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.