Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout09.5) General Plan - Attachment C - Final Environmental Imapct Report October 2017 | Final Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2016091047 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN for City of Temple City Prepared for: City of Temple City Contact: Scott Reimers, Planning Manager Community Development Department 9701 Las Tunas Drive City of 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 FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY Table of Contents October 2017 Page i W Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR ............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ................................ 1-2 2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ...................................................................................................... 2-1 3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 DEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ................................................... 3-1 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY Table of Contents Page ii PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. October 2017 Page 1-1 1. Introduction 1.1 INTRODUCTION This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et seq.). According to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, the FEIR shall consist of: (a) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or a revision of the Draft; (b) Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR either verbatim or in summary; (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies comments on the DEIR; (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and (e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency. This document contains responses to comments received on the DEIR for the Temple City 2050 Mid- Century General Plan (Mid-Century Plan) and Temple City Crossroads Specific Plan (Specific Plan), herein after referred to as “Proposed Project”, during the public review period, which began June 20, 2017, and closed August 3, 2017. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. This document and the circulated DEIR comprise the FEIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132. 1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR This document is organized as follows: Section 1, Introduction. This section describes CEQA requirements and content of this FEIR. Section 2, Response to Comments. This section provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the DEIR; copies of comment letters received during the public review period, and individual responses to written comments. To facilitate review of the responses, each comment letter has been reproduced and assigned a number (A-1 through A-5 for letters received from agencies and organizations during the 45-day public review period of the DEIR, and L-1 through L-2 for letters received from agencies and organizations after the closure of the public review period). Individual comments have been numbered for each letter and the letter is followed by responses with references to the corresponding comment number. TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 1. Introduction Page 1-2 PlaceWorks Section 3. Revisions to the Draft E IR. This section contains revisions to the DEIR text and figures as a result of the comments received by agencies and interested persons as described in Section 2, and/or errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the DEIR for public review. The responses to comments contain material and revisions that will be added to the text of the FEIR. The City of Temple City staff has reviewed this material and determined that none of this material constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the DEIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DEIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5. 1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a) outlines parameters for submitting comments, and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of DEIRs should be “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. …CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (c) further advises, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Section 15204 (d) also states, “Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” Section 15204 (e) states, “This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.” In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies will be forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the environmental impact report. The responses will be forwarded with copies of this FEIR, as permitted by CEQA, and will conform to the legal standards established for response to comments on DEIRs. October 2017 Page 2-1 2. Response to Comments Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency (City of Temple City) to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the DEIR and prepare written responses. This section provides all written responses received on the DEIR and the City of Temple City’s responses to each comment. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the DEIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the DEIR text are shown in underlined text for additions and strikeout for deletions. The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the DEIR during the public review period. Number Reference Commenting Person/Agency Date of Comment Page No. Agencies & Organizations A1 City of Rosemead July 6, 2017 2-3 A2 County of Los Angeles Fire Department July 12, 2017 2-7 A3 County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County August 3, 2017 2-17 A4 Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (multiple letters and correspondence May 25, 2016 August 12, 2016 June 22, 2017 July 11, 2017 July 13, 2017 2-21 A5 State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse) August 4, 2017 2-31 Late Letters L1 County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department October 10, 2017 August 9, 2017 2-35 L2 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) August 7, 2017 2-51 L3 County of Los Angeles Public Library September 28, 2017 September 11, 2017 2-57 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-2 PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-3 LETTER A1 – City of Rosemead (1 page) TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-4 PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-5 A1. Response to Comments from City of Rosemead, Corry Hanh, Associate Planner, dated July 6, 2017. A1-1 The commenter requested that any proposed projects within Temple City’s Sphere of Influence and adjacent to the City of Rosemead be forwarded to the City of Rosemead for review. The comment is acknowledged. The City of Temple City will continue to coordinate with the City of Rosemead on any future development projects that require Rosemead’s review. TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-6 PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-7 LETTER A2 – Los Angeles County Fire Department (8 pages) TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-8 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-9 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-10 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-11 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-12 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-13 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-14 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-15 A2. Response to Comments from Los Angeles County Fire Department, Michael Y. Takeshita, Acting Chief, Forestry Division, dated July 12, 2017. A2-1 The commenter outlined a few minor revisions to the text and analysis provided in Section 5.11.1, Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services, of Chapter 5.11, Public Services, of the DEIR. Specific revisions requested were regarding corrected response times and funding sources for LACoFD. In response to the commenter, the text has been corrected on pgs. 5.11-5, 5.11-7 and 5.11-8 of Chapter 5.11, as described in more detail in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR. A2-2 The commenter outlined a number of general fire provisions and requirements that are applicable to development projects, including those related to emergency access and water system requirements. As stated in Section 5.11.1, Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services, of Chapter 5.11, Public Services, of the DEIR, the City 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. All development projects 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. A2-3 The commenter provided a summary of the Forestry Division’s statutory responsibilities, which include erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, vegetation, fuel modification, archeological and cultural resources, and the county oak tree ordinance. The commenter also stated that potential impacts related to these areas of statutory responsibility should be addressed in the DEIR. The areas of statutory responsibility outlined in this comment have been addressed in their respective topical section of the DEIR (e.g., biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, public services) and its accompanying Initial Study, which is provided as Appendix A to the DEIR. Please refer to the DEIR and Initial Study. The commenter also stated that the Forestry Division has no further comments on the Proposed Project. The comment is acknowledged and no response is necessary. A2-4 The commenter stated that the Health Hazardous Materials Division has no comments on or requirements for the Proposed Project at this time. The comment is acknowledged and no response is necessary. TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-16 PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-17 LETTER A3 – County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (2 pages) TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-18 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-19 A3. Response to Comments from County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Adriana Raza, Customer Service Specialist, dated August 3, 2017. A3-1 The commenter outlined a minor revision to the text provided in Section 5.15.1, Wastewater Treatment and Collection, of Chapter 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of the DEIR. In response to the commenter, the text has been corrected on pg. 5.15-2 of Chapter 5.15, as described in more detail in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR. A3-2 The commenter outlined a minor revision to the text provided in Section 5.15.1, Wastewater Treatment and Collection, of Chapter 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of the DEIR. In response to the commenter, the text has been corrected on pg. 5.15-8 of Chapter 5.15, as described in more detail in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR. A3-3 The commenter pointed to the District’s average wastewater generation factors by land use, which are available online at www.lacsd.org. The potential wastewater impacts that would result from implementation of the Proposed Project (Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan) are detailed in Chapter 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of the DEIR; specifically, in Section 5.15.1, Wastewater Treatment and Collection, of Chapter 5.14. The existing and proposed wastewater generation numbers provided in Tables 5.15-2, Estimated Existing Wastewater Generation, and 5.15-3, Forecast Buildout Wastewater Generation, are based on the wastewater generation factors used in the Infrastructure Report prepared for the Proposed Project (see Appendix F of the DEIR). Per Section 3.2.2, Existing Sewer Flows, of the Infrastructure Report, the wastewater generation factors used were based on the District’s generation factors. The specific District generation factors used for calculating wastewater generation for the residential and nonresidential land uses of the Proposed Project are provided in Appendix B (Sewer Demand Calculations) of the Infrastructure Report. Therefore, the existing and proposed wastewater generation factors outlined in Chapter 5.14 of the DEIR, are in accordance with the District’s wastewater generation factors. Additionally, as noted by the commenter, the District’s Chief Engineer and General Manager will ultimately determine the user category (e.g., condominium, single-family home, etc.) that best presents the actual or anticipated use of the parcel or facilities on the parcel and the applicable connection fees. The comment is acknowledged. The City understands that the District will make the final determination as to the applicable connection fee and wastewater generation factor by land use category, which will occur at the time that individual development projects under the Proposed Project are submitted to the City for review and consideration. The City will continue to coordinate with the District on development activity in Temple City to ensure that wastewater is addressed accordingly. TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-20 PlaceWorks A3-4 See response to Comment A3-3, above. A3-5 The commenter outlined a minor revision to the text provided in Section 5.15.1, Wastewater Treatment and Collection, of Chapter 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of the DEIR. In response to the commenter, the text has been corrected on pg. 5.15-11 of Chapter 5.15, as described in more detail in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR. A3-6 The commenter outlined the procedures and permits required for future development projects within the Heavy Industrial land use designation. Any future industrial uses proposed within this land use designation will be required to adhere to the District’s procedures and permit requirements. This will be ensured through the City’s development review and permitting process. A3-7 The commenter stated that all other information contained in the DEIR concerning the District’s facilities and sewerage service is current. The comment is acknowledged and no response is necessary. TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-21 LETTER A4 – Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (8 pages) TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-22 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-23 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-24 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-25 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-26 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-27 A4. Response to Comments from Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Andrew Salas, Chairman, various letters with various dates. A4-1 Senate Bill 18 (SB18) Senate Bill (SB) 18, the Traditional Tribal Cultural Places (TTCPs) law, requires local jurisdictions to provide opportunities for involving Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and any appropriate California Native Americans tribes in the land planning process for the purpose of preserving TTCPs. A city or county, when proposing to adopt, amend, revise, or update a general plan or specific plan, must send a written request to NAHC asking for a list of tribes to consult. NAHC is required to provide this list within 30 days of receiving the request. The city or county must send a Tribal Consultation Request letter to each tribal representative on the list; tribes then have 90 days in which to respond to the consultation request if they want to consult with the local government to determine whether the project would have an adverse impact on a TTCP. In accordance with the provisions of SB 18, the City sent letters to seven Native American representatives identified by NAHC in May 2016 (including the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, or Tribe), notifying them of the Proposed Project and offering consultation under SB 18. To date, the City has not received a request for consultation on the Proposed Project under SB 18 from any of the tribes notified. Assembly Bill 52 (AB52) The Native American Historic Resource Protection Act (AB 52) took effect July 1, 2015, and incorporates tribal consultation and analysis of impacts to tribal cultural resources (TCRs) 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 Environmental Impact Report or Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to AB 52. The Proposed Project’s (Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan) impacts to TCRs, as well as the City’s AB 52 consultation efforts, are described in detail in Chapter 5.14, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the DEIR. As noted in the impact analysis section of Chapter 5.14 (see pgs. 5.14-7 through 5.14-9), the City sent letters to seven Native American representatives identified by NAHC in August 2016 (including the Tribe ), notifying them of the Proposed Project in accordance with AB 52. At the time of release of the DEIR for public review on June 20, 2017, the City had not received a request for consultation on the Proposed Project from any of the tribes, including the Tribe . TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-28 PlaceWorks As further stated in Chapter 5.14, adherence with Mitigation Measure CUL-2 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. As concluded in Chapter 5.14, with implementation of the mitigation measure, impacts to TCRs are not anticipated to be significant. It should be noted that the Mid-Century Plan also includes two policies in relation to tribal cultural resources; see polices LU 5.1 and LU 5.7 of the Land Use Element. Additionally, as stated in City’s subsequent letter to the Tribe dated July 11, 2017 (provided above), the City informed the Tribe that they received their letter dated June 22, 2017, which requested consultation for the Proposed Project under AB 52. The City also noted in their letter that they had sent a consultation notice to the Tribe in a letter dated August 12, 2016, (provided above). AB 52 specifies that a request for consultation from a tribe should be provided within 30 days of the notice being received. Since a request for consultation was not received from the Tribe within the required 30-day period, the City moved forward with the preparation of its environmental analysis. As noted above, the DEIR was released for public review on July 20, 2017; therefore, the consultation requirement per AB 52 was met. Nevertheless, in their letter to the Tribe dated July 11, 2017, the City offered the Tribe another opportunity to meet and discuss the findings of the DEIR. The City also informed the Tribe that it was necessary for the City to receive the Tribe’s comments within the public review period of the EIR, which ended on August 3, 2017. Following that letter the Tribe requested a meeting and the City met with the Tribe on August 23, 2017. At that meeting, the Tribe provided the City with a comprehensive list of mitigation measures that it endorses when grading (or any ground disturbing activities) are proposed on lands which are sensitive for tribal cultural resources. Furthermore, the Tribe indicated that Longden Avenue, Rosemead Boulevard, and the waterways/washes were major trading routes and that artifacts could be discovered in the area. Following the meeting, the City overlaid the maps referenced by the Tribe on the City boundary and found that the trade routes were actually outside of the City boundaries. Without further evidence of tribal cultural resources in the Plan area, no additional mitigation measures are warranted. However, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 has been revised to ensure that the appropriate Native American monitor is present on site to assess the significance and treatment of tribal cultural resources (see Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR). TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-29 Summary In summary, the City complied with and completed its consultation requirements under AB 52, as well provided the required analysis of potential impacts to tribal cultural resources in the DEIR. TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-30 PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-31 LETTER A5 – State Clearinghouse (2 pages) TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-32 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-33 A5. Response to Comments from State Clearinghouse, Scott Morgan, Director, dated August 4, 2017. A5-1 The comment acknowledges that the City of Temple City has complied with State Clearinghouse review requirements for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), pursuant to CEQA. The comment also acknowledges that the State Clearinghouse received the DEIR and submitted it to select state agencies for review. As noted in the comment letter, no state agencies submitted comments by or before the closing date of the review period. The comment is acknowledged and no response is necessary. TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-34 PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-35 LETTER L1 – County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (9 pages) TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-36 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-37 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-38 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-39 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-40 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-41 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-42 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-43 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-44 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-45 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-46 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-47 L1. Response to Comments from County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, David Flores, Captain, dated August 9, 2017. L1-1 The commenter provided a summary of the project description, which is provided in detail in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the DEIR, and formed the basis of the analysis contained in the DEIR. The commenter also acknowledged that the DEIR contains details and information regarding the County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) station, which is provided in Section 5.11, Public Services, of the DEIR. The comment is acknowledged and no response is necessary. L1-2 The commenter stated that LASD does not dispute the findings or information provided in Section 5.11, including the need for additional deputies to the Sherriff’s Station as a result of development that would be accommodated by the Mid-Century Plan. The commenter also noted that although LASD does utilize the 1:1000 service ratio for overall, county-wide planning purposes, LASD also considers other factors and statistics for localize planning when calculating practical service ratios for specific patrol or sub-areas therein. Applying this methodology, the commenter stated that the service ratio for the Temple City portion of LASD’s service area would be 1:4546, or 1 officer for every 4,546 residents. LASD considers this service ratio to be adequate for current conditions within Temple City. However, applying this methodology for long-range population projections contained in the DEIR for full build-out of the Mid-Century Plan indicates a need for three additional deputies. Therefore, the total number of deputies that would be needed as a result of buildout of the Mid-Century Plan would be 21 and not 18 as noted in Section 5.11. In response to the commenter, the text has been corrected on pgs. 5.11-13 and 5.11-14 of Chapter 5.11, as described in more detail in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR. The commenter also outlined the calculated cost to the City for adding three more deputies. The City acknowledges the commenter’s discussion regarding cost impacts related to the provision of additional deputies. The comment does not raise any environmental issues and no response is necessary. No changes to the DEIR are required. L1-3 The commenter provided a summary of the analysis and findings contained in Section 5.11.2 of the DEIR. The comment is acknowledged and no response is necessary. L1-4 The commenter provided additional clarification as to the operation details of the station’s heliport, specifically regarding the average number of flight operations that occur and the physical and natural environmental conditions that are considered for flight operations. The commenter requested that the City advise future developers within the Specific Plan Area of the Flight Arrival and Take-Off (FATO) patterns of the heliport. The commenter also requested that the public and officer safety be factored into the design of future development within the Specific Plan Area to avoid TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-48 PlaceWorks interfering with the FATO patterns and flight operations at the station. The Crossroads Specific Plan includes development standards and design guidelines that will ensure that the design and features/elements of future buildings and structures do not interfere with the station operation, including the FATO patterns and flight operations. The following development standards and design guidelines related to LASD’s heliport have been incorporated into the Specific Plan:  Development in the MU/C will consider all regulations and standards from the FAA and the State of California in relation to possible impacts on the Los Angeles Sherrif’s Department (LASD) heliport.  Building owners in the MU/C will disclose to lessees the proximity of the LASD heliport and the possible exposure to noise from helicopters.  Residential and the residential portion of mixed use developments in the MU/C will provide an interior sound study to ensure residents will not be exposed to a significant noise impact from the LASD heliport. Implementation of the development standards and design guidelines will be ensured through the City’s development review and permitting process. Through its development review and permitting process, the City will also ensure that future developers within the Specific Plan Area are advised of the FATO patterns and flight operations of LASD’s heliport, and that public and officer safety are taken into consideration in the design of future development projects that would be accommodated within the Specific Plan Area. L1-5 The commenter requested that future developers of the Crossroads Specific Plan be cognizant of LASD’s security concerns regarding visibility into the station, and that the height, massing, and design features of new development adjacent to the station provide reasonable design features to obscure or minimize direct lines of sight into the station’s secured parking area. The commenter further requested that policies addressing this condition be developed and incorporated in the project’s long-range plans, which include the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan. The following development standards and design guidelines related to LASD’s station have been incorporated into the Specific Plan:  The Temple Station is a critical facility proving essential police service to a large service area. Development proposed within the MU/C will consider impacts on the function of the Station and consider all feasible methods of mitigating reasonable concerns regarding possible impacts on the Station. The commenter also noted that conceptual diagrams provided in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the DEIR show potential impacts to the station’s property, as buildings are shown overplayed/encroaching onto the stations’ secured parking area. In response to TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-49 the commenter, the illustrative plans shown in Figures 3-6, Specific Plan Pedestrian Concept Plan, 3-7, Specific Plan Bicycle Concept Plan, and 3-8, Specific Plan Street Concept Plan, are conceptual in nature and not final design or development plans. No buildings, structures or development will occur or is proposed within the station’s property. All development will occur within privately-owned property. Through its development review and permitting process, the City will ensure that the station’s property is not encroached onto or impacted in any way. L1-6 The commenter noted the importance of the existing gate and driveway at the southern end of the station’s property, which leads to a service road along the western boundary of the Specific Plan Area. The commenter stated that LASD values this driveway as it provides direct access to Broadway, and requested that the existing service road be maintained or otherwise incorporated into future development plans for this portion of the Specific Plan Area, or that the City assist LASD in establishing an easement to preserve LASD’s access to the service road in its current condition if development does not occur. The following development standards and design guidelines related to LASD’s station have been incorporated into the Specific Plan:  The Temple Station is a critical facility proving essential police service to a large service area. Development proposed within the MU/C will consider impacts on the function of the Station and consider all feasible methods of mitigating reasonable concerns regarding possible impacts on the Station. L1-7 The commenter stated that LASD has no further comments at this time and that it has the right to amend or supplement their assessment upon subsequent reviews of the Proposed Project. The comment is acknowledged and no response is necessary. L1-8 The comments outlined in this initial comment letter, dated August 9, 2017, was superseded by the subsequent comment letter submitted by LASD dated October 11, 2017. No responses are necessary to the August 9 comment letter; however, the initial comment letter is provided in the administrative record for the Proposed Project as a part of this FEIR. L1-9 The commenter provided a copy of LASD’s responses to the request for service provider questionnaires that were mailed to various service providers in November 2016, including LASD. LASD’s letter and responses to the questionnaire are provided in Appendix G of the DEIR, and were used as a part of the basis for the police protection information and analysis provided in Section 5.11, Public Services, of the DEIR. No response is necessary. TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-50 PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-51 LETTE L2 – Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (3 pages) TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-52 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-53 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-54 PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-55 L2. Response to Comments from Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Derek Hull, Manager, Transportation Planning, dated August 7, 2017. L2-1 The commenter provided a quick overview of transit oriented communities (TOCs) and described Metro’s ongoing desire and efforts to work with municipalities, developers, and stakeholders in their land use planning and development efforts, and to find partnerships that support TOCs across Los Angeles County. The comment is acknowledged and no response is necessary. L2-2 The commenter provided a summary of the Proposed Project (Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan), which is described in detail in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the DEIR. The comment is acknowledged and no response is necessary. L2-3 The commenter outlined various transit-oriented and active and public transportation recommendations, elements, and policies that should be considered by the City of Temple City and incorporated into the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan. The comment is not directed at the adequacy of the analysis contained in the DEIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a) outlines parameters for submitting comments, and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of DEIRs should be “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.” Therefore, no formal response is necessary to the commenter’s request. However, the comment is acknowledged, included in the official environmental record of the Proposed Project, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City decision-makers for their review and consideration. Additionally, the City will continue to work and coordinate with Metro to ensure that all necessary transit-oriented and active and public transportation measures, improvements, and features are incorporated into future development projects accommodated by the Proposed Project, as applicable and feasible. This will be ensured through the City’s development review and permitting process. Further, the commenter outlined Metro’s plans and ongoing efforts with local universities and colleges to offer discounted and subsidized bus fares, which in turn could result in a significant benefit if underwritten in local developments and businesses. The comment is not directed at the adequacy of the analysis contained in the DEIR. However, the comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate City decision-makers for their review and consideration. TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-56 PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-57 LETTER L3 – County of Los Angeles Public Library (13 pages) TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-58 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-59 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-60 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-61 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-62 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-63 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-64 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-65 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-66 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-67 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-68 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-69 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-70 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-71 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-72 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-73 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-74 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-75 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-76 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-77 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-78 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-79 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-80 PlaceWorks TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-81 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-82 PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-83 L3. Response to Comments from County of Los Angeles Public Library, Skye Patrick, County Librarian, dated September 28, 2017. L3-1 The commenter noted that this initial comment letter, dated September 28, 2017, supersedes the comment letter submitted by the County of Los Angeles Public Library (Public Library) dated September 11, 2017. The initial September 11 comment letter is provided in the administrative record for the Proposed Project as a part of this FEIR (refer to comment letter L3-5). The commenter also noted that the Temple City Public Library, as well as other nearby libraries serve the Plan Area. The comment is acknowledged and no response is necessary. L3-2 The commenter noted that the additional residential development in the unincorporated area would be subject to the Library Mitigation Fee, which currently stands at $919 per dwelling unit. Payment of the fees by future project proponents within the City’s SOI will be ensured through the City’s and County of Los Angeles development review and permitting process. L3-3 The commenter states that the Public Library’s Library Mitigation Fee would not apply to development within the City’s boundaries that would be accommodated by the Mid- Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan. The commenter also provided a summary in table format of the total library fees that would result from development that would be accommodated overall by the Proposed Project, which includes the Mid-Century Plan and Crossroads Specific Plan. The commenter acknowledged that while statute does not allow the collection of Library Mitigation Fee’s other than in unincorporated areas served by the Public Library, the Public Library would like to proactively work with the City on a long-term solution to address funding requirements and mitigate the impact on library facilities and resources due to residential development that would be accommodated by the Proposed Project. The City has taken the Public Library’s comments and concerns into consideration and will work closely with the Public Library to ensure that there are adequate library services to meet the needs of future residents. As stated in Section 5.11.4, Library Services, of the DEIR, 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 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-84 PlaceWorks 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 Mid-Century Plan and Specific Plan include library uses as permitted uses within several land use designations– CC, MU/B, and MU/C–which could accommodate the need for 1,837 additional square feet of library space. The environmental impacts associated with these land uses have been evaluated throughout the DEIR. L3-4 The commenter redlined the City’s DEIR, presumably requesting edits of Subsection 5.11.4, Library Services, of the Section 5.11, Public Services, of the DEIR, and Table 1-1, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significant After Mitigation, of Chapter 1, Executive Summary. The commenter’s requested edits to Section 5.11.4.1, Environmental Setting, adding the California Education Code and Library Facilities Mitigation Fee to the “Regulatory Setting” were made. The Library Mitigation Fee was also added to Section 5.11.4.5, Existing Regulations, instead of Section 5.11.4.7, Mitigation Measures, as suggested by the commenter since it is an existing requirement and not a mitigation measure of the Proposed Project. Changes that were incorporated into Subsection 5.11.4, Library Services, are provided in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR. An explanation for the edits that were not made is provided below:  Typographical edits (Sections 5.11.4.1, 5.11.4.3, and 5.11.4.4): Typographical edits such as changing CoLAPL to Public Library were not made. Additionally, the Specific Plan buildout consists of 3,673 new residents, not 3,774 residents. Therefore, the suggested revisions to the first full paragraph on Page 5.11-30 are incorrect.  Impact findings (Sections 5.11.4.4, 5.11.4.6, 5.11.4.7, and 5.11.4.8; Table 1-1): As stated in the DEIR starting on Page 5.11-29, a significant impact would occur to public libraries if the Proposed Project would result in the need for library expansion, the construction of which would have a significant impact on the environment. 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 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments October 2017 Page 2-85 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 the DEIR (see appropriate environmental topical areas in Chapter 5, Environmental Impacts). However, it is speculative at this 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. While it is recognized that buildout of the Specific Plan area would result in the need for 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, the commenter has not demonstrated how the need for additional library space would result in a significant impact to library services. As discussed in response to Comment L3-3 the Mid-Century Plan includes a number of policies to ensure that there are adequate library services to meet the needs of future residents. General Plan Policy LU 1.7 requires new development to contribute its share of costs of providing necessary public services and facilities through equitable fees and exactions. Further, library expansion projects could be funded through the City’s general fund. L3-5 This comment letter (dated September 11, 2017) outlines the initial comments submitted by the Public Library on the DEIR. Upon reviewing the comment letter, the City of Temple City met with the Public Library to discuss the comments raised by the commenter. In response to the meeting between the City and Public Library, the initial comment letter was superseded by the commenters subsequent letter dated September 28, 2017. No responses are necessary to the initial comment letter. Please refer to responses to Comments L3-1 through L3-4, above, for responses to comments raised by the Public Library in its subsequent comment letter TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2. Response to Comments Page 2-86 PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. . October 2017 Page 3-1 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR 3.1 INTRODUCTION This section contains revisions to the DEIR based on (1) additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; (2) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of DEIR publication; and/or (3) typographical errors. Changes made to the DEIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify additions. 3.2 DEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS The following text has been revised in response to comments received on the DEIR. Pages 1-20, 1-21 of Table 1-1 and Pages 5.3-15 and 5.3-16, Chapter 5.3, Cultural Resources, The following text is modified in response to Comment A4-1, from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. 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/constr uction 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:  Native American tribal representatives from tThe Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation shall be notified of the find(s). The tribe shall coordinate with the contracted archeologist to select the appropriate tribal representative and 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: TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page 3-2 PlaceWorks • 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. Page 5.11-5, Chapter 5.11, Public Services, Section 5.11.1, Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services. The following text is modified in response to Comment A2-1, from the Los Angeles County Fire Department. 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 2015During 2016, LACoFD’s average response time for emergency incidents in Temple City was 4:58 4:54 minutes and 7:00 7:42 minutes for non-emergency incidents (Vidales 2016). Pages 5.11-7 and 5.11-8, Chapter 5.11, Public Services, Section 5.11.1, Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services. The following text is modified in response to Comment A2-1, from the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Additionally, if increased demand for additional personnel, facilities, and operational costs do emerge dueo 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. Specifically, LACoFD receives a portion of the property tax revenue generated from within the Plan Area. TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR October 2017 Page 3-3 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 from property and sales taxes, would be expected to grow in rough proportion to any increase in residential dwelling units and/or and nonresidential space development in the Plan Area under the Mid-Century Plan. Pages 5.11-13, Chapter 5.11, Public Services, Section 5.11.2, Police Protection. The following text is modified in response to Comment L1-2, from the Los Angeles County Sheriff ’s Department. 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). For localized planning purposes, LASD has indicted that the Temple City portion of its service area has a service ratio of 1:4546, requiring 3 additional deputies for a total of 21 deputies at buildout. 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. Pages 5.11-27, Chapter 5.11, Public Services, Section 5.11.4, Library Services. The following text is modified in response to Comment L3-4, from the County of Los Angeles Public Library. 5.11.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Regulatory Setting State California Education Code The California Education Code Title 1, Division 1, Part 11, Chapter 6 regulates the establishment and maintenance of a County free public library. Local Library Facilities Mitigation Fee Title 22, Chapter 22.72 of the Los Angeles County Code imposes a fee on residential development projects, within unincorporated areas, based on estimated costs of providing projected library facility needs. No federal, state or local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines are applicable to library services and facilities. Pages 5.11-30, Chapter 5.11, Public Services, Section 5.11.4, Library Services. The following text is modified in response to Comment L3-4, from the County of Los Angeles Public Library. TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page 3-4 PlaceWorks 5.11.4.5 EXISTING REGULATIONS  California Education Code Title 1, Division 1, Part 11, Chapter 6  Los Angeles County Code Title 22, Chapter 22.72 No existing regulations pertain to library services. Page 5.15-2, Chapter 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, Section 5.15.1, Wastewater Treatment and Collection. The following text is modified in response to Comment A3-1, from the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. 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 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 2224-member independent special 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). Page 5.15-8, Chapter 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, Section 5.15.1, Wastewater Treatment and Collection. The following text is modified in response to Comments A3-2 and A3-5, from the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. 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 one or more of the following LACSD wastewater treatment facilities: 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 64.6 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; and/or Los Coyotes WRP in the City of Cerritos, which has a capacity of 37.5 mgd and currently processes and average of 20.4 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 TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR October 2017 Page 3-5 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). Over five million gallons per day of the recycled water from the Los Coyotes WRP is used at over 270 sites. Reuses include landscape irrigation of schools, golf courses, parks, nurseries, and greenbelts; and industrial use at local companies for carpet dying and concrete mixing. The remainder of the recycled water is discharged to the San Gabriel River (LACSD 2017d). Page 5.15-11, Chapter 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems, Section 5.15.1, Wastewater Treatment and Collection. The following text is modified in response to Comments A3-2 and A3-5, from the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. As stated previously, there is approximately 34.3 35.4 mgd remaining capacity at the San Jose Creek WRP, and 7.7 mgd at the Whittier Narrows WRP, and 17.1 mgd at the Los Coyotes WRP. Since the Mid-Century Plan would add approximately 1.02 mgd over existing conditions, 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. Chapter 13, Bibliography. The following sources have been added to the bibliography in response to revisions made above. Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD). 2017d. Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant. http://www.lacsd.org/wastewater/wwfacilities/joint_outfall_system_wrp/los_coyotes.asp. TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND TEMPLE CITY CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page 3-6 PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank.