
1987 General Plan does not addresses the same overall geographic boundaries as the Mid-Century Plan, as
the 1987 General Plan did not include the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). In contrast, the area covered
under the Mid-Century Plan (the Plan Area) does include the SOI.
Buildout statistics for the 1987 General Plan and proposed Mid-Century Plan are compared in Table 7-1.
Development in accordance with the 1987 General Plan would continue to occur, allowing for a total of
17,529 residential units, 53,243 residents, 3,318,313 square feet of nonresidential uses, and 8,088 jobs,
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Page 7-6 PlaceWorks
resulting in a jobs-to-housing ratio of 0.46. As shown in the table, the No Project/Current General Plan
Alternative A allows for 2,991 less residential units and 549,284 less square feet of nonresidential uses than
what would occur under buildout of the Mid-Century Plan.
7.4.1 Aesthetics
Buildout of the 1987 General Plan would result in 2,991 fewer residential units and 549,284 fewer square feet
of nonresidential development than the Mid-Century Plan, and the Crossroads Specific Plan would not be
implemented as part of Alternative A. Although growth allowed under the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads
Specific Plan would result in a change to the visual appearance of the City, this change would be incremental
and would, overall, represent a beneficial change. The vision and guiding principles of the two plans identify
enhancement and preservation of community character as high priorities. The Proposed Project also involves
the introduction of mixed uses in areas that currently feature a single land use and targeted increases in
allowable residential and nonresidential intensity in the Crossroads Specific Plan Area and City’s downtown
area. Further, much of the beneficial aspects of the Crossroads Specific Plan, such as creating a vibrant,
mixed -use community; increasing access to retail, services, entertainment and jobs; enhancing mobility and
complete streets; and planning a well-designed community with compatible landscaping, streetscape, public
art, signage and lighting would not be implemented.
Thus, future development based on the current land use designations from the 1987 General Plan would have
a greater aesthetic impact than that of the Proposed Project.
7.4.2 Air Quality
Future projects in accordance with the 1987 General Plan would result in 2,991 fewer residential units and
549,284 fewer square feet of nonresidential development compared to the Proposed Project. Thus, project-
related daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated mobile-source emissions would be reduced.
Furthermore, stationary-source emissions would be reduced because there would be less residential and
nonresidential development. A reduction in development would also reduce short-term emissions related to
project construction activities. Although this alternative would reduce both long- and short-term pollutant
emissions, it would not eliminate significant short- and long-term criteria air pollutant emissions that would
exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) regional significance thresholds and
localized significance thresholds. However, it would be consistent with SCAQMD’s air quality management
plan (AQMP) since population and employment assumptions used to develop the regional emissions
inventory in the latest AQMP are based on the existing General Plan. In comparison to the Proposed Project,
this alternative would reduce mobile- and stationary-source emissions and criteria air pollutants from
construction and operation activities, and eliminate one significant and unavoidable impact related to
consistency with the AQMP.
7.4.3 Cultural Resources
As stated above, the 1987 General Plan does not include the City’s SOI while the Mid-Century Plan does
include it. Therefore, the development footprint of the Proposed Project is approximately 527 acres larger
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
June 2017 Page 7-7
than the 1987 General Plan. Future development in accordance with Alternative A would have less residential
and nonresidential development on a smaller development footprint. Therefore, the potential to impact
cultural resources, including historic buildings constructed more than 50 years ago or previously undiscovered
archaeological and paleontological resources would be reduced under this alternative. However, due to the
potential redevelopment of older buildings that may be designated as historic, impacts to historic resources
would remain significant and unavoidable.
7.4.4 Geology and Soils
The development footprint of the 1987 General Plan is 527 acres smaller than the Proposed Project and
would allow 2,991 fewer residential units and 549,284 fewer square feet of nonresidential development
compared to the Proposed Project. Therefore, potential for exposing people or structures to geologic hazards
or substantially increasing soil erosion or topsoil loss would be reduced.
7.4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Both the Proposed Project and Alternative A would be consistent with the California Air Resources Control
Board’s (CARB) Scoping Plan, Southern California Association of Governments’ 2016-2040 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and the Temple City Energy Action Plan
(EAP).
However, buildout of the 1987 General Plan would result in less residential and nonresidential development
than the Proposed Project, thus reducing GHG emissions from area sources and vehicle trips generated by
development projects. Implementation of mitigation measures under both scenarios would help to offset the
increase in energy-related and transportation-related GHG emissions; however, additional federal and state
measures would be necessary to achieve the mid-term GHG reduction target of Senate Bill (SB) 32—
reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030. Since no additional federal or state measures
are currently available, GHG impacts of the Proposed Project and Alternative A would remain significant
and unavoidable.
7.4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative A has a smaller development footprint than the Proposed Project because the 1987 General Plan
does not include buildout of the City’s 527-acre SOI. Additionally, buildout of the current General Plan
would have 2,991 fewer residential units and 549,284 fewer square feet of nonresidential development. Less
development under Alternative A would proportionally reduce potential impacts related to hazards and
hazardous materials. For example, it is likely that fewer existing, older homes (i.e., constructed prior to 1995)
would be demolished under Alternative A and thus, there would be less of a potential for the release of lead,
asbestos-containing materials, or contaminated soils from demolition and construction activities. Overall,
development in accordance with the current General Plan would have a reduced impact on hazards and
hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Page 7-8 PlaceWorks
7.4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Development in accordance with the Proposed Project and current General Plan would have similar
hydrology and water quality impacts. Any development project under either plan would require adherence to
the provisions of the City’s requirements for permeable areas and landscaping; the City’s technical guidance
document which require low impact development (LID) measures; the NPDES requirement for a General
Construction Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and associated best management practices
(BMPs); and the County’s MS4 permit and LID requirements. Impacts would be similar and less than
significant under both scenarios.
7.4.8 Land Use and Relevant Planning
California Government Code, Sections 65300 et seq., requires that cities and counties prepare and adopt
general plans. This alternative would leave the current 1987 General Plan in place rather than updating it. The
current General Plan is not consistent with new or updated state and local planning laws such as the
California Complete Streets Act of 2008 and the SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. The Complete Streets Act of
2008 requires that cities plan for a multimodal transportation network that serves motorized and non-
motorized modes of transportation, and the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS encourages three principles that
collectively work as the key to the region’s future —mobility, economy, and sustainability. As such, Temple
City’s proposed street system is designed to be a high quality and comprehensive street network, designed in a
way that encourages and promotes bicycling and walking as viable and alternative means of transportation.
Goals and policies in the proposed Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan address the need to
establish an interconnected network of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure that is safe, efficient and
accessible. Comprehensive transit services related to mobility, connectivity, and safety are also addressed.
Since the current General Plan was prepared in 1987, these new state planning laws would not be reflected.
Thus, land use impacts would be greater under this alternative in comparison to that of the Proposed Project.
7.4.9 Noise
Development in accordance with Alternative A would result in 2,991 fewer residential units and 549,284
fewer square feet of nonresidential development. Therefore, construction and operational noise impacts of
this alternative would be less than the Proposed Project. While operational noise impacts would be similarly
less than significant, construction noise and vibration impacts would remain significant and unavoidable due
to vibration annoyance impacts and potential for construction activities to occur at the same time near
sensitive receptors.
7.4.10 Population and Housing
Buildout of Alternative A would result in 2,991 fewer dwelling units, 5,985 fewer residents and 1,766 fewer
jobs than the Proposed Project. Thus, population and housing impacts would be reduced compared to the
Proposed Project. Nevertheless, the increase in population and housing of both the Proposed Project and
Alternative A compared to the 2035 SCAG projections is not anticipated to result in a substantial adverse
impact. Thus, impacts would be similarly less than significant.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
June 2017 Page 7-9
7.4.11 Public Services
This alternative would reduce development potential of residential and nonresidential development.
Therefore, it would proportionally reduce demand for public services, including fire and emergency, police,
school and library services. Impacts would similarly be less than significant.
7.4.12 Recreation
Alternative A would introduce 5,985 fewer residents in the Plan Area compared to the Proposed Project.
Using the City’s parkland goal of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents, this alternative would require approximately 18
fewer acres than the Proposed Project (49 additional acres). Thus, impacts to existing parks, open space areas
and recreational facilities would be reduced. However, the Plan Area is almost completely built out and there
is no space for new parkland. Although impacts would be reduced, they would remain significant and
unavoidable.
7.4.13 Transportation and Traffic
Buildout of the 1987 General Plan without the Crossroads Specific Plan would result in 2,991 fewer
residential units and 549,284 fewer square feet of nonresidential development, thus reducing average daily
trips and impacts to roadway and intersection levels of service. However, this alternative would not
implement a number of beneficial elements that would occur under the Proposed Project, including
enhancements to the Plan Area’s mobility and streetscape and complete streets network. The Mid-Century
Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan include a number of goals and policies and development standards that
would enhance the City’s transportation system for vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users that the
1987 General Plan does not address. Thus, overall transportation and traffic impacts would balance out to
similar effect and be less than significant.
7.4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources
Native American tribes did not identify any tribal cultural resources in the Plan Area and no sites were
documented in the Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File search conducted for the Plan
Area. Additionally, there are no sites or properties in the Plan Area that are listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources. Thus, since the 1987
General Plan development footprint is within the proposed Plan Area, impacts to tribal cultural resources
would be similarly less than significant
However, because Alternative A has a smaller development footprint than the Proposed Project, less ground
disturbance activities associated with future development projects would occur and potential to damage
previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources would be reduced. Thus, impacts would be reduced and be
less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Page 7-10 PlaceWorks
7.4.15 Utilities and Service Systems
Combined, the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan would generate approximately 4.5 million
gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater and 216,877 pounds per day (ppd) of solid waste, 6.0 mgd of water
demand.
Using the same wastewater and solid waste generation rates and water demand rates, the reduced
development potential of Alternative A (buildout of the 1987 General Plan without the Crossroads Specific
Plan) would generate approximately 3.4 mgd of wastewater, 161,505 ppd of solid waste1, and 4.6 mgd of
water demand. Thus, impacts to wastewater, water, and solid waste would be reduced. Additionally,
stormwater runoff and electricity/natural gas demand would proportionally decrease with the decrease in
development potential. Overall, impacts would be reduced and less than significant. Mitigation requiring site
specific flow tests to determine wastewater pipeline capacities would still be required to mitigate wastewater
impacts to less than significant levels.
7.4.16 Conclusion
Ability to Reduce Environmental Impacts
The No Project/Current General Plan (Alternative A) would reduce impacts to air quality (construction and
operations), cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials,
noise (construction and operations), population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural
resources, and utilities and service systems. Aesthetics and land use and planning impacts would be greater
than the Proposed Project while hydrology and water quality, and transportation and traffic impacts would be
similar.
This alternative would also eliminate significant and unavoidable impacts of the project on air quality (AQMP
consistency).
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
Alternative A would develop Temple City based on the outdated 1987 General Plan and would not
implement the Crossroads Specific Plan. Thus, it would not provide an updated Land Use Element and direct
higher density in the Specific Plan area (Objective 1); provide well-designed, accessible, and human-scale
mixed use development in the Specific Plan and downtown areas (Objective 2); promote distinct local and
regional activity centers, sub-districts, and cultural destinations within the Crossroads Specific Plan and
downtown areas (Objective 3); reduce vehicle miles traveled for the City and region by providing a diverse
housing stock, job opportunities, distinct commercial and entertainment districts, and transit opportunities
within the Crossroads Specific Plan and downtown areas (Objective 4); provide a General Plan that
establishes the goals and policies to create a socially-, economically-, and environmentally-sustainable
community (Objective 7); be forward thinking and embrace sustainability, innovation, and technology
(Objective 9); incorporate new goals, policies, and programs that balance multiple modes of transportation
1 Solid waste generation factors for residential (single-family and multifamily) and nonresidential (commercial and general
commercial; mixed use; and industrial) development under Alternative A were taken as an average for each category.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
June 2017 Page 7-11
and meet the requirements of the Complete Streets Act (Objective 11); and reduce GHG and encourage
alternative modes of travel consistent with AB 32, SB 375, and SB 743 (Objective 12).
Goals and policies of the 1987 General Plan has the ability to ensure new development builds upon Temple
City’s strong sense of place and great neighborhoods (Objective 5); encourage a strong business community
(Objective 6); ensure the continuance of a safe, vibrant place to live, work and visit (Objective 8); and
cultivate a special sense and quality of place in Temple City (Objective 10). However, it would not be able to
achieve these objectives to the same degree as the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan.
7.5 MID-CENTURY PLAN WITHOUT SPECIFIC PLAN (ALTERNATIVE B)
This alternative was evaluated for its potential to reduce short-term, construction-related air quality,
greenhouse gas emissions, and noise impacts; long-term operational air quality and greenhouse gas emissions
impacts; cultural and recreation impacts that would occur under the Proposed Project.
The Mid-Century Plan Without Specific Plan Alternative would be similar to the Mid-Century Plan, wherein
the land use designations of the areas outside of the Specific Plan Area would remain as proposed and shown
in Figure 3-4, Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram. However, the properties within the boundaries of the
area covered under the Crossroads Specific Plan (Specific Plan Area) would retain the existing land use
designations of the 1987 General Plan (see Figure 4-2, Current General Plan Land Use Diagram), which include
Commercial (comprises the vast majority of the Specific Plan Area), Low, Medium and High Density
Residential, and Institutional. Therefore, the Mixed-Use land use designation proposed for the Specific Plan
Area under the Proposed Project would not be implemented and auto-oriented commercial uses would
continue to dominate the area.
As shown in Table 7-1, Alternative B would allow for a total of 18,675 residential units, 55,580 residents,
3,440,046 square feet of nonresidential uses, and 8,876 jobs, resulting in a jobs-to-housing ratio of 0.47. As
shown in the table, Alternative B allows for 1,845 fewer residential units and 427,551 fewer square feet of
nonresidential uses than what would occur under buildout of the Mid-Century Plan.
7.5.1 Aesthetics
Buildout of Alternative B would result in 1,845 fewer residential units and 427,551 fewer square feet of
nonresidential uses than what would occur under buildout of the Mid-Century Plan. Under this alternative
the Mid-Century Plan would be adopted, but the Crossroads Specific Plan would not be implemented.
Therefore for areas outside of the Specific Plan, aesthetic impacts would remain the same and less than
significant.
With respect to the Specific Plan area, the land use designations from the 1987 General Plan would remain.
Although growth allowed under the Crossroads Specific Plan would result in a change to the visual
appearance of the Specific Plan area, this change would be incremental and would, overall, represent a
beneficial change. The development standards and design guidelines in the Specific Plan identify
enhancement and preservation of community character as high priorities. Further, much of the beneficial
aspects of the Crossroads Specific Plan, such as creating a vibrant, mixed-use community; increasing access to
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Page 7-12 PlaceWorks
retail, services, entertainment and jobs; enhancing mobility and complete streets; and planning a well-designed
community with compatible landscaping, streetscape, public art, signage and lighting would not be
implemented. Thus, future development based on the current land use designations from the 1987 General
Plan for the Specific Plan area would have a greater aesthetic impact than that of the Proposed Project.
7.5.2 Air Quality
Future projects in accordance with Alternative B would result in 1,845 fewer residential units and 427,551
fewer square feet of nonresidential development compared to the Proposed Project. Thus, project-related
total daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated mobile-source emissions would be reduced. However,
this alternative would reduce internal trip capture (which reduces average daily trips) and increase VMT per
capita by eliminating the mixed use component of the Specific Plan area.
Furthermore, stationary-source emissions would be reduced because there would be less residential and
nonresidential development. A reduction in development would also reduce short-term emissions related to
project construction activities. Although this alternative would reduce both long- and short-term pollutant
emissions, it would not eliminate significant short- and long-term criteria air pollutant emissions that would
exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) regional significance thresholds and
localized significance thresholds. In comparison to the Proposed Project, this alternative would reduce
mobile- and stationary-source emissions and criteria air pollutants from construction and operation activities.
7.5.3 Cultural Resources
Future development in accordance with Alternative B would have less residential and nonresidential
development on the same development footprint as the Proposed Project. Therefore, the potential to impact
cultural resources, including historic buildings constructed more than 50 years ago or previously undiscovered
archaeological and paleontological resources would be slightly reduced under this alternative. Due to the
potential redevelopment of older buildings that may be designated as historic over the life of the plan,
impacts to historic resources would remain significant and unavoidable. Impacts related to archaeology and
paleontology would remain less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.
7.5.4 Geology and Soils
The development footprint of Alternative B is the same as the Proposed Project. The potential for exposing
people or structures to geologic hazards or substantially increasing soil erosion or topsoil loss would be
slightly less due to the decrease in development potential and less than significant.
7.5.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Both the Proposed Project and Alternative B would be consistent with the California Air Resources Control
Board’s (CARB) Scoping Plan, Southern California Association of Governments’ 2016-2040 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and the Temple City Energy Action Plan
(EAP).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
June 2017 Page 7-13
However, buildout of Alternative B would result in less residential and nonresidential development than the
Proposed Project, thus reducing GHG emissions from area sources and vehicle trips generated by
development projects. Implementation of mitigation measures under both scenarios would help to offset the
increase in energy-related and transportation-related GHG emissions; however, additional federal and state
measures would be necessary to achieve the mid-term GHG reduction target of Senate Bill (SB) 32—
reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030. Since no additional federal or state measures
are currently available, GHG impacts of Alternative B would remain significant and unavoidable.
7.5.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
In both Alternative B and the Proposed Project, land uses throughout the City would be required to comply
with existing state, federal, and county regulations governing use, storage, transport, and disposal of
hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Both alternatives have the potential to encounter contaminated
soils during grading or result in the demolition of buildings with asbestos-containing materials or lead.
Therefore, hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be similar to the Proposed Project and would be
less than significant after incorporation of mitigation measures.
7.5.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of Alternative B would have similar hydrology and water quality impacts as the Proposed
Project. Although both residential and nonresidential intensity would decrease under this alternative, similar
alterations to drainage patterns and hydrological patterns would occur. Similar to the Proposed Project,
runoff would be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit standards and
provisions stipulated in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Treatment would be employed
to remove excess pollutants from runoff during the construction and operational phases of development.
Policies that offer additional protection from water quality impairment would be adopted, and runoff would
be expected to be treated to the maximum extent practicable. In terms of water quality, this alternative would
have a less than significant impact, similar to the Proposed Project.
7.5.8 Land Use and Relevant Planning
Land use impacts under Alternative B would be similar to the Proposed Project. This alternative would not
allow additional mixed use intensity in the Specific Plan area. However, similar to the Proposed Project, this
alternative would be consistent with regional and local plans and policies. Impacts would be similar to the
Proposed Project and would remain less than significant.
7.5.9 Noise
Development in accordance with Alternative B would result in 1,845 fewer residential units and 427,551
fewer square feet of nonresidential development. Therefore, construction and operational noise impacts of
this alternative would be less than the Proposed Project. While operational noise impacts would be similarly
less than significant, construction noise and vibration impacts would remain significant and unavoidable due
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Page 7-14 PlaceWorks
to vibration annoyance impacts and potential for construction activities to occur at the same time near
sensitive receptors.
7.5.10 Population and Housing
Buildout of Alternative B would result in 1,845 fewer dwelling units 3,648 fewer residents and 978 fewer jobs
than the Proposed Project. However, the increase in population and housing of both the Proposed Project
and Alternative B compared to the 2035 SCAG projections is not anticipated to result in a substantial adverse
impact. Thus, impacts would be similar to the Proposed Project and less than significant.
7.5.11 Public Services
Alternative B would result in less residential development and associated population in the City, resulting in a
reduction in demand for public services, including police, fire, libraries, schools, and associated staffing and
facilities. Neither this alternative nor the Proposed Project would result in impacts to public services because
additional staffing required and construction of new facilities would be funded through the additional
revenue to the City’s general fund generated by new development and/or by impact fees to schools pursuant
to SB 50. Development and operation of new facilities may have an adverse physical effect on the
environment, including impacts relating to air quality, noise, and traffic. Development of new service facilities
and associated impacts are addressed throughout the EIR as part of the buildout analysis. Public service
impacts would be slightly less compared to the Proposed Project but would be less than significant.
7.5.12 Recreation
Alternative B would introduce 3,648 fewer residents in the Plan Area compared to the Proposed Project.
Using the City’s parkland goal of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents, this alternative would require approximately 11
fewer acres of parkland than the Proposed Project (49 additional acres). Thus, impacts to existing parks, open
space areas and recreational facilities would be reduced. However, the Plan Area is almost completely built
out and there is no space for new parkland. Although impacts would be reduced, they would remain
significant and unavoidable.
7.5.13 Transportation and Traffic
Buildout Alternative B would result in 1,845 fewer residential units and 427,551 fewer square feet of
nonresidential development, thus reducing average daily trips, VMT, and impacts to roadway and intersection
levels of service. However, the Proposed Project would not result in any significant transportation or traffic
impacts. Furthermore, this alternative would not implement a number of beneficial multi-modal mobility
elements proposed in the Crossroads Specific Plan Mobility Plan. This alternative would not improve the
circulation and access for pedestrians, bicycles, transit uses, and vehicles in the Specific Plan area. For
example, the Specific Plans pedestrian concept calls for enhanced internal circulation, street crossings, and
pedestrian amenities that would not be carried over under this alternative. Thus, overall transportation and
traffic impacts would balance out to similar effects and would remain less than significant.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
June 2017 Page 7-15
7.5.14 Tribal Cultural Resources
Native American tribes did not identify any tribal cultural resources in the Plan Area and no sites were
documented in the Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File search conducted for the Plan
Area. Additionally, there are no sites or properties in the Plan Area that are listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources. Since the development
footprint for this alternative is the same as the Plan Area, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be
similarly less than significant.
However, because Alternative B has less overall development compared to the Proposed Project, less ground
disturbance activities may occur and potential to damage previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources
would be reduced. Thus, impacts would be reduced and be less than significant with implementation of
mitigation measures.
7.5.15 Utilities and Service Systems
This alternative would result in a reduction in overall development intensity and mixed uses in the Specific
Plan area. However, the City is primarily built out, and new development and redevelopment would be
required to ensure sufficient water and wastewater capacity and infrastructure is in place to meet the needs of
the development. This alternative would result in a slight reduction in water demand and wastewater
generation. Therefore, this alternative would have slightly less impacts to utility and service systems compared
to the Proposed Project and would be less than significant after mitigation measures are incorporated.
Based on the relatively high, existing impervious conditions of the Project Area (which includes the Specific
Plan Area), Alternative B as with the Proposed Project would have proportional impervious areas equal to
existing conditions; runoff resulting from future development under Alternative B is not anticipated to
increase over existing conditions. Similar to the Proposed Project, majority of the existing storm drain system
serving the Plan Area is adequately sized to accommodate the existing- and proposed-condition runoff.
Existing storm drain deficiencies are recognized and would be upgraded by through implementation of the
City’s 2008 Drainage Master Plan. Individual projects would be subject to additional review in order to ensure
that they do not exceed the capacity of the storm drain system. It is therefore expected that the net effect
would be similar, and individual projects would not exceed the capacity of the storm drain system. Impacts
would be the same as the Proposed Project and less than significant.
7.5.16 Conclusion
Ability to Reduce Environmental Impacts
Impacts of this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project for hazards and hazardous materials,
hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, and population and housing. Impacts of this alternative
would be reduced compared to those of the Proposed Project for air quality, cultural resources, geology and
soils, GHG emissions, noise, public services, recreation, and traffic, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and
service systems. Impacts related to aesthetics would be slightly greater under this alternative. This alternative
would not reduce any significant and unavoidable impacts of the Proposed Project to less than significant.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Page 7-16 PlaceWorks
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
Alternative B would not meet Objectives 1 through 4 of the Proposed Project because it would not direct
higher density mixed use development within the Crossroads Specific Plan (Objectives 1 and 2). It would not
promote a distinct activity center in the Specific Plan area (Objective 3), and it would not create a diverse
housing stock with new job opportunities in the Specific Plan area (Objective 4). This alternative would meet
Objectives 5 through 12 but to a lesser extent compared to the Proposed Project.
7.6 MODIFIED RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE C)
The Modified Residential Alternative (Alternative C) was evaluated for its potential to reduce short-term,
construction-related air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise impacts; long-term operational air quality
and greenhouse gas emissions impacts; cultural and recreation impacts that would occur under the Proposed
Project.
This alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project, wherein the land use designation of the Specific
Plan Area (Mixed Use – Specific Plan) would remain as proposed under the Mid-Century Plan and shown in
Figure 3-4, Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram. However, the existing residential properties throughout the
Plan Area (outside the Specific Plan Area) would retain their current 1987 General Plan residential land use
designations (see Figure 4-2, Current General Plan Land Use Diagram), and up-zoning of residential properties
(i.e., changing low-density residential to medium-density residential) would not occur. Additionally, the
permitted density of the High-Density Residential land use designation (13-36 dwelling units per acre
[du/ac]), as proposed under the Mid-Century Plan for this land use designation, would revert to the density
currently permitted under the R-3 zone (18-30 du/ac). This change in density would result in an overall
reduction in the number of dwelling units that would be developed in the Plan Area under this alternative.
As shown in Table 7-1, the amount of nonresidential square footage under this alternative (and associated
number of jobs) would remain the same when compared to the Proposed Project. However, this alternative
would result in a reduction of 1,186 residential units when compared to the Proposed Project (20,520 under
the Proposed Project versus 19,334 under this alternative), which would lead to a proportional decrease in
population by approximately 3,423 persons.
7.6.1 Aesthetics
Buildout of Alternative C would result in 1,186 fewer residential units in the downtown area of the City than
what would occur under buildout of the Mid-Century Plan. Under this alternative, the Mid-Century Plan and
Crossroads Specific Plan would both be implemented. Therefore, although there would be potentially less
development overall, impacts related to aesthetics would be similar to the Proposed Project and less than
significant.
7.6.2 Air Quality
Future projects in accordance with Alternative C would result in 1,186 fewer residential units compared to the
Proposed Project. Thus, project-related total daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated mobile-source
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
June 2017 Page 7-17
emissions would be slightly reduced. However, this alternative would reduce internal trip capture (which
reduces average daily trips) and increase VMT per capita by eliminating up-zoning of residential near the
proposed mixed use component of the downtown area.
Furthermore, stationary-source emissions would be reduced because there would be less residential
development. A reduction in development would also reduce short-term emissions related to project
construction activities. Although this alternative would reduce both long- and short-term pollutant emissions,
it would not eliminate significant short- and long-term criteria air pollutant emissions that would exceed
South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) regional significance thresholds and localized
significance thresholds. In comparison to the Proposed Project, this alternative would reduce mobile- and
stationary-source emissions and criteria air pollutants from construction and operation activities
7.6.3 Cultural Resources
Future development in accordance with Alternative C would have less residential development on the same
development footprint as the Proposed Project. Therefore, the potential to impact cultural resources,
including historic buildings constructed more than 50 years ago or previously undiscovered archaeological
and paleontological resources would be slightly reduced under this alternative. Due to the potential
redevelopment of older buildings that may be designated as historic over the life of the plan, impacts to
historic resources would remain significant and unavoidable. Impacts related to archaeology and paleontology
would remain less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.
7.6.4 Geology and Soils
The development footprint of Alternative C is the same as the Proposed Project. The potential for exposing
people or structures to geologic hazards or substantially increasing soil erosion or topsoil loss would be
slightly less due to the decrease in development potential and less than significant
7.6.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Both the Proposed Project and Alternative C would be consistent with the California Air Resources Control
Board’s (CARB) Scoping Plan, Southern California Association of Governments’ 2016-2040 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and the Temple City Energy Action Plan
(EAP).
However, buildout of Alternative C would result in less residential development than the Proposed Project,
thus reducing GHG emissions from area sources and vehicle trips generated by development projects.
Implementation of mitigation measures under both scenarios would help to offset the increase in energy-
related and transportation-related GHG emissions; however, additional federal and state measures would be
necessary to achieve the mid-term GHG reduction target of Senate Bill (SB) 32—reducing GHG emissions
to 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030. Since no additional federal or state measures are currently available,
GHG impacts of Alternative C would remain significant and unavoidable.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Page 7-18 PlaceWorks
7.6.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
In both Alternative C and the Proposed Project, land uses throughout the City would be required to comply
with existing state, federal, and county regulations governing use, storage, transport, and disposal of
hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Both alternatives have the potential to encounter contaminated
soils during grading or result in the demolition of buildings with asbestos-containing materials or lead.
Therefore, hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be similar to the Proposed Project and would be
less than significant after incorporation of mitigation measures.
7.6.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of Alternative C would have similar hydrology and water quality impacts as the Proposed
Project. Although both residential and nonresidential intensity would decrease under this alternative, similar
alterations to drainage patterns and hydrological patterns would occur. Similar to the Proposed Project,
runoff would be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit standards and
provisions stipulated in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Treatment would be employed
to remove excess pollutants from runoff during the construction and operational phases of development.
Policies that offer additional protection from water quality impairment would be adopted, and runoff would
be expected to be treated to the maximum extent practicable. In terms of water quality, this alternative would
have a less than significant impact, similar to the Proposed Project.
7.6.8 Land Use and Relevant Planning
Land use impacts under Alternative C would be similar to the Proposed Project. This alternative would not
allow additional mixed use intensity in the downtown area. However, similar to the Proposed Project, this
alternative would be consistent with regional and local plans and policies. Impacts would be similar to the
Proposed Project and would remain less than significant
7.6.9 Noise
Development in accordance with Alternative C would result in 1,186 fewer residential units. Therefore,
construction and operational noise impacts of this alternative would be less than the Proposed Project. While
operational noise impacts would be similarly less than significant, construction noise and vibration impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable due to vibration annoyance impacts and potential for construction
activities to occur at the same time near sensitive receptors.
7.6.10 Population and Housing
Buildout of Alternative C would result in 1,186 fewer dwelling units and 3,423 fewer residents. However, the
increase in population and housing of both the Proposed Project and Alternative C compared to the 2035
SCAG projections is not anticipated to result in a substantial adverse impact. Thus, impacts would be similar
to the Proposed Project and less than significant.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
June 2017 Page 7-19
7.6.11 Public Services
Alternative C would result in less residential development and associated population in the City, resulting in a
reduction in demand for public services, including police, fire, libraries, schools, and associated staffing and
facilities. Neither this alternative nor the Proposed Project would result in impacts to public services because
additional staffing required and construction of new facilities would be funded through the additional
revenue to the City’s general fund generated by new development and/or by impact fees to schools pursuant
to SB 50. Development and operation of new facilities may have an adverse physical effect on the
environment, including impacts relating to air quality, noise, and traffic. Development of new service facilities
and associated impacts are addressed throughout the EIR as part of the buildout analysis. Public service
impacts would be slightly less compared to the Proposed Project but would be less than significant.
7.6.12 Recreation
Alternative C would result in 1,186 fewer residential units and 3,423 fewer residents in the Plan Area. This
would reduce the required parkland from 49 acres to 39 acres based on the City’s parkland goal of 3.0 acres
per 1,000 residents. Thus, impacts to recreation would be reduced under this alternative. Note, however, that
impacts would still be significant and unavoidable because the City is already in a major deficit of parkland
and does not have any space for additional parks, open space and recreational facilities.
7.6.13 Transportation and Traffic
Buildout of Alternative C would result in 1,186 fewer residential units in the downtown area of Temple City.
This would reduce average daily trips and impacts to roadway and intersection levels of service in the
downtown area. Goals and policies in the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan would still be
implemented, thus enhancing the mobility, streetscape and Complete Streets principles in the Plan Area.
Thus, impacts to transportation and traffic would be reduced and remain less than significant.
7.6.14 Tribal Cultural Resources
The development footprint of the Proposed Project and Alternative C is the same. Thus, the potential to
impact previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources would be similar to the Proposed Project. Impacts
would be similar and less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.
7.6.15 Utilities and Service Systems
This alternative would result in a reduction in overall development intensity in the downtown area. However,
the City is primarily built out, and new development and redevelopment would be required to ensure
sufficient water and wastewater capacity and infrastructure is in place to meet the needs of the development.
This alternative would result in a slight reduction in water demand and wastewater generation. Therefore, this
alternative would have slightly less impacts to utility and service systems compared to the Proposed Project
and would be less than significant after mitigation measures are incorporated.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Page 7-20 PlaceWorks
Based on the relatively high, existing impervious conditions of the Project Area (which includes the Specific
Plan Area), Alternative C as with the Proposed Project would have proportional impervious areas equal to
existing conditions; runoff resulting from future development under Alternative C is not anticipated to
increase over existing conditions.
Similar to the Proposed Project, majority of the existing storm drain system serving the Plan Area is
adequately sized to accommodate the existing- and proposed-condition runoff. Existing storm drain
deficiencies are recognized and would be upgraded by through implementation of the City’s 2008 Drainage
Master Plan. Individual projects would be subject to additional review in order to ensure that they do not
exceed the capacity of the storm drain system. It is therefore expected that the net effect would be similar,
and individual projects would not exceed the capacity of the storm drain system. Impacts would be the same
as the Proposed Project and less than significant.
7.6.16 Conclusion
Ability to Reduce Environmental Impacts
Impacts of this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project for aesthetics, hazards and hazardous
materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, and population and housing. Impacts of this
alternative would be reduced compared to those of the Proposed Project for air quality, cultural resources,
geology and soils, GHG emissions, noise, public services, recreation, and traffic, tribal cultural resources, and
utilities and service systems. This alternative would not reduce any significant and unavoidable impacts of the
Proposed Project to less than significant.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
Alternative C would not meet Objectives 1 through 4 of the Proposed Project because it would not direct
higher density mixed use development within the downtown areas (Objectives 1 and 2). It would not promote
a distinct activity center in the downtown area (Objective 3), and it would not create a diverse housing stock
with new job opportunities in the downtown area (Objective 4). This alternative would meet Objectives 5
(build upon sense of place), 6 (encourage strong business community along corridors), and 8 (provide
services and community engagement) but to a lesser extent compared to the Proposed Project. Additionally,
this alternative would not create strategies to encourage nonautomotive travel (Objective 12) to the same
degree as the proposed project because it would not direct additional residences in the downtown along a
major corridor near planned services. This alternative would meet Objectives 7, and 9–11.
Refer also to Section 5.8 of this DEIR. One of the Mid-Century Plan’s overarching land use strategies is to
encourage growth through the development of mixed uses in existing commercial corridors in order to
connect residents with jobs and amenities such as shopping, restaurants, and services. The plan aims to
promote walking, bicycling, and transit use by locating uses in proximity to each other and making the paths
between those uses more safe, convenient, and aesthetically pleasing. Therefore, by reducing the number of
housing units in the downtown area along a major corridor, this alternative does not meet SCAG’s goal of
encouraging growth patterns to facilitate active transportation to the same degree as the Proposed Project.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
June 2017 Page 7-21
7.7 MODIFIED MIXED-USE AND RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE
(ALTERNATIVE D)
The Modified Mixed-Use and Residential Alternative (Alternative D) was evaluated to determine the effects
of the redistribution of residential units within the Plan Area. As shown in Table 7-1, Alternative D would be
similar to the Proposed Project, wherein the total buildout would be the same. However, the amount of
mixed -use development within the Specific Plan Area would be reduced. Specifically, the Mixed-Use
Boulevard (MU-B) land use district of the Crossroads Specific Plan (see Figure 3-5, Specific Plan Land Use
Diagram) would be changed to Commercial Core. This change in land use districts would result in a decrease
in residential uses by 166 units, which would be transferred to the proposed Mixed Use and High Density
Residential uses along Las Tunas Drive.
7.7.1 Aesthetics
Alternative D would have the same buildout potential as the Proposed Project but would shift residential
buildout potential (166 units) to Mixed Use and High Density Residential uses along Las Tunas Drive. Given
the nominal amount of residential units, aesthetic impacts would be similar to the Proposed Project and less
than significant.
7.7.2 Air Quality
Buildout of the Proposed Project and Alternative D would have the same development potential, and shifting
166 residential units to a different area of the Crossroads Specific Plan would have no substantial change on
the Proposed Project’s overall air quality impacts. Impacts would be similar and significant and unavoidable
impacts related to consistency with the SCAQMD’s AQMP and exceedance of regional and localized
significance thresholds for construction and operational emissions would remain.
7.7.3 Cultural Resources
The Proposed Project and Alternative D have the same buildout potential and development footprint.
Therefore, potential impacts to historic, archaeological and paleontological resources would be similar.
However, due to the potential redevelopment of older buildings that may be designated as historic over the
life of the Mid-Century and Crossroads Specific Plans, impacts to historic resources would remain significant
and unavoidable.
7.7.4 Geology and Soils
Given the same buildout potential and development footprint, geology and soil impacts from Alternative D
would be similar to the Proposed Project. Both scenarios would similarly expose people or structures to
potential geologic hazards and result in soil erosion or topsoil loss. Overall, impacts would be less than
significant under both the Proposed Project and Alternative D.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Page 7-22 PlaceWorks
7.7.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Development in accordance with the Proposed Project and Alternative D would have the same buildout
potential within the same development footprint. The shift of 166 residential units within the Plan Area
would have a nominal impact on GHG impacts since global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative
environmental impact. Thus, GHG emissions under both scenarios would be similar and impacts would be
significant and unavoidable because no additional federal or state measures are available to achieve the 2030
target under SB 32 per Executive Order S-03-05.
7.7.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials under the Proposed Project and Alternative D scenario
would be similar because the development footprint and buildout potential are the same. Thus, construction
activities under both scenarios would similarly result in the potential emissions of hazardous materials (e.g.,
lead and asbestos-containing materials) and would require implementation of mitigation measures to reduce
impacts to less than significant impacts. Similarly, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment would be required
for all future projects on a site identified in the Environmental Data Resources report (Appendix D of this
DEIR). Overall, impacts would be similar and less than significant.
7.7.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Most of the Plan area is built out and impermeable. Therefore, development under both scenarios would not
substantially alter existing drainage patterns or interfere with groundwater recharge. Additionally, all projects
would be required to adhere to NPDES and MS4 permit regulations, including the preparation and
implementation of SWPPPs and associated BMPs and LID measures. Since buildout of Alternative D would
be the same and within the same Plan Area as the Proposed Project, impacts to hydrology and water quality
would be similar and less than significant.
7.7.8 Land Use and Relevant Planning
Although this alternative would shift 166 residential units to another area within the Plan Area, this alternative
would have similar land use and planning impacts as the Proposed Project. The goals and policies in the Mid-
Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan would be the same under both scenarios and would be consistent
with state planning law, California Complete Streets Act, and SCAG’s 2016-2040 RTP/SCS goals and policies.
Thus, impacts would be similar and less than significant.
7.7.9 Noise
Construction and operational noise impacts would be similar under the Proposed Project and Alternative D.
The redistribution of 166 residential units elsewhere within the Plan Area would have a nominal impact on
noise and vibration. Overall, development potential and footprint would be the same and impacts would be
similar. Short-term construction noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable as well.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
June 2017 Page 7-23
7.7.10 Population and Housing
As shown in Table 7-1, buildout of the Proposed Project and Alternative D would allow up to 20,520
residential units and 3,867,597 square feet of nonresidential development. This would result in the same
population and employment—59,228 residents and 9,854 jobs. Thus, impacts to population, housing, and
jobs-housing balance would remain the same and less than significant.
7.7.11 Public Services
Buildout of both the Proposed Project and Alternative D scenario would be the same. The redistribution of
166 residences would have a nominal impact on public services and impacts would be similar and less than
significant.
7.7.12 Recreation
Similarly, the Proposed Project and Alternative D would generate approximately 59,228 residents and would
require a total of 49 additional acres of parkland in the Plan Area to meet the City’s parkland goal of 3.0
acres per 1,000 residents. The redistribution of 166 residences would have no impact on overall recreational
impacts. Although development impact fees would be collected for all new residential developments, there is
no space for additional parks, open space areas or other recreational facilities within the confines of the Plan
Area. Thus, impacts under Alternative D would be similar to the Proposed Project and remain significant and
unavoidable.
7.7.13 Transportation and Traffic
Alternative D would reduce the amount of mixed-use development by changing the MU-B land use district to
Commercial Core within the Crossroads Specific Plan. However, this change would only nominally decrease
residential uses by 166 units in this area and be transferred to the proposed Mixed Use and High Density
Residential uses along Las Tunas Drive. Thus, average daily trips, vehicle miles traveled, and roadway and
intersection levels of service would not substantially change compared to the Proposed Project. Overall,
impacts to transportation and traffic would be similar and less than significant.
7.7.14 Tribal Cultural Resources
The development potential and footprint of the Proposed Project and Alternative D is the same and the
redistribution of 166 residences within the Plan Area would have a nominal impact on the potential to impact
previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources. Thus, impacts would be similar and less than significant with
implementation of mitigation measures.
7.7.15 Utilities and Service Systems
Shifting 166 residences to another area within the Plan Area would have a nominal impact on the overall
buildout potential of the Proposed Project. Because total buildout would be the same and within the same
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Page 7-24 PlaceWorks
footprint, impacts to utilities and service systems, including water, wastewater, storm drains, solid waste, and
dry utilities would be similar and less than significant.
7.7.16 Conclusion
Ability to Reduce Environmental Impacts
The Modified Mixed-Use and Residential Alternative (Alternative D) would have similar impacts to all
environmental topical areas.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
Alternative D would implement the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan. The only change would
be a nominal redistribution of 166 residences from a Mixed-Use Boulevard land use district in the Specific
Plan area to Mixed Use and High Density Residential uses along Las Tunas Drive. Thus, this alternative would
still be able to achieve all the project objectives of the Proposed Project.
7.8 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the “environmentally superior alternative” and, in cases where the
“No Project” Alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, the environmentally superior
development alternative must be identified. One alternative has been identified as “environmentally superior”
to the Proposed Project:
Modified Residential Alternative (Alternative C)
Both Alternatives A and B would reduce impacts associated with all of the Proposed Project’s significant and
unavoidable impacts have these alternatives would result in greater impacts related to aesthetics. Alternative C
also reduces impacts associated with all of the Proposed Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts and it
does not result in any greater environmental impacts. Therefore, Alternative C has been identified as the
environmentally superior alternative.
Impacts of this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project for aesthetics, hazards and hazardous
materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, and population and housing. Impacts of this
alternative would be reduced compared to those of the Proposed Project for air quality, cultural resources,
geology and soils, GHG emissions, noise, public services, recreation, and traffic, tribal cultural resources, and
utilities and service systems. This alternative would not reduce any significant and unavoidable impacts of the
Proposed Project to less than significant.
Alternative C would not meet Objectives 1 through 4 of the Proposed Project because it would not direct
higher density mixed use development within the downtown areas (Objectives 1 and 2). It would not promote
a distinct activity center in the downtown area (Objective 3), and it would not create a diverse housing stock
with new job opportunities in the downtown area (Objective 4).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
June 2017 Page 7-25
This alternative would meet Objectives 5 (build upon sense of place), 6 (encourage strong business
community along corridors), and 8 (provide services and community engagement) but to a lesser extent
compared to the Proposed Project. Additionally, this alternative would not create strategies to encourage
nonautomotive travel (Objective 12) to the same degree as the proposed project because it would not direct
additional residences in the downtown along a major corridor near planned services. This alternative would
meet Objectives 7, and 9–11.
Refer also to Section 5.8 of this DEIR. One of the Mid-Century Plan’s overarching land use strategies is to
encourage growth through the development of mixed uses in existing commercial corridors in order to
connect residents with jobs and amenities such as shopping, restaurants, and services. The plan aims to
promote walking, bicycling, and transit use by locating uses in proximity to each other and making the paths
between those uses more safe, convenient, and aesthetically pleasing. Therefore, by reducing the number of
housing units in the downtown area along a major corridor, this alternative does not meet SCAG’s goal of
encouraging growth patterns to facilitate active transportation to the same degree as the Proposed Project.
“Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are:
(i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant
environmental impacts” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6[c]).
Table 7-2 Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Environmental Resource Area Project
No Project/Current General Plan Alternative (Alternative A)
Mid-Century Plan Without Specific Plan Alternative (Alternative B)
Modified Residential Alternative (Alternative C)
Modified Mixed-Use and Residential Alternative (Alternative D)
Aesthetics LTS + + 0 0
Air Quality S/U -* - - 0
Cultural Resources S/U - - - 0
Geology and Soils LTS - - - 0
GHG S/U - - - 0
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials LTSM - 0 0 0
Hydrology and Water Quality LTS 0 0 0 0
Land Use and Planning LTS + 0 0 0
Noise S/U - - - 0
Population and Housing LTS - 0 0 0
Public Services LTS - - - 0
Recreation S/U - - - 0
Transportation and Traffic LTS 0 0 0 0
Tribal Cultural Resources LTSM - - - 0
Utilities and Service Systems LTSM - - - 0
LTS – Less Than Significant LTSM – Less Than Significant with Mitigation S/U – Significant and Unavoidable
* – Indicates elimination of a significant unavoidable impact
(+) = Impact considered greater when compared with the Proposed Project. (0) = Impact considered neutral when compared with the Proposed Project. (–) = Impact considered less when compared with the Proposed Project.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Page 7-26 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
June 2017 Page 8-1
8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
California Public Resources Code Section 21003 (f) states: “…it is the policy of the state that…[a]ll persons
and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process
in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical,
and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of
actual significant effects on the environment.” This policy is reflected in the State California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Guidelines) Section 15126.2(a), which states that “[a]n EIR [Environmental
Impact Report] shall identify and focus on the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project”
and Section 15143, which states that “[t]he EIR shall focus on the significant effects on the environment.”
The Guidelines allow use of an Initial Study to document project effects that are less than significant
(Guidelines Section 15063[a]). Guidelines Section 15128 requires that an EIR contain a statement briefly
indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be
significant, and were therefore not discussed in detail in the DEIR.
8.1 ASSESSMENT IN THE INITIAL STUDY
The Initial Study prepared for the Proposed Project in August 2016 (see Appendix A) determined that
impacts listed below would be less than significant. Consequently, they have not been further analyzed in this
DEIR. Please refer to Appendix A for explanation of the basis of these conclusions. Impact categories and
questions below are summarized directly from the CEQA Environmental Checklist, as contained in the Initial
Study.
Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology
provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
Page 8-2 PlaceWorks
Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or
by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
No Impact
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
No Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
No Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Less than Significant Impact
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Less than Significant Impact
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact
iv) Landslides? No Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant Impact
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
No Impact
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
Less than Significant Impact
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
June 2017 Page 8-3
Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site
Less than Significant Impact
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
Less than Significant Impact
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
No Impact
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? No Impact
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? Less than Significant Impact
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? No Impact
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a
value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact
XII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less than Significant Impact
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less than Significant Impact
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? Less than Significant Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
Page 8-4 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
June 2017 Page 9-1
9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the
Proposed Project
Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describe
any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the Proposed Project should it be
implemented. Specifically, the CEQA Guidelines state:
Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may
be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse
thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway
improvements, which provide access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit
future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental
accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be
evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.
In the case of the Proposed Project, its implementation would cause the following significant irreversible
changes:
Implementation of the Proposed Project would include construction activities that would entail the
commitment of nonrenewable and/or slowly renewable energy resources; human resources; and natural
resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, other
metals, water, and fossil fuels.
Operation of the Proposed Project would require the use of natural gas and electricity, petroleum-based
fuels, fossil fuels, and water. The commitment of resources required for the construction and operation
of the Proposed Project would limit the availability of such resources for future generations or for other
uses during the life of the project. Refer to Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, for a discussion on
energy usage.
An increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services (e.g., police, fire, schools,
libraries, and sewer and water services) would also be required. The energy and social service
commitments would be long-term obligations in view of the fact of the low likelihood of returning the
land to its original condition once it has been developed.
Population and employment growth related to project implementation would increase vehicle trips over
the long term. Emissions associated with such vehicle trips would continue to contribute to the South
Coast Air Basin’s nonattainment designation for ozone and fine inhalable particulate matter (O3 and
PM2.5), nonattainment for lead (Los Angeles County only) under the California and National Ambient Air
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project
Page 9-2 PlaceWorks
Quality Standards (AAQS), and nonattainment for coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10) under the
California AAQS.
Future development of the Proposed Project is a long-term irreversible commitment of vacant parcels
of land or redevelopment of existing developed land in the Plan Area, which includes the Specific Plan
Area.
Given the low likelihood that the land would revert to lower intensity uses or to its current form, the
Proposed Project would generally commit future generations to these environmental changes.
However, the Mid-Century Plan is based on a vision and a number of guiding principles that cumulatively
represent the community’s vision for the future. Planning based on the vision and principles will lead to a
number of long-term benefits resulting from implementation of the Mid-Century Plan, including:
Vision: Part of the vision calls for Temple City to be “greener” and more sustainable through
investments made to attain water and energy efficiency, improve accessibility, reduce vehicle commutes,
and increase the health and well-being of the community.
Guiding Principles: Following are the guiding principles that would lead to long-term benefits for the
City and its residents.
Our development patterns, mix of uses, and design of buildings, infrastructure, and public spaces
contribute to a sustainable environment that minimizes consumption of scarce environmental
resources, pollutants, and greenhouse gas emissions.
Our residents enjoy healthy lifestyles through development patterns that promote walking over
automobile use, a robust system of parks and recreation uses, access to good foods, and a quality
network of health providers.
Temple City has replaced aging infrastructure with “greener” infrastructure.
We have safe and sustainable infrastructure that is sufficient to meet current and future needs for
water, electricity, and communication systems.
Our water and energy conservation methods and techniques are widely used in development
throughout the City.
Our network of complete streets accommodates pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and vehicles.
Our bicycle facilities provide a safe and convenient alternative to the private motor vehicle.
We encourage innovations and best practices, effectively reducing the impacts of climate change in all
sectors.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project
June 2017 Page 9-3
Our development practices are sustainable and balance the needs of the economy, environment, and
equity.
We preserve and protect natural, cultural, and historic resources.
A robust tree canopy, drought-resistant landscaping, and permeable surfaces are prevalent in all our
neighborhoods and business districts.
We are more likely to walk or bike to run errands in Temple City than we are to drive.
We have pedestrian or bicycle access to active and passive parks and recreation facilities from our
homes.
Likewise, the Crossroads Specific Plan is based on a vision and a number of guiding principles that
cumulatively represent the City’s vision for the future of the Specific Plan Area. Planning based on the vision
and principles will lead to a number of long-term benefits resulting from implementation of the Crossroads
Specific Plan, including:
Vision: Part of the vision calls for the Specific Plan Area to be sustainable, featuring environmentally
friendly buildings and landscapes; it also calls for the area to be multi-modal, where people travel to and
through the area by foot, bike, bus, or car.
Guiding Principles: Following are the guiding principles that would lead to long-term benefits for the
City and its residents.
Sustainability and Healthy Living. The Specific Plan Area will be a model of sustainable
development and healthy living concepts. Buildings, landscaping, and infrastructure will be energy
and water efficient and the area’s development pattern and mix of uses will encourage active
transportation and physical activity, social interaction, and provide access to healthy foods, health and
wellness facilities, and education.
Mobility and Circulation. Residents, employees, and visitors will enjoy safe, comfortable, and well
connected bicycle and pedestrian facilities. These facilities will allow individuals the opportunity to
walk, bike, or use other forms of active transportation for recreation or daily trips. Additionally, the
Specific Plan Area will embrace advances in automobile transportation such as ride-sharing and on-
demand vehicle use.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project
Page 9-4 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
June 2017 Page 10-1
10. Growth–Inducing Impacts of the
Proposed Project
Pursuant to Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, this section is provided to examine
ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of
additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Also required is an
assessment of other projects that would foster other activities which could affect the environment,
individually or cumulatively. To address this issue, potential growth-inducing effects will be examined through
analysis of the following questions:
Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major
infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing
regulations pertaining to land development?
Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of
service?
Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could
significantly affect the environment?
Would approval of this project involve some precedent-setting action that could encourage and facilitate
other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
Please note that growth-inducing effects are not to be construed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of
little significance to the environment. This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in
which this project could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct
consequences of developing the land use concept examined in the preceding sections of this DEIR.
Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major
infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing
regulations pertaining to land development?
Approval and implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in the removal of obstacles to
growth; it would not result in the extension of infrastructure facilities into currently unserved areas. The
overall Plan Area (which includes the Specific Plan Area) is mostly built out; vacant land is very limited,
comprising of a few scattered vacant parcels. As discussed in Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, existing
utilities and service systems (i.e., water, wastewater, solid waste, natural gas, and electricity) are available to
provide service to future development that would be accommodated by the Proposed Project. The Proposed
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
10. Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project
Page 10-2 PlaceWorks
Project would permit substantial intensification of land uses in key areas strategically targeted for growth,
which are already well served by infrastructure facilities. While upgrades or modifications to existing utilities
may be necessary, major infrastructure is already present in the Plan Area. For example, some minor
extensions or improvements of utility facilities from surrounding roadways, including water and sewer lines,
may be required for future development projects.
In addition, approval of the Proposed Project would not result in the removal of any existing regulatory
obstacle to growth, but would redefine the nature of future growth in key areas of the Plan Area. For
example, the current and proposed land use designations for the Plan Area have varying allowable densities
and permitted uses, but growth would be allowed under both the current and proposed land use designations.
Approval of the Proposed Project would also not result in the conversion of open space and parks land use
designations to land use designations that permit development (i.e., commercial, industrial, residential).
Furthermore, because Temple City is a built-out city that is surrounded by other built-out communities,
continued growth in the City would not remove obstacles to growth beyond its borders. Therefore, the
Proposed Project is not considered growth inducing with respect to removal of obstacles to growth within
the Plan Area.
Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired
levels of service?
As described in Section 5.11, Public Services, all public services are currently available to serve the Plan Area.
However, as the Plan Area continues to develop and redevelop under the Proposed Project, it would require
further commitment of public services in the form of police protection, fire protection, recreation, schools,
and other public services. Buildout under the Proposed Project is forecast to result in additional demand for
sworn police officers, civilian police department personnel, and firefighting staff. The number and timing
depends on the rate of growth, intensity of development, and mixture of uses, which will vary based on site
specifics, market demand, development trends, and design. Increased demand for public safety services would
be addressed as the community grows and impact fees are collected on a project-by-project basis.
Students in the Plan Area are served by public schools in the Temple City Unified School District, Arcadia
Unified School District, El Monte City School District, San Gabriel Unified School District, and Rosemead
School District. California Senate Bill 50 commits impact fees from development to provide complete school
facilities mitigation.
The City applies impact fees to new development projects as needed to accommodate increased pressures on
a variety of public services and facilities; these fees are collected by the City at the time of issuance of
development permits. An increase in development within the Plan Area would require an increased
commitment to public services over the long term to maintain a desired level of service.
Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that
could significantly affect the environment?
Implementation of the Proposed Project would encourage or facilitate economic effects, both directly and
indirectly in the short and long term.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITYT
10. Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project
June 2017 Page 10-3
Short Term
During construction of development projects that would be accommodated by the Proposed Project, a
number of design, engineering, and construction-related jobs would be created. These jobs would be available
as site-specific development is proposed within the Plan Area, lasting until the final development is
completed. Timing for each individual development project would be dependent on the development
decisions of individual landowners; however, for purposes of the environmental analysis, hypothetical
buildout of the Proposed Project is anticipated to occur by 2035. This would be a direct but temporary
growth-inducing impact of the Proposed Project.
Long Term
Buildout of the Proposed Project would increase employment in the Plan Area to 9,854 employees, an
increase of 3,200 over existing conditions. Impacts of the increases in job-generating land uses and
employment pursuant to the Proposed Project are analyzed throughout Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis, of
this DEIR. The increased number of employees and residents as a result of the Proposed Project would spur
new economic investment in commercial uses serving the Plan Area. This would represent an increased
demand for economic goods and services and could, therefore, encourage the creation of new businesses
and/or the expansion of existing businesses, particularly within the Specific Plan Area, which address these
economic needs. While the Proposed Project would have a direct and indirect growth-inducing effect, this
would be accommodated by the existing neighborhood land uses in the Plan Area and their ability to absorb
local business growth.
Would approval of this project involve some precedent-setting action that could encourage and
facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
Approval of the Proposed Project would not set a precedent that could encourage and facilitate other
activities that could significantly affect the environment. Cities and counties in California periodically update
their general plans pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65300 et seq. A specific plan is a policy
and/or regulatory tool authorized by state legislation that local governments use to systematically implement
their general plan and guide development in a localized area. While the general plan is the overall guide for
growth and development in a community, a specific plan is able to focus on the unique characteristics of a
designated area by customizing the planning process and land use regulations to that area
The Proposed Project, which includes the Mid-Century Plan (general plan update to the current [1987]
Temple City General Plan) and Crossroads Specific Plan, would allow for new development and
redevelopment throughout the Plan Area by increasing the number of residential units that currently exist
within the Plan Area by up to 5,220 residential units. The Proposed Project would also allow for the
development of just over a million square feet of nonresidential land uses over existing conditions, which
would lead to an increase of approximately 3,200 employees. Implementation of the Proposed Project would
result in a change to the nature and intensity of use within key areas of the Plan Area; however, because the
Plan Area is developed and highly-urbanized and is surrounded by similar uses, this would not be a
precedent-setting action that could encourage or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the
environment.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
10. Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project
Page 10-4 PlaceWorks
Additionally, the Proposed Project’s buildout projections for the overall Plan Area (which encompasses
Temple City and its Sphere of Influence) represent a time frame beyond the year 2035 and therefore are
higher than SCAG’s 2035 growth projection for residents and employees (refer to Section 5.10, Population and
Housing). However, the Plan Area is almost entirely built out, and future development would be mostly infill in
key areas of the Plan Area; the key areas include the City’s Downtown and Specific Plan Areas. This DEIR
conservatively examines buildout potential of all land uses regardless of market demand and individual site
constraints. These factors will limit development potential below what is explored in this environmental
analysis, as well as below the Proposed Project’s hypothetical buildout. Therefore, although implementation
of the Proposed Project would allow for additional growth beyond existing SCAG projections, it is not
considered a precedent-setting action. Subsequent development activity under the Proposed Project would
require environmental analysis and associated mitigation to ensure that any subsequent impacts would not
significantly affect the environment.
June 2017 Page 11-1
11. Organizations and Persons Consulted
Arcadia Unified School District
Jim Leahy, Executive Director of Facilities and Operational Services
County of Los Angeles Fire Department
Frank Vidales, Chief, Forestry Division
County of Los Angeles Public Library
Yolanda De Ramus, Chief Deputy Director
County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department – Temple Station
Thomas McNeal, Operations Lieutenant
El Monte City School District
Kristinn G. Olafsson, Deputy Superintendent, Business Services
Pasadena Unified School District
Miguel V. Perez, Construction Specialist
Rosemead School District
Armida Carreon, Assistant Superintendent
San Gabriel Unified School District
William Gile, Director of Facilities Maintenance and Operations
Southern California Edison
Genevieve Cross, Environmental Project Manager
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
11. Organizations and Persons Consulted
Page 11-2 PlaceWorks
Temple City Community Development Department
Michael D. Forbes, AICP, Community Development Director
Scott Reimers, Planning Manager
Temple City Parks & Recreation Department
Cathy Burroughs, Director of Parks & Recreation
Temple City Unified School District
Marianne Sarrail, Chef Business Official
June 2017 Page 12-1
12. Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR
PLACEWORKS
Nicole Morse, Esq.
Associate Principal BS, Applied Ecology, University of California,
Irvine
JD, Business Law, Whittier Law School
Nicole Vermilion
Associate Principal, Air Quality/GHG and
Noise Services
BA Environmental Studies and BS Ecology and
Evolutionary Biology, University of California,
Santa Cruz, 2002
MURP, University of California, Irvine, 2005.
Jorge Estrada
Senior Associate BS, Urban and Regional Planning, California
Polytechnic State University, Pomona
Certificate in Engineering/Architectural AutoCAD,
California State University, Long Beach
Bob Mantey
Senior Engineer/Noise, Vibration & Acoustics BS, Engineering, Harvey Mudd College
Fernando Sotelo, PE, PTP
Senior Associate, Transportation and Noise California Traffic Engineer No. 2770
Professional Transportation Planner
MS, Civil Engineering, University of Southern
California
BS, Naval Engineering, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
John Vang, JD
Associate BA, Anthropology, University of California, Los
Angeles
MA, Urban Planning, Design, & Development,
Cleveland State University
JD, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland
State University
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
12. Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR
Page 12-2 PlaceWorks
Ryan Potter, AICP
Associate BS, City and Regional Planning, California
Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
MURP, University of California, Irvine
Michael Milroy
Associate BS, Biological Science, California State University,
Long Beach
MS, Interdisciplinary Studies/Neuroscience,
California State University, Long Beach
Stephanie Chen, EIT
Scientist, Air Quality/GHG and Transportation Master of Geographic Information Science &
Technology, University of Southern California
BS, Environmental Engineering, University of
California, San Diego
Natalie Foley
Project Engineer BS, Physics, Hillsdale College
BS, Music, Hillsdale College
Justin Rickenbach
Planner BS, International Business, California State
University, Long Beach
Cary Nakama
Graphic Artist BA, Business Administration, Data Processing and
Marketing, California State University, Long Beach
AA, Computer Design, Platte College of Computer
Graphic Design
June 2017 Page 13-1
13. Bibliography
Arcadis. 2016, June. Central Basin Water District 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
https://www.centralbasin.org/sites/default/files/file-
attachment/FINAL%20CBMWD%20UWMP%20June%202016.pdf.
ASTM International. 2013. ASTM E-1527-13: Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Process. https://www.astm.org/Standards/E1527.htm.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2011 (revised). California Environmental Quality
Act Air Quality Guidelines.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2016. California Emissions Estimator
Model (CalEEMod). Version 2016.3.1. Prepared by: Trinity Consultants and the California Air
Districts.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 1998, April 22. The Report on Diesel Exhaust.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/dieseltac/de-fnds.htm.
———. 1999. Final Staff Report: Update to the Toxic Air Contaminant List.
———. 2008, October. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/status_of_scoping
_plan_measures.pdf.
———. 2010, May. Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP), Version 1.1.
———. 2010, August. Staff Report Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for
Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375.
———. 2012. Status of Scoping Plan Recommended Measures.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/status_of_scoping_plan_measures.pdf.
———. 2014, March. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2012 by Category as Defined in the
2008 Scoping Plan.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2012/ghg_inventory_scopingplan_00-
12_2014-03-24.pdf.
———. 2014, May 15. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework,
Pursuant to AB 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
13. Bibliography
Page 13-2 PlaceWorks
———. 2015, September 15. ARB Process and Schedule for SB 375 Target Update.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm.
———. 2015, December. Area Designations Maps: State and National.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.
———. 2016, June. 2016 Edition California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2014: By Category as
Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm.
———. 2016, May 4. Ambient Air Quality Standards. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.
———. 2016. Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015). Accessed July 22,
2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php.
———. 2016. Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory - Query Tool for years 1990 (1st Edition).
https://www.arb.ca.gov/app/ghg/1990_1990/ghg_sector.php.
———. 2017, January 20. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update: The Proposed Strategy for
Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.
———. 2017, March 14. Final Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/shortlived.htm.
California Climate Action Team (CAT). 2006, March. Climate Action Team Report to Governor
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2012, July. Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability and
Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California.
California Council on Science and Technology (CCST). 2012, September. California’s Energy Future:
Portraits of Energy Systems for Meeting Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets.
http://www.ccst.us/publications/2012/2012ghg.pdf.
California Department of Education (CDE). 2017, January 11. California School Directory.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/sd/.
California Department of Finance. 2016. Report P-2: State and County Population Projections by
Race/Ethnicity and Age (5-year groups). http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics
/projections/documents/P-2_Age5yr_CAProj_2010-2060.xls.
———. 2016, May 1. Report E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2016 with
2010 Census Benchmark. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-4/2011-
20/.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
13. Bibliography
June 2017 Page 13-3
———. 2016, May 1. Report E-1: Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2015
and 2016. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-1/.
———. 2016, May 1. Report E-5: Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State,
January 1, 2011–2017, with 2010 Benchmark.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2016. Disposal Reporting System,
Jurisdiction Reporting by Facility.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Reports/DRS/Destination/JurDspFa.aspx.
———. 2016, July 20. Facility/Site Summary Details: Mid-Valley Landfill.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/36-AA-0055/Detail/.
———. 2016, July 20. Facility/Site Summary Details: Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/30-AB-0035/Detail/.
———. 2016, July 20. Facility/Site Summary Details: San Timoteo Landfill.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/36-AA-0087/Detail/.
———. 2016, July 20. Facility/Site Summary Details: Frank Bowerman Sanitary Landfill.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/30-AB-0360/Detail/
———. 2016, July 20. Facility/Site Summary Details: El Sobrante Landfill.
www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/33-AA-0217/Detail/.
———. 2016, July 20. Facility/Site Summary Details: El Sobrante Landfill.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/33-AA-0217/Detail/.
———. 2016, July 20. Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Progress
Report. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/reports/diversionprogram
/JurisdictionDiversionPost2006.aspx.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1997, December. Transportation Project-Level Carbon
Monoxide Protocol. UCD-ITS-RR-97-21. Prepared by Institute of Transportation Studies, University
of California, Davis.
———. 2016. Long-Term Socio-economic Forecasts by County.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/socio_economic.html.
California Employment Development Department (EDD). 2016. Labor Force and Unemployment Rate for
Cities and Census Designated Places. http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/.
———. 2017, April 1. Report 400C: Monthly Labor Force Data for Counties. March 2017: Preliminary.
http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/countyur-400c.pdf.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
13. Bibliography
Page 13-4 PlaceWorks
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2006. Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California. 2006
Biennial Report, California Climate Change Center. CEC-500-2006-077.
———. 2006, December. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. CEC-500-2006-
118. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. Based on the electricity use for Southern California.
———. 2009, May. The Future Is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response
Options for California. CEC-500-2008-0077.
———. 2012. California Natural Gas Detailed Utility Service Areas.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/serviceareas/natural_gas_detailed_service_areas.pdf.
———. 2014, December. California Energy Demand Updated Forecast, 2015-2025.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2014publications/CEC-200-2014-009/CEC-200-2014-009-SF-REV.pdf.
———. 2015. 2016 Building Energy and Efficiency Standards, Adoption Hearing Presentation.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/rulemaking/documents/ June 10.
———. 2015. 2016 Building Energy and Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/rulemaking/documents/2016_Building_Energy_
Efficiency_Standards_FAQ.pdf.
California Gas and Electric Utilities (CGEU). 2015, July 14. 2015 California Gas Report Supplement.
http://www.pge.com/pipeline_resources/pdf/library/regulatory/downloads/cgr15.pdf.
California Natural Resources Agency. 2009, December. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action,
Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Pursuant to Senate Bill 97.
———. 2014, July. Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk, An Update to the 2009 California
Climate Adaptation Strategy.
California Office of Emergency Services (OES). 2016, February 23. DVD. Dam Inundation Maps.
California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA). 2003, January. Stormwater Best Management Practice
Handbook: Construction.
Carreon, Armida (Assistant Superintendent) 2017, February 1. Written response to service questionnaire.
Rosemead School District (RSD).
Civiltec Engineering, Inc. 2016, June. Sunny Slope Water Company 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
http://www.sunnyslopewatercompany.com/s/SSWC-2015-UWMP-Final.pdf.
De Ramus, Yolanda (Chief Deputy Director) 2017, March 28. Written response to service questionnaire.
County of Los Angeles Public Library.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
13. Bibliography
June 2017 Page 13-5
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2016, August 12. EnviroStor.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
———. 2016, August 12. Glossary of Environmental Terms.
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/InformationResources/Glossary_of_Environmental_Terms.cfm.
East Pasadena Water Company. 2016, April 28. 2015 Consumer Confidence Report.
http://media.wix.com/ugd/2aff6e_48c6d221eb9640d798b249151bbeea26.pdf.
Executive Department, State of California. 2016, May 9. Executive Order B-37-16.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/docs/5.9.16_Executive_Order.pdf.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2016, August 11. Data Map Area Study for the Temple City
General Plan Area.
Fehr & Peers. 2016, November. Draft Temple City General Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis.
Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. 2017, February 8. Infrastructure Technical Report for Hydrology, Sewer, Water, and
Water Quality.
Geological Society of America (GSA). 2012, November 13. GSA Geologic Time Scale.
http://www.geosociety.org/science/timescale/timescl.pdf.
Gile, William (Director of Facilities Maintenance and Operations). 2017, February 2. Written response to
service questionnaire. San Gabriel Unified School District (SGUSD).
Golden State Water Company (GSWC). 2016, July 20. Drought Information.
http://www.gswater.com/drought/.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2008, June. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing
Climate Change through CEQA Review. Technical Advisory.
http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/june08-ceqa.pdf.
GreenInfo Network. 2017, January 11. California School Campus Database.
http://www.mapcollaborator.org/mapcollab_cscd/?base=map&y=34.10623&x=-
118.09011&z=14&layers=notes%2Cpolygons%2Cuploads%2Cschoolboundaries%2Ccities&opacs=
100%2C25%2C90%2C100%2C100.
Historic Resources Group. 2012, May. City of Temple City Historic Resources Survey.
http://www.templecity.us/DocumentCenter/View/839.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1996. Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. New York: Cambridge University Press.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
13. Bibliography
Page 13-6 PlaceWorks
———. 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. New York: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2013. Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2013. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kennedy-Jenks Consultants. 2016, July. Golden State Water Company South Arcadia 2015 Urban Water
Management Plan. http://www.gswater.com/download/SouthArcadia_2015_UWMP-Final-
Draft.pdf.
Leahy, Jim (Executive Director of Facilities and Operational Services). 2017, January 17. Written response to
service questionnaire. Arcadia Unified School District (AUSD).
Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission. 2004. Los Angeles County Airport Land Use
Commission Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/data/pd_alup.pdf.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. 2016, June 14. Santa Anita Stormwater Flood
Management and Seismic Strengthening Project.
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/Projects/SantaAnita/index.cfm.
———. Low Impact Development Standards Manual.
https://dpw.lacounty.gov/ldd/lib/fp/Hydrology/Low%20Impact%20Development%20Standards
%20Manual.pdf.
Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD). 2017, January 16. Health Hazardous Materials Division:
Los Angeles County Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA).
https://www.fire.lacounty.gov/hhmd/.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). 2010, October 28. 2010 Congestion
Management Program. http://media.metro.net/docs/cmp_final_2010.pdf.
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD). 2016, March 23. Districts Map.
http://www.lacsd.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=4445.
———. 2017, January 13. San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant.
http://www.lacsd.org/wastewater/wwfacilities/joint_outfall_system_wrp/san_jose_creek.asp.
———. 2017, January 13. Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant.
http://www.lacsd.org/wastewater/wwfacilities/joint_outfall_system_wrp/whittier_narrows.asp.
———. 2017, January 13. Discharge Limits.
http://www.lacsd.org/wastewater/industrial_waste/iwpolicies/discharge_limits.asp.
Maas, Karen (Administrative Assistant/ Conservation Coordinator). 2016, October 21. Comment Letter on
Notice of Preparation for City of Temple City GPU EIR.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
13. Bibliography
June 2017 Page 13-7
Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (MSGBW). 2015, July 1. Groundwater Contour Map for Main San
Gabriel Basin – July 2014.
http://media.wix.com/ugd/af1ff8_7d44a94512ca4640bec2094d2ccd2021.pdf.
McNeal, Thomas (Operations Lieutenant). 2016, December 5. Written response to service questionnaire.
County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LACSD) − Temple Station.
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). 2016, November 10. F. E. Weymouth Treatment
Plant. http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/plants/weymouth01.html.
———. 2016, October 27. Production Records, 2015, MWD Treatment Plants.
National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC). 2016, July 20. United States Drought Monitor: California: July
12, 2016. http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA.
National Park Service (NPR). 2017. National Register Bulletin, “How to Apply the National Register Criteria
for Evaluation.” https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015, February. Air Toxics Hot Spots
Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessments. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf.
Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 2012, October 24. California Historical Resources.
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/listedresources/.
———. 1995, March. Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. http://
ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/manual95.pdf.
Olafsson, Kristinn G. (Deputy Superintendent, Business Services). 2017, February 10. Written response to
service questionnaire. El Monte City School District (EMCSD).
Pasadena, City of. 2016, July 20. Pasadena City Council Adopts Level 2 Water Shortage Plan.
http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/waterandpower/waterwaste/.
———. 2016, July 21. Water FAQs: Frequently Asked Questions About Your Water Service.
http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/EkContent.aspx?theme=Navy&id=6442469777.
Perez, Miguel V. (Construction Specialist). 2017, February 27. Written response to service questionnaire.
Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD).
RMC Water and Environment. 2016, June. Pasadena Water & Power 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
http://www.cityofpasadena.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/Water_and_Power/PDF/2015%20U
WMP_Final%20Compiled%20with%20Appendices(1).pdf.
Sarrail, Marianne (Chief Business Official). 2017, February 28. Written response to service questionnaire.
Temple City Unified School District (TCUSD).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
13. Bibliography
Page 13-8 PlaceWorks
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. California Environmental Quality Act Air
Quality Handbook.
———. 2005, May. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local
Planning. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/documents-support-material/planning-
guidance/guidance-document.
———. 2008, September. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin (MATES III).
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/health-studies/mates-iii.
———. 2010, September 28. Agenda for Meeting 15. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA Significance
Thresholds Working Group. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-
meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-main-presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
———. 2012, May 4. Final 2012 Lead State Implementation Plan: Los Angeles County.
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/lead-state-implementation-plan.
———. 2013, February. 2012 Final Air Quality Management Plan.
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan.
———. 2015, October 3. Final Report Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin
(MATES IV). http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/health-studies/mates-iv.
———. 2015, March (revised). SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-
thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
———. 2015. Health Effects of Air Pollution. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/public-
information/publications.
———. 2015, October. “Blueprint for Clean Air: 2016 AQMP White Paper.” 2016 AQMP White Papers
Web Page. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/about/groups-committees/aqmp-advisory-group/2016-
aqmp-white-papers.
———. 2016. Updates to CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Accessed July 2016.
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook.
———. 2017, March. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/final-2016-
aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=15.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2011. Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation,
1/1/2014-9/30-/2021.
http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/rhna/RHNADraftAllocationPlan112011.pdf.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
13. Bibliography
June 2017 Page 13-9
———. 2016. Final 2016 RTP/SCS. http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx.
———. 2017. Growth Forecasting.
http://www.scag.ca.gov/DataAndTools/Pages/GrowthForecasting.aspx.
Southern California Edison (SCE). 2012. 2012 Corporate Responsibility & Sustainability.
https://www.sce.com/wps/wcm/connect/68145014-2eba-40c2-8587-
6482ce056977/CRR_08202013.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&ContentCache=NONE.
———. 2015, November 18. Power Content Label: 2014.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sb1305/labels/2013_labels/IOUs/Southern_California
_Edison_2013.pdf.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2013, August 5. Impaired Water Bodies.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml.
———. 2015, July 15. Urban Water Supplier Conservation Tiers.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/docs/supplier_tiers.p
df.
———. 2016, August 12. GeoTracker. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
———. 2017, January 6. Notice of Public Workshop: Urban Water Conservation.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/docs/2017jan/notice
_urban_water.pdf.
Stetson Engineers, Inc. 2016, May. San Gabriel County Water District 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
http://sgcwd.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/UWMP_Final_Draft.pdf.
———. 2016, May 11. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster Report on Final Determination of Operating
Safe Yield for 2016-17 Through 2020-2021.
http://media.wix.com/ugd/af1ff8_38ef4a25133042f4b97f9952adb7128b.pdf.
Temple City, City of. 1987, April 21. City of Temple City General Plan. http://www.ci.temple-
city.ca.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1379.
———. 2002. Downtown Specific Plan. http://www.ci.temple-city.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/841.
———. 2013, January. City of Temple City Energy Action Plan.
———. 2014, March. Parks and Open Space Master Plan.
http://weblink.templecity.us/weblink/0/edoc/15796/Attachments%20A.pdf.
———. 2014, November. City of Temple City Community Profile. http://maketchappen.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/01/CommunityProfile_FINAL.pdf.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
13. Bibliography
Page 13-10 PlaceWorks
———. 2016. A Greener Temple City (flyer). http://www.ci.temple-
city.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1917.
———. 2016. Urban Forestry. http://www.ci.temple-city.ca.us/225/Urban-Forestry.
———. 2017. Household Hazardous Waste. http://www.ci.temple-city.ca.us/859/Household-Hazardous-
Waste.
U.S. Census. 2016. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010. 2010 Demographic
Profile Data.
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF.
———. 2016. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000. Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1)
100-Percent Data.
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF.
———. 2016. Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Population. 2010-2014 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_14_5YR_
S0501&prodType=table.
US Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2014. Rankings: Total Carbon Dioxide Emissions 2014.
Website accessed on April 17, 2017 at http://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/#/series/226.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009, December. EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public
Health and the Environment: Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at
unprecedented levels due to human activity.
https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252.
———. 2013, September 11. First Five-Year Review Report for the San Gabriel Valley Area 1 Superfund
Site.
https://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/96f47aa28
570d68188257bf00001f9bf/$FILE/Final_Signed_SGV_Superfund_Area1_FYR_091113_web.pdf.
———. 2013. Lead Compounds. http://www.epa.gov/airtoxics/hlthef/lead.html.
———. 2015, October. eGRID2012 Annual Output Emission Rates, WECC California Region.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/egrid2012_summarytables_0.pdf.
———. 2016, May 5. Criteria Air Pollutants. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants.
———. 2017. Overview of Greenhouse Gases.
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html.
US Geological Survey (USGS). 2016, December 19. NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species: Dreissena
rostriformis bugensis. https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=95#.
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
13. Bibliography
June 2017 Page 13-11
Vidales, Frank (Chief, Forestry Division). 2016, December 14. Written response to service questionnaire.
County of Los Angeles Fire Department (LACoFD) − Prevention Services Bureau.
Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (WSC). 2016, June 30. Final 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the
Southern Division – Los Angeles County District, California American Water.
https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/public/uwmp_attachments/6452893912/Final%20Los%20Angeles%
20County%20District%202015%20Urban%20Water%20Management%20Plan.pdf.
Weltz, Jerry. 2003. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 516: Jobs-Housing Balance. American
Planning Association.
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2016. Western U.S. Historical Summaries – San Gabriel Fire
Department Monitoring Station (Station ID No. 047785). http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-
bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7785 (Accessed December 8, 2016).
TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
13. Bibliography
Page 13-12 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.