MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY

Transcription

1 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY ATLANTIC GATEWAY COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT NORTH ATLANTIC BOULEVARD MONTEREY PARK, CALIFORNIA LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF MONTEREY PARK DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 320 WEST NEWMARK AVENUE MONTEREY PARK, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 23, 2015 PAGE 1

2 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. PAGE 2

3 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction Purpose of the Initial Study Initial Study s Organization Review of this Initial Study Initial Study Checklist Project Description Project Overview Project Location Environmental Setting Project Description Objectives of the Project Discretionary Actions Environmental Analysis Aesthetics Impacts Agricultural and Forestry Impacts Air Quality Impacts Biological Resources Impacts Cultural Resources Impacts Geology Impacts Greenhouse Gases Impacts Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts Land Use Impacts Mineral Resources Impacts Noise Impacts Population and Housing Impacts Public Services Impacts Recreation Impacts Transportation and Circulation Impacts Utilities Impacts Conclusions Mandatory Findings of Significance References Preparers References PAGE 3

4 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Section Page Appendices A Air Emissions Worksheets B. Phase I Soils Study C Traffic Noise Worksheets D Utilities Computer Worksheets The traffic study is provided under a separate cover. The traffic report has been included in the Initial Study (refer to Section 3.16). PAGE 4

5 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: CITY AND COUNTY: PROJECT: Atlantic Gateway Courtyard by Marriott N. Atlantic Boulevard, City of Monterey Park. City of Monterey Park, Los Angeles County The City of Monterey Park (the designated lead agency) is reviewing an application for the construction and operation of a mixed-use project within a 2.14-acre site located at N. Atlantic Boulevard in the City of Monterey Park. The proposed mixed-use development will consist of a 288-room hotel with six above-ground-levels and two basement/parking levels and ancillary retail. The total floor area of the proposed mixed use development will be 210,390 square feet. The proposed project will feature a total of 365 parking spaces. The two subterranean parking levels will contain 351 spaces while 14 additional parking spaces will be provided via surface level parking on the southern portion of the project site. The applicant for the proposed project is Ethan Capital LLC, 2290 Huntington Drive, Suite 100, San Marino, California, The current zoning is Mixed Use (MU-I). The 2.14 acre project site is comprised of four parcels. The assessor parcel numbers applicable to the project site include: , 002, 003 and Discretionary Approvals that would be required as part of the proposed project s implementation include the following: The approval of the Precise Plan; The approval of a Conditional Use Permit; The Design Review approval; and, The approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Other permits will also be required including encroachment permits, demolition permits, grading permits, building (construction) permits, and occupancy permits. FINDINGS: This document was prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA ); Public Resources Code [PRC] 21000, et seq.); the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, 15000, et. seq.); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementation of CEQA, as adopted by the City of Monterey Park. The environmental analysis provided in the attached Initial Study indicates that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse unmitigable impacts. For this reason, the City of Monterey Park finds that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed project. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 5

6 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK The following findings may be made based on the analysis contained in the attached Initial Study: The construction and subsequent implementation of the proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. The construction and subsequent occupancy of the proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The construction and subsequent occupancy of the proposed project will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, when considering planned or proposed development in the City. The construction and subsequent occupancy of the proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly. The environmental analysis is provided in the attached Initial Study prepared for the proposed project. The project is also described in greater detail in the attached Initial Study. Signature City of Monterey Park Community Development Department Date MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 6

7 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY The proposed project involves the construction of a mixed-use development within a 2.14-acre site located at N. Atlantic Boulevard in the City of Monterey Park. The proposed mixed-use development will consist of a 288-room, six-level (not including the two subterranean levels) hotel and ancillary restaurant and retail uses. The main parking area would be provided in the two subterranean parking levels that will contain a total of 351 parking spaces on-site. An additional 14 parking spaces will be provided by surface parking in the south end of the property. A total of 365 parking spaces overall will be provided. The total floor area of the new building will be 210,390 square feet. The City of Monterey Park is the designated Lead Agency that is responsible for the environmental review of the entire project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 1 Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, additional purposes of this Initial Study include the following: To provide the City of Monterey Park with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR), a mitigated negative declaration, or a negative declaration, for the project; To facilitate the proposed project s environmental assessment early in the planning phases; To eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and, To determine the nature and extent of any new impacts associated with the proposed project. 1.2 INITIAL STUDY S ORGANIZATION The following annotated outline summarizes the format and content of this Initial Study. Section 1 - Introduction, provides the procedural context surrounding this Initial Study's preparation and insight into its composition. Section 2 - Project Description, provides an overview of the affected area along with a description of the proposed project. Section 3 - Environmental Analysis, includes an analysis of potential impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. Section 4 - Conclusions, identifies the Mandatory Findings of Significance related to the proposed project s approval and subsequent implementation. Section 5 - References, identifies the sources used in the preparation of this Initial Study. 1 CEQA is codified at Public Resources Code et seq.; the CEQA guidelines are codified at 14 California Code of Regulations et seq.). CEQA and the CEQA guidelines may be collectively referred to as CEQA. SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION PAGE 7

8 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 1.3 REVIEW OF THIS INITIAL STUDY The public review requirements of this Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study and the technical reports, are governed by applicable law including, without limitation, CEQA. The City of Monterey Park, in its capacity as the designated Lead Agency, determined that a 30-day review period was warranted for this project s review. Public agencies and other interested parties (including the public at large) may comment on the proposed project and the supporting environmental analysis included in this Initial Study. While verbal comments may be made at the public hearing(s), written comments are desirable so that these comments and the Lead Agency s responses may be considered by the decisionmakers. Questions and/or comments should be submitted to the following individual: Ms. Samantha Tewasart, Senior Planner City of Monterey Park, Planning Division 320 West Newmark Avenue Monterey Park, California INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST The environmental analysis provided in Section 3 of this Initial Study indicates that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse unmitigable impacts on the environment. For this reason, the City of Monterey Park found that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed project s environmental review. The following findings may be made based on the analysis completed as part of this Initial Study s preparation: The proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. The proposed project would not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The proposed project would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would not have environmental effects that would adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly. The conclusions of this Initial Study s analysis are summarized in Table 1-1 provided on the following pages. SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION PAGE 8

9 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Table 1-1 Summary (Initial Study Checklist) Environmental Issues Area Examined Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Section 3.1 Aesthetic Impacts. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day- or night-time views in the area? X Section 3.2 Agriculture & Forestry Resources Impacts. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code 4526), or zoned timberland production (as defined by Government Code 51104[g])? d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to a non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, may result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use? X X X X Section 3.3 Air Quality Impacts. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION PAGE 9

10 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Table 1-1 Summary (Initial Study Checklist) Environmental Issues Area Examined Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Section 3.4 Biological Resources Impacts. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect: a) Either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X b) On any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) On Federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X X d) In interfering substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory life corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X e) In conflicting with any local policies or ordinances, protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X f) By conflicting with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? X Section 3.5 Cultural Resources Impacts. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in of the CEQA Guidelines? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to of the CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site or unique geologic feature? X X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X Section 3.6 Geology Impacts. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault (as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault), ground-shaking, liquefaction, or landslides? X SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION PAGE 10

11 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Table 1-1 Summary (Initial Study Checklist) Environmental Issues Area Examined Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact b) Substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X No Impact c) Location on a geologic unit or a soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X d) Location on expansive soil, as defined in California Building Code (2012), creating substantial risks to life or property? X e) Soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? X Section 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts. Would the project: a) Result in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? X b) Increase the potential for conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses? X Section 3.8 Hazards & Hazardous Materials Impacts. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment or result in reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section , and as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) Be located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X X X f) Within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION PAGE 11

12 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Table 1-1 Summary (Initial Study Checklist) Environmental Issues Area Examined Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wild lands fire, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands? X Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge in such a way that would cause a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? X X X e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X f) Substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area, structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of flooding because of dam or levee failure? X j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Section 3.10 Land Use and Planning Impacts. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community, or otherwise result in an incompatible land use? X b) Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, proposed project, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION PAGE 12

13 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Table 1-1 Summary (Initial Study Checklist) Environmental Issues Area Examined Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation or natural community conservation plan? X Section 3.11 Mineral Resources Impacts. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, proposed project, or other land use plan? X Section 3.12 Noise Impacts. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or the generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X b) Exposure of people to, or the generation of, excessive ground-borne noise levels? X c) Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above noise levels existing without the project? X d) Substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X e) For a project located with an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X Section 3.13 Population and Housing Impacts. Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION PAGE 13

14 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Table 1-1 Summary (Initial Study Checklist) Environmental Issues Area Examined Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Section 3.14 Public Services Impacts. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection services? X b) Police protection services? X c) School services? X d) Other governmental services? X Section 3.15 Recreation Impacts. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X b) Affect existing recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X Section 3.16 Transportation Impacts. Would the project: a) Cause a conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? X b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? X c) A change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in the location that results in substantial safety risks? X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION PAGE 14

15 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Table 1-1 Summary (Initial Study Checklist) Environmental Issues Area Examined Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Section 3.17 Utilities Impacts. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts? X c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? X f) Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? X g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X h) Result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations in power or natural gas facilities? X i) Result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations in communication systems? X SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION PAGE 15

16 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION PAGE 16

17 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK SECTION 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed project is a mixed-use development that is proposed for a 2.14-acre site located at N. Atlantic Boulevard in the City of Monterey Park. The proposed project will consist of a 288-room, six floor hotel and ground level restaurant and retail uses. The total floor area of the new building will be 210,390 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed new building will be 98-feet. The new structure will consist of six-above ground levels and two subterranean levels for parking. These subterranean parking levels will accommodate a total of 351 parking spaces on-site while 14 surface parking spaces will be provided at the project site s south side. Overall, a total of 365 parking spaces will be provided. 2 The current zoning for the project site is Mixed Use (MU-I) PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located in the City s northernmost portion. The City is located in Los Angeles County at the extreme western end of the San Gabriel Valley. Monterey Park is bounded on the north by Alhambra, on the east by Rosemead and Montebello and unincorporated South San Gabriel, on the south by Montebello and unincorporated East Los Angeles, and on the west by unincorporated East Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles. 4 Hellman Avenue serves as the northernmost corporate boundary of Monterey Park. Hellman Avenue extends along the project site s northernmost boundary. A regional location map is provided in Exhibit 2-1. The project site s location in the City of Monterey Park is shown in Exhibit 2-2. The project site itself is located on the southwest corner of N. Atlantic Boulevard and Hellman Avenue. The project site includes four parcels that have a total land area of 93,530 square feet or 2.14-acres. From the property s northern property line, the project site extends southerly approximately 620 feet. The project site s average lot depth is 151 feet. The project site s legal addresses include 521 to 633 N. Atlantic Boulevard. The Los Angeles County Assessor s Parcel Numbers (APNs) that are applicable to the project site include , , , and A vicinity map and local map are provided in Exhibits 2-3 and 2-4, respectively. Access to the project site is presently provided by a series of curb cuts along the west side of Atlantic Boulevard. Regional access to the project site is provided by the ramp connection with the San Bernardino Freeway (I-10). The 10 freeway is located approximately 225 feet to the north of the project site. 6 2 Courtyard by Marriott, Monterey Park, Precise Plan Submittal. Gene Fong Associates. Dated August 26 th, Monterey Park Municipal Code. Title City of Monterey Park Zoning Map, as amended. 4 Quantum GIS and Google Maps. 5 Courtyard by Marriott, Monterey Park, Precise Plan Submittal. Gene Fong Associates. Dated August 26 th, (Reviewed by the Development Services Department) 6 Google Earth. Website was accessed on September 4 th, (The measuring tool was used to calculate distances.) SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 17

18 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK EXHIBIT 2-1 REGIONAL MAP SOURCE: QUANTUM GIS SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 18

19 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Project Site City of Monterey Park EXHIBIT 2-2 PROJECT LOCATION WITHIN THE CITY SOURCE: QUANTUM GIS SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 19

20 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Project Site EXHIBIT 2-3 VICINITY MAP SOURCE: QUANTUM GIS City of Monterey Park SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 20

21 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Project Site City of Monterey Park EXHIBIT 2-4 LOCAL MAP SOURCE: QUANTUM GIS SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 21

22 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The 2.14-acre project site is located in the midst of an urban area. The site is comprised of four parcels. Three of the four parcels are occupied by buildings and two of the parcels contain businesses that are presently operating (the car wash and automotive repair shop). The existing improvements that occupy the project site will be demolished to accommodate the proposed project as described below. Monterey Park Car Wash is an operational automated carwash and a restaurant. Cars are pulled through the automated wash and are taken outside to the parking area to dry. There is a small restaurant located within the carwash itself which features outdoor seating. The Monterey Park Car Wash is located on the southernmost parcel of the proposed project site. Its APN is and its address is 521 N. Atlantic Boulevard. 7 The parcel has a total square footage of 31,815 square feet. 8 This use is shown in Exhibit 2-6. Mount Hua Studio, is an entertainment studio consisting of two vacant buildings and is located directly north of the Monterey Park Car Wash. These existing improvements include two buildings located in the southwest corner, and a larger building located in the center-east portion of the parcel. The site s APN is and its legal address is 603 N. Atlantic Boulevard. 9 The parcel has a total area of 31,815 square feet. 10 This use is shown in Exhibit 2-7. Purrfect Auto Service, shown in Exhibit 2-8, abuts the entertainment studio to the north and is currently operational. The building includes an office located on the eastern portion of the property abutting Atlantic Boulevard, and a garage (four service bays) extending westward from the office towards the westernmost property boundary. The parcel s legal address is 621 N. Atlantic Boulevard and its APN is The total square footage of the parcel is 14,800 square feet. 12 A Vacant Lot occupies the northernmost parcel within the project site. The site is currently vacant, though the foundations of the previous building still visible. This parcel was formerly occupied by a service station. The parcel s legal address is 633 N. Atlantic Boulevard and its APN is The total square footage of the site is 14,600 square feet. The vacant lot is shown in Exhibit 2-9. The location and extent of the existing on-site uses and improvements are shown in Exhibit Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor. Parcel Viewer. Website Website was accessed in August 29, Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 22

23 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Commercial uses are located along the east and west sides of Atlantic Boulevard. Residential neighborhoods are located behind the commercial uses that have frontage along Atlantic Boulevard. Land uses that surround the project site include the following: Residential uses abut the project site along the site s entire west side. These homes have frontage along Hathaway Avenue. A total of ten residential properties abut the project site on the west side. 14 Atlantic Boulevard extends along the project site s east side. A mixed-use development (Atlantic Times Square) is located opposite the project site on the east side of Atlantic Boulevard. The Atlantic Times Square consists of approximately 200,000 square feet of residential and commercial uses, which include an AMC 14 theater complex, a 24-Hour Fitness, a Johnny Rockets, a Coldstone Creamery, a Tokyo Wako, a Fluff Ice, a Tasty Garden, an Aji Ichiban, and an Advance Vision Optometry, among others. 15 In addition, a Best Western Inn is also located along the east side of Atlantic Boulevard, directly south of the Atlantic Times Square. Hellman Avenue extends along the project site s north side. Residential development is located along both sides of Hellman Avenue west of the Atlantic Boulevard intersection. To the east, residential units abut the street s north side while the Atlantic Times Square occupies frontage along Hellman Avenue s south side. 16 The Mar Plaza abuts the project site to the south and includes the Human Restaurant, the Huge Tree Pastry, the Yum Cha Café, the KCAL Insurance Agency, and the Shunfat Supermarket. Emerson Avenue, located approximately 645 feet to the south of the project site, extends in an east-west orientation. Residential and Commercial uses occupy the frontages along both sides of this street. The north side of Emerson Avenue is occupied by a lone single family residential unit located on the corner of Emerson Avenue and Hathaway Avenue. Other businesses in this area include the Mar Plaza shopping center, the M Motorcars, Inc, a dentist clinic, an unoccupied building, and more residential uses. The south side of Emerson Avenue features residential uses, a Bank of The West, and a Ralph s grocery store. 17 Photographs of the surrounding area are provided in Exhibits 2-10 through Blodgett/Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site Survey (Survey was conducted on August 28, 2014). 15 Atlantic Times Square Shop and Dine. Website Website was accessed in August 29, Blodgett/Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site Survey (Survey was conducted on August 28, 2014). 17 Ibid. SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 23

24 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Project Site D C B A North Note: The letters noted is the above exhibit refers to the photographs provided in Exhibits 2-6 through EXHIBIT 2-5 AERIAL PHOTO SOURCE: GOOGLE MAPS SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 24

25 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK View of the car wash and outdoor dining area (Refer to A in Exhibit 2-5) View of the parking lot facing west EXHIBIT 2-6 PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROJECT SITE (EXISTING CAR WASH) SOURCE: BLODGETT/BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 25

26 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK View of the larger vacant building (Refer to B in Exhibit 2-5) View of the parking lot and smaller building facing southwest EXHIBIT 2-7 PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROJECT SITE (MOUNT HUA ENTERTAINMENT) SOURCE: BLODGETT/BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 26

27 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK View of the garage facing southwest (Refer to C in Exhibit 2-5) View of the lobby facing south EXHIBIT 2-8 PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROJECT SITE (PURRFECT AUTO SERVICE) SOURCE: BLODGETT/BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 27

28 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK View of the vacant lot facing northwest (Refer to D in Exhibit 2-5) View of the vacant lot facing south (with the Atlantic Times Square in the background) EXHIBIT 2-9 PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROJECT SITE (VACANT LOT) SOURCE: BLODGETT/BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 28

29 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK View of Atlantic Boulevard looking north (Intersection with Hellman Avenue shown above) View of Atlantic Boulevard facing south EXHIBIT 2-10 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SURROUNDING AREA SOURCE: BLODGETT/BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 29

30 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK View of the town houses located west of the project site along Hathaway Avenue facing east View of the residential development from the project site facing west EXHIBIT 2-11 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SURROUNDING AREA SOURCE: BLODGETT/BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 30

31 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK View of the Atlantic Times Square facing east View of the Mar Plaza facing south EXHIBIT 2-12 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SURROUNDING AREA SOURCE: BLODGETT/BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 31

32 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed mixed use development will consist of a 288-room hotel (six-above ground levels and two subterranean parking levels), restaurant uses, and ancillary retail. The proposed project will consist of the following elements: The proposed project will involve the construction of a single structure within the 2.14-acre property. The new building will consist of six above ground levels and two subterranean levels. The total floor area of the building will be 210,390 square feet. The hotel will contain a total of 288 guest rooms. The maximum height of the occupied portion of the building will be 70 feet, while the total height of the building itself will be 98 feet. 18 The two subterranean levels will contain 351 parking spaces for hotel patrons and guests. Basement level #1 will also include a 1,380 square foot laundry room, boiler, two sets of elevators (one going to the north ground floor lobby and the other going up to the south ground floor lobby), three storage rooms, an employee lounge, and electrical and mechanical rooms. A total of 168 parking spaces will be provided on the first basement level. The drive aisles will have a width 26 feet. Basement level #2 will include three storage rooms, utilities, two sets of elevators, and a total of 183 parking spaces measuring 9 feet by 18 feet. Access to the basement levels will be provided by a 26 foot wide driveway and ramp along the western side of the project. Overall, a total of 171,540 square feet of parking will be provided. 19 The ground level will include 36,560 gross square feet of floor area. The main public entryway under a porte cochere will be centrally located along the building s east elevation. The ground level will also include the main lobby, which will contain the check-in area, a restaurant and lounge area, administrative offices, a home theater, media pods, and approximately 6,200 square feet of retailing uses. An additional 14 standard parking spaces and two bus parking spaces will be provided as surface parking. 20 The second level will include 28,830 gross square feet of floor area. This level will also include a fitness center, a pool deck with spa, five meeting rooms, and a total of 36 guest rooms. The center of the second level will be open to the ground floor. The third through the sixth levels will include 34,800 gross square feet of floor area each. Each level will include a total of 63 guest rooms. 21 Access to the proposed project will be provided by 3 curb cuts along Atlantic Boulevard and a single curb cut with Hellman Avenue. The community had concerns regarding the project traffic entering and exiting the Hellman Avenue project driveway. The project applicant and the City 18 Courtyard by Marriott, Monterey Park, Precise Plan Submittal. Gene Fong Associates. Dated August 26 th, Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 32

33 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK reviewed project access options. The proposed access revisions for the project site that were developed with the City are as follows: 1. the Hellman Avenue project driveway will provide egress movements and ingress movements will be prohibited; 2. the Atlantic Boulevard north project driveway will provide left-turn and right-turn ingress movements and right-turn egress movements; and 3. the Atlantic Boulevard south project driveway will provide left-turn and rightturn ingress and egress movements. Access and circulation are described in detail herein Section The proposed project is summarized in Table 2-1. The project site plan, shown on Exhibit 2-13, is provided on the following page. Floor plans of the six above-ground levels and the two subterranean levels are shown in Exhibits 2-14 through Conceptual elevations are shown in Exhibits 2-19 through Table 2-1 Overview of Proposed Project Project Element Description Total Building Floor Area Parking Subterranean Level Ground Level Second Level Third Level Fourth Level Fifth Level Sixth Level 210,390 sq. ft. 351 subterranean spaces, 14 surface spaces, and 2 bus spaces. Parking spaces, employee lounge, storage, and utilities. 36,560 sq. ft., main entry, lobby, restaurant, retail 28,830 sq. ft., 36 guest rooms 34,800 sq. ft., 63 guest rooms 34,800 sq. ft., 63 guest rooms 34,800 sq. ft., 63 guest rooms 34,800 sq. ft., 63 guest rooms Source: Courtyard by Marriott, Monterey Park Precise Plan Submittal CONSTRUCTION CHARACTERISTICS The construction of the phase for the proposed project would take approximately 12 months to complete. The key construction phases are outlined below: The demolition phase is anticipated to take one month to complete. Equipment on-site during this phase would include concrete industrial saws, rubber tired dozers, tractors/backhoes, and loaders. The site preparation phase is projected to take one month to complete. Equipment on-site during this phase would include graders, tractors, backhoes, and loaders. SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 33

34 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK EXHIBIT 2-13 PROPOSED PROJECT SITE PLAN SOURCE: GENE FONG ASSOCIATES SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 34

35 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK EXHIBIT 2-14 LEVEL B1 AND B2 (PARKING) FLOOR PLANS SOURCE: GENE FONG ASSOCIATES SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 35

36 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Hellman Ave. EXHIBIT 2-15 LEVEL 1 (GROUND FLOOR) FLOOR PLAN SOURCE: GENE FONG ASSOCIATES SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 36

37 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK EXHIBIT 2-16 LEVELS 2 AND 3 FLOOR PLAN SOURCE: GENE FONG ASSOCIATES SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 37

38 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK EXHIBIT 2-17 LEVELS 4 AND 5 FLOOR PLAN SOURCE: GENE FONG ASSOCIATES SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 38

39 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK EXHIBIT 2-18 LEVEL 6 AND ROOF FLOOR PLAN SOURCE: GENE FONG ASSOCIATES SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 39

40 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK North Conceptual Elevation South Conceptual Elevation EXHIBIT 2-19 NORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS SOURCE: GENE FONG ASSOCIATES SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 40

41 SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 41 SOURCE: GENE FONG ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT 2-20 EAST ELEVATION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

42 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK EXHIBIT 2-21 WEST ELEVATION SOURCE: GENE FONG ASSOCIATES SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 42

43 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK The construction of the hotel structure, subterranean parking structure, and other improvements would be completed in seven months. Equipment on-site during this phase would include cranes, generators, forklifts, tractors, backhoes, and loaders. The finishing phases (installation of landscaping, paving of parking areas, etc.) would take an additional three months to complete. Equipment on-site during this phase would include cement and motor mixers, pavers, rollers, other paving equipment, tractors, backhoes, and loaders. 2.5 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT The Applicant of the Atlantic Gateway Courtyard by Marriott proposes to redevelop the 93,530 square foot site in the North Atlantic Boulevard corridor into a mixed-use destination. A Precise Plan was prepared in accordance with applicable law. The proposed project is designed to take advantage of its location along the major north-south Atlantic Boulevard corridor in the City. The proponents of the Atlantic Gateway Courtyard by Marriott have further identified the following project objectives: The Atlantic Gateway Courtyard by Marriott project will promote the redevelopment of the North Atlantic Boulevard corridor as a means to stimulate the local economy, create jobs, and remove blight, thus enhancing the City's tax base. The Atlantic Gateway Courtyard by Marriott project will contribute to the creation and enhancement of the Atlantic Boulevard gateway into the City. The Atlantic Gateway Courtyard by Marriott project will strengthen the City s identity by contributing to the revitalization of the North Atlantic Boulevard corridor. 2.6 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS A Discretionary Decision is an action taken by a government agency (for this project, the government agency is the City of Monterey Park) that calls for an exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. Discretionary approvals for this project include the following: The approval of the Precise Plan; The approval of a Conditional Use Permit; The Design Review approval; and, The approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Other permits will also be required including encroachment permits, demolition permits, grading permits, building (construction) permits, and occupancy permits. SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 43

44 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 44

45 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK SECTION 3 - ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This section of the Initial Study analyzes the potential environmental impacts that may result from the proposed project s implementation. The issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include: Aesthetic Impacts (Section 3.1); Agricultural & Forestry Resources Impacts (Section 3.2); Air Quality Impacts (Section 3.3); Biological Resources Impacts (Section 3.4); Cultural Resources Impacts (Section 3.5); Geology & Soils Impacts (Section 3.6); Greenhouse Gas Impacts; (Section 3.7); Hazards & Hazardous Materials Impacts (Section 3.8); Hydrology & Water Quality Impacts (Section 3.9); Land Use Impacts (Section 3.10); Mineral Resources Impacts (Section 3.11); Noise Impacts (Section 3.12); Population & Housing Impacts (Section 3.13); Public Services Impacts (Section 3.14); Recreation Impacts (Section 3.15); Transportation Impacts (Section 3.16); Utilities Impacts (Section 3.17); and, Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 3.18). The environmental analysis contained in this section reflects the Initial Study Checklist format used by the City in its environmental review process pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. Under each issue area, an assessment of impacts is provided in the form of questions and answers. The analysis contained herein serves as a response to the individual questions. For the evaluation of potential impacts, questions are stated and an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of this Initial Study's preparation. To each question, there are four possible responses: No Impact. The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed project will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment. Less Than Significant Impact. The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed project may have the potential for affecting the environment, although these impacts will be below levels or thresholds that the City of Monterey Park or other responsible agencies consider to be significant. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed project may have the potential to generate impacts that will have a significant impact on the environment. However, the level of impact may be reduced to levels that are less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures. Potentially Significant Impact. The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed project may result in environmental impacts that are significant. SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 45

46 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 3.1 AESTHETIC IMPACTS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to the City of Monterey Park, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse aesthetic impact if it results in any of the following: An adverse effect on a scenic vista; Substantial damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; The potential of the project to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or, A new source of substantial light and glare that would adversely affect day-time or night-time views in the area ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Would the project affect a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation The project site is located in an urbanized area. Significant view sheds in the area include the views of the San Gabriel Mountains (located 9.8 miles to the north), views of the Montebello and Puente Hills (located approximately 3.41 miles to the east), and views of downtown Los Angeles (located 6.9 miles to the southwest). 22 The local relief within the City is also varied especially in the southern and western portions of the City where hillside areas are located. The most significant visual change related to the project site s development will be the demolition of the existing single story development and the construction of a new six level hotel. The proposed structure will be 98 feet in height, 14 feet taller than the Atlantic Times Square building. Receptors that are most sensitive to the potential view-shed impacts in the vicinity of the project site include those homes located to the west of the project site. In terms of aesthetic impacts, the nearest sensitive receptors include the residential uses located along the east side of Hathaway Avenue. A total of ten residentially developed properties abut the project site along the east side of the street (refer to Exhibit 3-1). All of these parcels are occupied by multiple-family developments consisting of between one unit up to five units. For all of those residential buildings that abut the project site, the rear or side elevations face the east, towards the proposed project site. In addition, parking areas for four of the residential parcels are located nearest to the project site. 22 Google Earth. Website was accessed in August 29, SECTION 3.1 AESTHETIC IMPACTS PAGE 46

47 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK A new eight-foot high block wall will be constructed along the west side of the project site. In addition, the main structure will be set-back at approximately 39-feet from the property line in conformance to the City s zoning requirements. The proposed project will result in early morning shadows, though by late morning and continuing through the afternoon, the sun-angle will be such that no shadow impacts will occur. To further minimize the potential aesthetic impacts of the proposed project, the following mitigation measures are required: The new eight-foot wall that will be provided along the project site s west side must be well maintained at all times. Fast-growing shrubs and/or tree plantings must be provided to provide an additional aesthetic buffer between the existing homes and the new hotel structure. The plant materials ultimately selected must not adversely impact the structural integrity of the proposed wall. During the construction phases, the site must be maintained in good condition and secured from public access. Any temporary fencing shall be maintained in good condition at all times. The development site must also be maintained free of weeds, rubbish, and construction debris. Machinery and equipment that will be installed on the roof must be screened from view from the adjacent properties. The screening must be approved by the City. Once the proposed project is completed, landscaping must be maintained at all times. All surfaces must be maintained free of graffiti. The aforementioned mitigation will reduce the potential impacts to levels that are less than significant. B. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? No Impact. The project site is currently developed and does not contain any natural scenic resources including trees rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. In addition, there are no City or State designated scenic highways located in the vicinity of the project site. 23 The City does have a historic building identified in the California Historical Resources database and this listing has also been identified in the Resources Element in the City s General Plan. The Cascades Park & Jardin del Encanto Complex is identified by the State as a historic site. 24 The proposed mixed use development will not affect this aforementioned site which is located approximately one mile to the south/southwest. The City is currently updating its General Plan and the project s conformity with the General Plan Update is identified in Section California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Website Website was accessed in August, California Department of Parks and Recreation. California Historical Resources. Website Website was accessed in August, SECTION 3.1 AESTHETIC IMPACTS PAGE 47

48 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK According to the General Plan s Focus Area for the North Atlantic Corridor, the City will strive to establish new commercial uses at the Atlantic Boulevard/Hellman Avenue gateway into the City to create a positive entry and "arrival" statement, and to maximize the revenue potential of these key commercial sites. The following goal and supporting policies related to the North Atlantic Boulevard corridor have been identified in the General Plan. Goal Three. Establish the North Atlantic area as a focal point for diverse retail, entertainment, and hospitality development. Policy 3.1. Permit higher intensity development around and south of the Atlantic Boulevard/Hellman Avenue intersection. Policy 3.2. Encourage shared parking and parking in public lots and structures. Policy 3.3. Revise the North Atlantic Specific Plan, or set aside the Plan in favor of new zoning regulations and design guidelines that will facilitate private redevelopment efforts. Policy 3.4. Allow multi-story buildings along Atlantic Boulevard while ensuring appropriate buffering from adjacent residential neighborhoods. The proposed project is consistent with Goal 3, Policy 3.1, Policy 3.2, and Policy 3.4. The proposed project will not impede the implementation of Policy 3.3. As a result, no impacts on historic or scenic resources and buildings are anticipated to result from the proposed project s implementation. C. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No Impact. The 2.14-acre project site is located in the midst of an urban area. The site is comprised of four parcels. Three of the four parcels are occupied by buildings and only two of the businesses are presently operating (the car wash and automotive repair shop). The greatest visual change will involve the elimination of these existing improvements and their replacement with the proposed mixed use development. The proposed project will involve the construction of a single structure within the 2.14-acre property. The total floor area of the new building will be 210,390 square feet. The design of the hotel will be Contemporary Craftsman. The building s pronounced elements, rooflines and building articulation will be designed to emphasize the project s gateway entry to the City. The elements of this architecture style are presented with attention to hierarchy, balance in the classic tripartite mold. A strong base, detailed mid-rise and a pronounced crown with a linear emphasis will be balanced by a strong central tower which steps down in profile. Craftsman details include prairie-style roofs, deep overhangs, pilaster projections, and articulated inset windows. The architectural elevations of the proposed hotel are shown in Exhibit 3-1. Additional oblique views of the proposed project are provided in Exhibit 3-2. Finally, a conceptual illustration of the proposed project from Hathaway Avenue is provided in Exhibit 3-3. SECTION 3.1 AESTHETIC IMPACTS PAGE 48

49 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 70 feet 70 feet EXHIBIT 3-1 BUILDING ELEVATIONS SOURCE: GENE FONG ASSOCIATES feet 70 feet SECTION 3.1 AESTHETIC IMPACTS PAGE 49

50 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK EXHIBIT 3-2 OBLIQUE VIEWS SOURCE: GENE FONG ASSOCIATES 2014 SECTION 3.1 AESTHETIC IMPACTS PAGE 50

51 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK EXHIBIT 3-3 ILLUSTRATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT SOURCE: GENE FONG ASSOCIATES SECTION 3.1 AESTHETIC IMPACTS PAGE 51

52 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK D. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than Significant Impact. Sources of lighting in the area include vehicle headlights on the adjacent San Bernardino (I-10) Freeway, street lights and traffic along Atlantic Boulevard, commercial signage, parking area lighting, security lighting, and building lighting. Light sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the project site include the residential uses located along the north and south side of Hellman Avene and along the west and east sides of Hathaway Avenue. 25 The proposed project will be required to uconform to MPMC , which regulates lighting. The project s lighting plans must comply with the MPMC. Consequently, lighting will have a less than significant impact CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The potential aesthetic impacts related to views, aesthetics, and light and glare are site specific. Furthermore, the analysis determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse aesthetic impacts. As a result, no cumulative aesthetic impacts are anticipated MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation will be required to address potential aesthetic impacts related to visual buffering, site maintenance, and light and glare: Mitigation Measure 1 (Aesthetic Impacts). The new eight-foot wall that will be provided along the project site s west side must be well maintained at all times. Fast-growing shrubs and/or tree plantings must be provided to provide an additional aesthetic buffer between the existing homes and the new hotel structure. The plant materials ultimately selected must not adversely impact the structural integrity of the proposed wall. Mitigation Measure 2 (Aesthetic Impacts). During the construction phases, the site must be maintained in good condition and secured from public access. Any temporary fencing must be maintained in good condition at all times. The construction site must also be maintained free of weeds, rubbish, and construction debris. Mitigation Measure 3 (Aesthetic Impacts). Machinery and equipment that will be installed on the roof must be screened from view from the adjacent properties. The screening must be approved by the City. Mitigation Measure 4 (Aesthetic Impacts). Once the proposed project is completed, landscaping must be maintained at all times. All walls surfaces must be maintained free of graffiti. 25 Blodgett/Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site Visit (the site visit was conducted on August 28th, 2014). SECTION 3.1 AESTHETIC IMPACTS PAGE 52

53 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY IMPACTS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to the City of Monterey Park, a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on agricultural and/or forestry resources if it results in any of the following: The conversion of prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance; A conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract; A conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code 4526), or zoned timberland production (as defined by Government Code 51104(g)); The loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to a non-forest use; or Changes to the existing environment that due to their location or nature may result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The soils that underlie the project site are not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Soils of Statewide Importance. 26 The site is not being used for any agricultural use. In addition, no commercial agricultural activities are planned within the property. 27 Land uses and land cover in the area are shown in Exhibit 3-4. As a result, no significant impacts on prime farmland soils will occur with the implementation of the proposed hotel development. B. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract? No Impact. The General Plan and Zoning designations that are applicable to the project site do not contemplate agricultural uses. In addition, the project site is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract. As a result, no impacts on existing or future Williamson Act Contracts will result from the proposed project s implementation. 26 State of California. Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Website accessed in January Blodgett/Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site Visit (the site visit was conducted on August 28th, 2014). SECTION 3.2 AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY IMPACTS PAGE 53

54 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Project Site EXHIBIT 3-4 LAND COVER MAP SOURCE: UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND GOOGLE EARTH SECTION 3.2 AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY IMPACTS PAGE 54

55 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK C. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code 4526), or zoned timberland production (as defined by Government Code 51104(g))? No Impact. The City of Monterey Park is located in the midst of a larger urban area and no forest lands are located within the City or in the surrounding area. 28 In addition, Monterey Park General Plan does not specifically provide for any forest land protection since it is not required. As a result, no impacts on forest land or timber resources will result from the implementation of the proposed project. D. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to a non-forest use? No Impact. The project site is located in the midst of an urban area. As indicated previously, no forest lands are located within the City nor does the City of Monterey Park General Plan provide for any forest land protection. As a result, no loss or conversion of forest lands will result from the implementation of the proposed project. E. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, may result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The project site has not been used for agricultural production. The City s applicable General Plan and zoning designations for the project site do not contemplate agricultural uses for the property. As a result, the implementation of the proposed project will not involve the conversion of any existing farmland area to urban uses CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The analysis determined that future use would not result in any significant adverse impacts on agricultural or forestry resources. As a result, no cumulative impacts on agricultural or farmland resources will occur MITIGATION MEASURES The analysis of agriculture and forestry resources indicated that no significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project s implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are required. 28 United States Geological Survey. TerraServer USA. The National Map Monterey Park, California. July 1, Site accessed January, SECTION 3.2 AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY IMPACTS PAGE 55

56 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 3.3 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to the City of Monterey Park, a project will normally be deemed to have a significant adverse environmental impact on air quality, if it results in any of the following: A conflict with the obstruction of the implementation of the applicable air quality plan; A violation of an air quality standard or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation; A cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard; The exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or The creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has established quantitative thresholds for short-term (construction) emissions and long-term (operational) emissions for criteria pollutants. These criteria pollutants include the following: Ozone (O 3 ) is a nearly colorless gas that irritates the lungs, damages materials, and vegetation. O 3 is formed by photochemical reaction (when nitrogen dioxide is broken down by sunlight). Carbon monoxide (CO), a colorless, odorless toxic gas that interferes with the transfer of oxygen to the brain, is produced by the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels emitted as vehicle exhaust. Nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) is a yellowish-brown gas, which at high levels can cause breathing difficulties. NO 2 is formed when nitric oxide (a pollutant from burning processes) combines with oxygen. Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfurcontaining fossil fuels. Though SO 2 concentrations have been reduced to levels below State and Federal standards, further reductions are desirable since SO 2 is a precursor to sulfates and PM 10. PM 10 and PM 2.5 refers to particulate matter ten microns or less and two and one-half microns in diameter, respectively. Particulates of this size cause a greater health risk than larger-sized particles since fine particles can more easily be inhaled South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final 2012 Air Quality Plan. Adopted SECTION 3.3 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS PAGE 56

57 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK A project would be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if it violated any ambient air quality standard (AAQS), contributed substantially to an existing air quality violation, or exposed sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. In addition to the Federal and State AAQS standards, there are daily and quarterly emissions thresholds for construction activities and the operation of a project have been established by the SCAQMD. Projects in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) generating construction-related emissions that exceed any of the following emissions thresholds are considered to be significant under CEQA: 75 pounds per day of reactive organic compounds; 100 pounds per day of nitrogen dioxide; 550 pounds per day of carbon monoxide; 150 pounds per day of PM 10 ; or, 150 pounds per day of sulfur oxide. 30 A project would have a significant effect on air quality if any of the following operational emissions thresholds for criteria pollutants are exceeded: 55 pounds per day of reactive organic compounds; 55 pounds per day of nitrogen dioxide; 550 pounds per day of carbon monoxide; 150 pounds per day of PM 10 ; or, 150 pounds per day of sulfur oxide ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The City of Monterey Park is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The SCAB covers a 6,600 square-mile area within Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles County, Riverside County, and San Bernardino County. Air quality in the SCAB is monitored by the SCAQMD at various monitoring stations located throughout the area. Measures to improve regional air quality are outlined in the SCAQMD s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The most recent AQMP was adopted in 2012 and was jointly prepared with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 32 The AQMP will help the SCAQMD maintain focus on the air quality impacts of major projects associated with goods movement, land use, energy efficiency and other key areas of growth. 30 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April 1993 [as amended 2014]. 31 Ibid. 32 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final 2012 Air Quality Plan. Adopted SECTION 3.3 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS PAGE 57

58 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Key elements of the 2012 AQMP include enhancements to existing programs to meet the 24-hour PM 2.5 Federal health standard and a proposed plan of action to reduce ground-level ozone. The primary criteria pollutants that remain non-attainment in the local area include PM 2.5 and Ozone. Specific criteria for determining a project s conformity with the AQMP are defined in Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD s CEQA Handbook. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook refers to the following criteria as a means to determine a project s conformity with the AQMP: 33 Consistency Criteria 1 refers to a proposed project s potential for resulting in an increase in the frequency or severity of an existing air quality violation or its potential for contributing to the continuation of an existing air quality violation. Consistency Criteria 2 refers to a proposed project s potential for exceeding the assumptions included in the AQMP or other regional growth projections relevant to the AQMP s implementation. 34 Projects that are consistent with the employment and population forecasts identified in the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are considered consistent with the AQMP growth projections, since the RCP forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. According to SCAG s 2012 RTP growth forecasts, Monterey Park will have a population of 77,700 by The City is also expected to add approximately 3,300 jobs between 2008 and In terms of Criteria 1, the proposed project s long-term (operational) airborne emissions will be below levels that the SCAQMD considers to be a significant adverse impact (refer to the analysis included in the next section where the long-term stationary and mobile emissions for the proposed project are summarized in Table 3-2). The proposed project will also conform to Consistency Criteria 2 since it will not significantly affect any regional population, housing, and employment projections prepared for the City of Monterey Park by SCAG. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Monterey Park General Plan (refer to Section B) and will not lead to any area-wide growth-inducing impacts. As a result, no significant adverse impacts related to the implementation of the AQMP are anticipated. B. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The potential construction-related emissions from the proposed project were estimated using the computer model CalEEMod V developed for the SCAQMD (the worksheets are included in the Appendix A). The entire project construction period is expected to take approximately 17 months (refer to Section 2) and would include the site clearance, grading and excavation, erection of the new building, and the finishing of the project (paving, painting, and the installation of landscaping). The analysis of daily 33 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April 1993 [as amended 2014]. 34 Ibid. 35 Southern California Association of Governments. Growth Forecast. Regional Transportation Plan April Ibid. SECTION 3.3 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS PAGE 58

59 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK construction emissions has been prepared utilizing the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod V ). As shown in Table 3-1, daily construction emissions are not anticipated to exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, the mass daily construction-related impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. The estimated daily construction emissions (shown in Table 3-1) assume compliance with applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations for the control of fugitive dust and architectural coating emissions, which include, but are not limited to, watering of the active grading areas and unpaved surfaces at least three times daily, the daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site, and use of low VOC paint. Table 3-1 Estimated Daily Construction Emissions Construction Phase ROG NO2 CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Demolition (on-site) Demolition (off-site) Total Demolition Phase Site Preparation (on-site) Site Preparation (off-site) Total Site Preparation Grading (on-site) Grading (off-site) Total Grading Building Construction (on-site) Building Construction (off-site) Total Building Construction Paving (on-site) Paving (off-site) Total Paving Architectural Coatings (on-site) Architectural Coatings (off-site) Total Architectural Coatings Maximum Daily Emissions Daily Thresholds o Source: California Air Resources Board CalEEMod [computer program]. Long-term emissions refer to those air quality impacts that will occur once the proposed project has been constructed and is operational. These impacts will continue over the operational life of the project. The long-term air quality impacts associated with the proposed project include mobile emissions associated with vehicular and bus traffic and off-site stationary emissions associated with the generation of energy (natural gas and electrical). The analysis of long-term operational impacts also used the CalEEMod SECTION 3.3 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS PAGE 59

60 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK computer model. As indicated in Table 3-2, the projected long-term emissions will also be below thresholds considered to be a significant impact. Table 3-2 Estimated Operational Emissions in lbs/day Emission Source ROG NO2 CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Area-wide (lbs/day) Energy (lbs/day) Mobile (lbs/day) Total (lbs/day) Daily Thresholds o 15o 15o 55 Note: Subtotals for each emissions category were rounded. Source: California Air Resources Board CalEEMod [computer program]. Since the project area is located in a non-attainment area for ozone and particulates, the following measures will be applicable to the proposed project as a means to mitigate potential construction emissions: All unpaved demolition and construction areas must be watered during excavation, grading and construction, and temporary dust covers must be used to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule 403. Watering could reduce fugitive dust by as much as 60 percent. All clearing, earthmoving, or excavation activities must be discontinued during periods of high winds (i.e. greater than 15 mph), so as to prevent excessive amounts of fugitive dust. The Contractors must adhere to all pertinent SCAQMD protocols regarding grading, site preparation, and construction activities. The aforementioned mitigation will further reduce the potential construction-related impacts to levels that are less than significant. C. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than Significant Impact. As indicated in the previous section, the future uses contemplated as part of the proposed project s implementation will result in long-term stationary and mobile emissions (refer to Table 3-2), though these emissions will be below the SCAQMD s daily levels of significance. As a result, the cumulative air quality impacts are considered to be less than significant. SECTION 3.3 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS PAGE 60

61 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK D. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors refer to land uses and/or activities that are especially sensitive to poor air quality and typically include homes, schools, playgrounds, hospitals, convalescent homes, and other similar facilities where children or the elderly may congregate. 37 Sensitive receptors, including homes and schools in the vicinity of the proposed project site, are identified in the map provided in Exhibit 3-5. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project include the residential uses located to the north of Hellman Avenue and to the west along Hathaway Avenue. The SCAQMD requires that CEQA air quality analyses indicate whether a proposed project will result in an exceedance of localized emissions thresholds or LSTs. LSTs only apply to short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) emissions at a fixed location and do not include off-site or area-wide emissions. The approach used in the analysis of the proposed project utilized a number of screening tables that identified maximum allowable emissions (in pounds per day) at a specified distance to a receptor. The pollutants that are the focus of the LST analysis include the conversion of NO x to NO 2 ; carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from construction and operations; PM 10 emissions from construction and operations; and PM 2.5 emissions from construction and operations. The use of the look-up tables is permitted since each of the construction phases will involve the disturbance of less than five acres of land area. As indicated in Table 3-3, the proposed project will not exceed any LSTs based on the information included in the Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables provided by the SCAQMD. For purposes of the LST analysis, the receptor distance used was 50 meters. As indicated in the table, the proposed project will not exceed any LSTs based on the information included in the Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables. Table 3-3 Local Significance Thresholds Exceedance Emissions Project Emissions (lbs/day) Type Allowable Emissions Threshold (lbs/day) and a Specified Distance from Receptor (in meters) 25 5o NO Construction NO Operations CO Construction 1,480 1,855 2,437 3,867 9,312 CO Operations 1,480 1,855 2,437 3,867 9,312 PM10 (6.14) Operations PM Construction PM2.5 (1.74) Operations PM Construction * These figures do reflect regular watering to control fugitive dust. This mitigation will reduce the fugitive dust emissions by 60%. The mitigated fugitive dust emissions levels are noted in parenthesis. Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. June South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April 1993 [as amended 2014]. SECTION 3.3 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS PAGE 61

62 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Project Site Sensitive Receptors (residential) Sensitive Receptors (non-residential and Atlantic Times Square) Non-Sensitive Receptors EXHIBIT 3-5 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Source: Quantum GIS SECTION 3.3 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS PAGE 62

63 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Most vehicles generate carbon monoxide (CO) as part of the tail-pipe emissions and high concentrations of CO along busy roadways and congested intersections are a concern. The areas surrounding the most congested intersections are often found to contain high levels of CO that exceed applicable standards. These areas of high CO concentration are referred to as hot spots. Two variables influence the creation of a hot-spot and these variables include traffic volumes and traffic congestion. Typically, a hot-spot may occur near an intersection that is experiencing severe congestion (a LOS E or LOS F). The SCAQMD stated in its CEQA Handbook that a CO hotspot would not likely develop at an intersection operating at LOS C or better. Since the Handbook was written, there have been new CO emissions controls added to vehicles and reformulated fuels are now sold in the SCAB. These new automobile emissions controls, along with the reformulated fuels, have resulted in a lowering of both ambient CO concentrations and vehicle emissions. The proposed project will generate approximately 73 AM peak hour trips and 32 PM peak hour trips. This additional peak hour traffic will not significantly affect any local intersection s level of service (LOS E or F). In addition, project-generated traffic will not result in the creation of a carbon monoxide hot spot. As a result, no significant adverse impacts on sensitive receptors are anticipated. E. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The SCAQMD has identified land uses that are typically associated with odor complaints. These uses include activities involving livestock, rendering facilities, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting activities, refineries, landfills, and businesses involved in fiberglass molding. 38 No odor emissions are anticipated given the nature of the proposed use (a mixed use development that includes a 288 room hotel and ancillary commercial). As a result, the proposed project will not result in any significant adverse odor impacts CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project s implementation would not result in any new exceedance of air pollution standards nor contribute significantly to an existing air quality violation. Furthermore, the analysis determined that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse air quality impacts. The proposed project, together with other related projects in the area will result in additional area wide impacts. These individual projects will be required to implement pertinent emissions control measures to reduce both construction and operational measures. As a result, no significant adverse cumulative impacts will occur MITIGATION MEASURES As indicated previously, the proposed project will not result in any significant adverse operational air quality impacts. However, the following mitigation measures will be effective in further reducing potential air emissions related to construction activities: 38 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April 1993 [as amended 2014]. SECTION 3.3 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS PAGE 63

64 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Mitigation Measure 5 (Air Quality Impacts). All unpaved demolition and construction areas must be watered during excavation, grading and construction, and temporary dust covers must be used to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule 403. Wetting could reduce fugitive dust by as much as 55 percent. Mitigation Measure 6 (Air Quality Impacts). All clearing, earthmoving, or excavation activities must be discontinued during periods of high winds (i.e. greater than 15 mph), so as to prevent excessive amounts of fugitive dust. Mitigation Measure 7 (Air Quality Impacts). The Contractors must adhere to all pertinent SCAQMD protocols regarding grading, site preparation, and construction activities. SECTION 3.3 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS PAGE 64

65 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to the City of Monterey Park, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on biological resources if it results in any of the following: A substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; A substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; A substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C et seq.) (including, without limitation, marsh, vernal pool, coastal) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; A substantial interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory life corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; A conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or, A conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The project site is developed and plant life within the site is limited to ruderal and un-maintained vegetation. The term special-status biological resource includes those sensitive plants, animals, vegetation communities, jurisdictional drainages and other sensitive biological resources that are governed under federal, state, and/or local laws and regulations. According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the site falls under the category of urban development. 39 Furthermore, the listing of special- 39 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. California Vegetation Mapping Projects. file:///c:/documents%20and%20settings/ William%20Blodgett/My%20Documents/Downloads/NVCSCurrentAndInProcessandInitialSurveyAug_2014_CAStandardCompli ant.pdf SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS PAGE 65

66 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK status plant and animal species that could potentially occur within the City was based on review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 40 The City of Monterey Park is included in the Los Angeles Quadrangle mapped out in the CNDDB QuickView Tool in BIOS, which contains a listing of all of the natural plants and animals present within the given quadrangle. In a list of 31 total plant and animal species, four were listed as either threatened or endangered within the larger quadrangle and includes: the California red legged frog, the coastal California gnatcatcher, the least Bell s vireo, the southwestern willow flycatcher, and the bank swallow. 41 The California Red-Legged Frog will not be found on or near the project site due to its specific habit requirements. 42 According to the National Wildlife Federation, California Red-Legged Frogs can be found near still or slow moving ponds, pools, or streams (wetland areas). 43 The bank swallow s historic habitat in Central and Southern California was along the coast and near rivers. The chances of encountering these species within the project site are limited since there are no natural wetlands or habitats present in the area. Likewise, the chances of encountering a Coastal California Gnatcatcher are limited due to the urbanization of the area and the lack of coastal sage scrub, the California Gnatcatcher s primary habitat. 44 Southwestern Willow Flycatchers are not likely to be found on site due to the lack of dense riparian habitat. 45 Lastly, it is not likely that any least Bell s Vireos will be encountered during on-site construction activities. The least Bell s Vireo lives in a riparian habitat, with a majority of the species living in San Diego County. 46 None of the threatened and endangered species listed in the quadrangle containing the project site would find the highly urbanized landscape hospitable and conducive for survival. Therefore no impacts on special plant and animal species are expected. B. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. There is no natural riparian plant habitat located within the project site and no streams or jurisdictional waters of the U. S. are located within the project site s boundaries. 47 Land cover was shown previously in Exhibit City of Monterey Park [Draft EIR prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc.]. City of Monterey Park General Plan Update, Corridors Specific Plan, ATP and Green Plan Draft EIR. Section4.3 Biological Resources. June A map of the CNDDB results for special-status animal and plant species within a 5-mile radius of the city is included on Figures 4.3-2a and 4.3-2b. 41 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Website Website accessed on August National Wildlife Foundation. California Red-Legged Frog. Website Website accessed on August Ibid. 44 Audubon. California Gnatcatcher. Website Website accessed on August US Fish and Wildlife Service. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Website Website accessed on August California Partners in Flight Riparian Bird Conservation Plan. Least Bell s Vireo. Website Website accessed on August Blodgett/Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site Survey (Site survey was conducted on August 28, 2014) and United States Geological Survey. SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS PAGE 66

67 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK C. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C et seq.) (including, without limitation, marsh, vernal pool, coastal) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. The project site does not contain any wetland habitat. No natural blue line streams or jurisdictional waters of the U. S. are located within the project site. As a result, the implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant adverse impact on any protected wetland area or designated blue-line stream. D. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory life corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The project site is completely urban and has no utility as a migration corridor due to the developed character of the surrounding properties. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. E. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less than Significant Impact. The demolition of current uses and the construction of the proposed hotel project will not result in the removal of any protected vegetation. All plant species found on site are introduced and include species commonly found in an urban setting. As a result, no impacts will occur. F. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project site is surrounded by urbanization. 48 As a result, no adverse impacts on local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans will result from the implementation of the proposed project CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The impacts on biological resources are typically site specific. The proposed project would not involve any loss of protected habitat since no such habitat is found within the project site s boundaries. As a result, no cumulative impacts on biological resources will be associated with the proposed project s implementation MITIGATION MEASURES The analysis of biological resources indicated that no significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project s implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are required. 48 Blodgett/Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site Survey (Site survey was conducted on August 28, 2014) SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS PAGE 67

68 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to the City of Monterey Park, a project will normally have a significant adverse impact on cultural resources if it results in any of the following: A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines ; A substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines ; The destruction of a unique paleontological resource, site or unique geologic feature; or The disturbance of any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in of the CEQA Guidelines? No Impact. Historic structures and sites are defined by local, State, and Federal regulations. A site or structure may be historically significant if it is locally protected through a local general plan or historic preservation ordinance. A site or structure may also be historically significant according to State or Federal criteria even if the locality does not recognize such significance. California, through the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), maintains an inventory of those sites and structures that are considered to be historically significant. Moreover, the U. S. Department of Interior has established specific federal guidelines and criteria that indicate the manner in which a site, structure or district is to be defined as having historic significance and in the determination of its eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 49 To be considered eligible for the National Register, a property s significance may be determined if the property is associated with events, activities, or developments that were important in the past, with the lives of people who were important in the past, or represents significant architectural, landscape or engineering elements. Specific criteria include the following: Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are associated with the lives of significant persons in or past; Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or 49 U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register of Historic Places. Website Website was accessed in December SECTION 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS PAGE 68

69 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Ordinarily, properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years are not considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories: A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; A building or structure removed from its original location that is significant for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure is associated with a historic person or event; A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building associated with his or her productive life; A cemetery that derives its primary importance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. 50 The City of Monterey Park does not contain any sites listed in the National Registrar. 51 However, the City does have a historical site that is listed in the California Registrar. 52 Casacades Park and Jardin El Encanto, listed in the State Register, were designed to be the designated focal point of the larger development known as the Midwick View Estates. Constructed in the late 1920 s by Peter N Snyder, the Jardin El Encanto was intended to serve as the administration building and community center for his proposed garden community (Midwick View Estates). The Jardin El Encanto building features Spanish style architecture and is now occupied by the Monterey Park Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Snyder also 50 U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Website National Register of Historic Places. Website accessed in December National Registrar of Historic Places. Website nrhp.focus.nps.gov/ natreghome.do?searchtype Website accessed in December California Department of Parks and Recreation. California Historical Resources. Website ohp.parks.ca.gov/ ListedResources Website accessed in December SECTION 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS PAGE 69

70 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK proposed an amphitheatre atop of a slope looking down at Jardin El Encanto. The amphitheatre was never built though an observation terrace was constructed in its place. The stepped cascading water fountain flows from the observation deck, where the Jardin El Encanto complex is visible. 53 Los Angeles County Assessor s Office records summary for site parcels indicates that the property located at 633 N. Atlantic Boulevard was formerly occupied by a 1,622 square feet improvement constructed in The site located at N. Atlantic Boulevard is occupied by a 4,150 square foot building (the auto repair garage) constructed in The site located at N. Atlantic Boulevard is occupied by a 2,880 square foot building (an office) that was constructed in 1981 and a 704 square foot storage building constructed in Finally, the building located at 521 N. Atlantic Boulevard consists of 3,500 square feet and was constructed in The development history of the four parcels are summarized below. APN (633 N. Atlantic Boulevard). In 1940 the property was developed as a gas station. During the 1940 s to the early 1970 s various gas station businesses occupied the site. In the 1980 s to the early 2000 s, the Econo Lube & Tune occupied the parcel. The on-site improvements were demolished during the late 2000 s. APN ( N. Atlantic Boulevard). In the early 1940 s, the site was occupied by homes. In the late 1940 s continuing to the 1960's, the site was developed in commercial uses that John's Cafe, Alterey Fine Cleaning & Dyeing Services, Co-operative Realty, United Vacuum Cleaners, Albrite Carpet Sales & Service, and Monterey Park TV Appliance Center. In 1970, the parcel was again developed into its current auto shop use. In the early and middle 1970 s, Big Brake/Fisk Tire Center occupied the parcel. In the late 1970 s continuing into the 1990 s, All American Auto Service occupied the parcel. In the 2000 s, Purrfect Auto Service occupied the parcel where the business has continued to operate up to the present time. APN ( N. Atlantic Boulevard). In the 1940 s continuing to the early 1970 s, the parcel was occupied by a trailer park. During the mid-to-late 1970 s, the parcel was mainly a vacant lot that included the, existing storage building constructed in During the 1980s continuing on into the 2000s, various banks occupied the parcel. The late 2000 s, the parcel was occupied by Pan Construction. APN (521 N. Atlantic Boulevard). During the 1940 s to the middle 1960 s the parcel was occupied by a trailer court until In the late 1960s, the parcel was developed as a car wash. The Monterey Park Car Wash continues to operate to the present time. The project site does not meet any of the aforementioned criteria for listing on the National Register. Furthermore, none of the existing uses are listed in the National or State Registers. As indicated previously, the nearest historical site listed on the state registrar is Cascades Park and Jardin El Encanto, 53 City of Monterey Park. Historical Sites, El Encanto. Website. (Site accessed in December 2014). SECTION 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS PAGE 70

71 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK which is located approximately one mile to the south/southwest of the proposed project. 54 Since no properties are eligible for listing, no impacts will result from the proposed project s implementation. B. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to of the CEQA Guidelines? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The San Gabriel Valley (and the greater Los Angeles Basin) was previously inhabited by the Gabrielino- Tongva people, named after the San Gabriel Mission. 55 The Gabrielino-Tongva tribe has lived in this region for around 7,000 years. 56 Before European contact, approximately 5,000 Gabrielino-Tongva people lived in villages throughout the Los Angeles Basin. 57 Villages were typically located near major rivers such as the San Gabriel, Rio Hondo, or Los Angeles Rivers. While no major coastal rivers traverse the City, Monterey Park s proximity to other known village sites throughout the San Gabriel Valley make it likely that Native Americans either lived or traveled through the City. 58 The entire City was previously developed. Major construction was recently completed on the Atlantic Times Square located across the street from the project site. Although unlikely, the degree of excavation needed to accommodate the proposed project could possibly unearth an archaeological resource. In the event that such scenario should occur, conformance to the following mitigation measures will reduce the impacts to levels that are less than significant: Health and Safety Code requires the project to halt until the county coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Should human remains or archaeological resources be encountered, all construction activities must stop halted and the Monterey Park Police Department must be contacted. CEQA Guidelines of CEQA regulates identification of significant archaeological resources and their salvage. This section of CEQA, among other things, incorporates provisions previously contained in Appendix K of the Guidelines. The aforementioned mitigation will reduce the impacts to levels that are less than significant. C. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The project site has been subject to extensive disturbance as a result of previous and current development. No unique paleontological or geologic features have been uncovered during the development of the previous uses. Furthermore, no paleontological or geologic features were discovered during the 54 Google Earth. Site Accessed on September 4 th Tongva People of Sunland-Tujunga. Introduction. Website accessed in December 2014). 56 Ibid. 57 Rancho Santa Ana Botanical Garden. Tongva Village Site. Website accessed in December 2014). 58 Tongva People. Villages. Website accessed in December 2014). SECTION 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS PAGE 71

72 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK construction of the Atlantic Times Square located directly across the street. In the unlikely event that any paleontological or geologic resources are discovered, the following mitigation will be required: If a paleontological resource is unearthed during construction, all construction related activities must cease immediately. The Applicant will need to seek the advice of a paleontologist/geologist to determine if the resource is deemed to be significant. In the event that the paleontological and/or geologic feature has been determined to be significant, CEQA Guidelines , applies. D. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. There are no cemeteries located in the immediate area of the project site. In the event human remains are encountered during grading and excavation activities, CEQA Guidelines (e) applies CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The potential environmental impacts related to cultural resources are site specific. Furthermore, this declaration also determined that the implementation of the proposed project will not likely result in any impacts on cultural resources. Mitigation is identified in the event such resources are encountered. As a result, no cumulative impacts will occur as part of the implementation of the proposed project MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures would be required in the event that an archaeological or paleontological resource is discovered during the construction of the proposed project: Mitigation Measure 8 (Cultural Resource Impacts). Health and Safety Code requires the project to halt until the county coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Should human remains or archaeological resources be encountered, all construction activities must stop halted and the Monterey Park Police Department must be contacted. CEQA Guidelines of CEQA regulates identification of significant archaeological resources and their salvage. This section of CEQA, among other things, incorporates provisions previously contained in Appendix K of the Guidelines. Mitigation Measure 9 (Cultural Resource Impacts). If a paleontological resource is unearthed during construction, all construction related activities must cease immediately. The Applicant will need to seek the advice of a paleontologist/geologist to determine if the resource is deemed to be significant. In the event that the paleontological and/or geologic feature has been determined to be significant, CEQA Guidelines , applies. SECTION 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS PAGE 72

73 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 3.6 GEOLOGY IMPACTS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to the City of Monterey Park, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on the environment if it results in the following: The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault (as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault), ground-shaking, liquefaction, or landslides; Substantial soil erosion resulting in the loss of topsoil; The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including location on a geologic unit or a soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; Locating a project on an expansive soil, as defined in the California Building Code (2012), creating substantial risks to life or property; or Locating a project in, or exposing people to potential impacts, including soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault (as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault), ground shaking, liquefaction, or landslides? Less than Significant Impact. The City of Monterey Park is located in a seismically active region as is the entire Los Angeles Basin. In 1972, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act was passed in response to the damage sustained in the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake. 59 The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. 60 A list of cities and counties subject to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones is available on the State s Department of Conservation website. After reviewing the list, it was determined that Monterey Park is unaffected by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act since no known fault traces are found within 59 California Department of Conservation. What is the Alquist-Priolo Act /cgs/rghm/ap/ Pages/main.aspx Website accessed in December Ibid. SECTION 3.6 GEOLOGY IMPACTS PAGE 73

74 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK the City. However, Monterey Park is still located in an area that is surrounded by major faults and blind thrust faults (refer to Exhibit 3-6 on the following page). Faults located near the City include the Sierra Madre Fault Zone, Norwalk Fault, Raymond Fault, Santa Monica Fault, Newport-Inglewood Fault, Las Cienegas Fault, and the Whittier-Elsinore Fault. In addition, the City is underlain by the following blind thrust faults: the Puente Hills thrust, the Elysian Park Earthquake faults thrust, and the East Los Angeles thrust. 61 As indicated in Exhibit 3-7, the City is located outside of a liquefaction zone. The project site is also located in an area of the City that is generally flat and not susceptible to landslide. However, the Applicant will need to conform to the standard conditions outlined by the California Building Code, as adopted by the MPMC, regarding the construction of earthquake resistant buildings. Once operational, the hotel staff will also need to participate in earthquake drills to ensure the safety of the staff and patrons should an earthquake occur. Adherence to the set of mandatory standard conditions set forth by the City will reduce impacts to levels that are less than significant. B. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is underlain by the Ramona-Placentia soils association. 62 The Ramona soils that underlie the project site (2-5% slope) pose a slight moderate erosion hazard. However, the project site is currently developed and is located outside of a slope failure zone. 63 In addition, the project site could also be underlain by the Placentia soils. 64 The Placentia soils have a moderate to high erosion hazard and are fine textured subsoil. 65 It should be noted that the Placentia soils are suitable for urban development, but pose a problem once deep surface excavation occurs. The Placentia soils make up only around 15% of the Ramona-Placentia soils association that underlies the City. 66 As stated previously, the project site has been previously developed over, suggesting that the site is conducive for construction and poses little problems for future development. Therefore, the impacts are expected to be less than significant. C. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including location on a geologic unit or a soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Less than Significant Impact. As indicated in Exhibit 3-7, the project site is neither located within an area that is subject to potential liquefaction, nor is it located in an area subject to slope failure and landslides. 61 Monterey Park General Plan Safety and Community Services Element, Geological and Seismic Hazards. Accessed on September 5, United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/ App/WebSoil Survey.aspx. Website accessed January Refer to Exhibit 3-4, Potential Liquefaction and Slope Failure Risk. 64 United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Website accessed January Ibid. 66 Ibid. SECTION 3.6 GEOLOGY IMPACTS PAGE 74

75 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Project Site EXHIBIT 3-6 REGIONAL FAULT MAP Source: United States Geological Survey SECTION 3.6 GEOLOGY IMPACTS PAGE 75

76 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Project Site Potential Liquefaction Risk Potential Slope Failure Risk EXHIBIT 3-7 LIQUEFACTION AND SLOPE FAILURE POTENTIAL Source: California Geological Survey SECTION 3.6 GEOLOGY IMPACTS PAGE 76

77 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK The proposed project site has been previously developed to accommodate the existing uses; therefore, impacts related to unstable soils, landslides, lateral spreading, liquefaction, or collapse are expected to be less than significant. D. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts, including location on expansive soil, as defined in Building Code (2012), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. The soils that underlie the project site belong to the Ramona-Placentia Association. This soil association is gently sloping and drains well to moderately well. 67 Furthermore, the project site is currently developed and contains two operational businesses. As a result, no impacts regarding expansive soils are anticipated for the proposed project. E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts, including soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. No septic tanks will be used as part of the future hotel development. The proposed development will be connected to the adjacent sanitary sewer system. As a result, no impacts associated with the use of septic tanks will occur as part of the proposed project s implementation CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The potential cumulative impacts related to earth and geology is site specific. Furthermore, the analysis herein determined that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to landform modification, grading or the destruction of a geologically significant landform or feature. As a result, no cumulative earth and geology impacts will occur as part of the proposed project s implementation MITIGATION MEASURES The analysis of geological resources indicated that no significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project s implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are required. 67 United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Website accessed January SECTION 3.6 GEOLOGY IMPACTS PAGE 77

78 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES IMPACTS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to the City of Monterey Park, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on greenhouse gas emissions if it results in any of the following: The generation of greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; and, The potential for conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS California is a substantial contributor of global greenhouse gases, emitting over 400 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) a year. 68 Climate studies indicate that California is likely to see an increase of three to four degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. Methane is also an important greenhouse gas that potentially contributes to global climate change. Greenhouse gases are global in their effect, which is to increase the earth s ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. Because primary greenhouse gases have a long lifetime in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well-mixed, their impact on the atmosphere is mostly independent of the point of emission. Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from: Natural factors, such as the changes in the sun s intensity or slow changes in the Earth s orbit around the sun; Natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation, reduction in sunlight from the addition of greenhouse gases and other gases to the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions); and, Anthropogenic (human) activities that change the atmosphere s composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification). The impact of anthropogenic activities on global climate change is apparent in the observational record. Air trapped by ice has been extracted from core samples taken from polar ice sheets to determine the global atmospheric variation of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide from before the start of the industrialization (approximately 1750), to over 650,000 years ago. For that period, it was found that CO2 68 California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004, index.html SECTION 3.7 GREENHOUSE GASSES IMPACTS PAGE 78

79 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK concentrations ranged from 180 parts per million (ppm) to 300 ppm. For the period from approximately 1750 to the present, global CO2 concentrations increased from a pre-industrialization period concentration of 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005, with the 2005 value far exceeding the upper end of the pre-industrial period range. The primary effect of global climate change has been a rise in average global tropospheric temperature of 0.2 Celsius per decade, determined from meteorological measurements worldwide between 1990 and Climate change modeling using 2000 emission rates shows that further warming would occur, which would induce further changes in the global climate system during the current century. 70 Changes to the global climate system and ecosystems and to California would include, but would not be limited to: The loss of sea ice and mountain snow pack, resulting in higher sea levels and higher sea surface evaporation rates with a corresponding increase in tropospheric water vapor de to the atmosphere s ability to hold more water vapor at a higher temperatures; 71 Rise in global average sea level primarily due to thermal expansion and melting of glaciers and ice caps, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets; 72 Decline of Sierra snowpack, which accounts for approximately half of the surface water storage in California, by 70 percent to as much as 90 percent over the next 100 years; 73 Increase in the number of days conductive to ozone formation by 25 to 85 percent (depending on the future temperature scenario) in high ozone areas of Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley by the end of the 21 st century; 74 and, High potential for erosion of California s coastlines and sea water intrusion into the Delta and levee systems due to the rise in sea level. 75 The extent of global climate change or the exact contribution for anthropogenic sources is uncertain. For instance, the variability in the current global climate change models and world temperature data collection methods has been documented by: 69 California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004, index.html 70 Ibid. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid. 73 California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature (Executive Summary), March Ibid. 75 Ibid. SECTION 3.7 GREENHOUSE GASSES IMPACTS PAGE 79

80 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Since 1940 data have undergone predominately a cooling trend The Greenland ice sheet and coastal regions are not following the current global warming trend. (P. Chylek, et al. 2004, Global Warming and the Greenland Ice Sheet, Climate Change 62, ) In climate research and modeling [sic], we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University press 2001, p. 774.) Natural climate variability on long-term scales will continue to be problematic for CO2 climate change analysis and detection. (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, p. 330.) CEQA requires an agency to engage in forecasting to the extent that an activity could reasonably be expected under the circumstances. An agency cannot be expected to predict the future course of governmental regulation or exactly what information scientific advances may ultimately reveal. The CEQA Guidelines specifically authorize lead agencies to conclude discussion of an impact if the lead agency finds that further discussion would be speculative. Further, the California Supreme Court has specifically upheld this type of finding in a CEQA analysis when there is no accepted methodology or standard to evaluate a potential cumulative impact. In Laurel Heights Improvements Association v. Regents ([1993] 6 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1137), the Court upheld the conclusion in the EIR that potential cumulative impacts of toxic air emissions are too speculative based on the lack of accepted methodologies or standards and based on CEQA Guideline Section Similarly, an Appellate Court held that an air district was not required to evaluate as yet unknown technologies in its environmental assessment of a new air quality rule. (Alliance of Small Emitters, supra, 60 Cal.App.4 th at 67.) CEQA does not require an agency to evaluate an impact that is too speculative, provided that the agency identifies the impact, engages in a thorough investigation but is unable to resolve an issue, and then discloses its conclusion that the impact is too speculative for evaluation (CEQA Guidelines 15145, Office of Planning and Research commentary). Additionally, CEQA requires that impacts be evaluated at a level that is specific enough to permit informed decision making and public participation with the production of information sufficient to understand the environmental impacts of the proposed project and to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned (CEQA Guidelines 15146, Office of Planning and Research commentary). A. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Examples of GHG that are produced both by natural and industrial processes include carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), and nitrous oxide (N 2 0). 76 Table 3-4 summarizes annual greenhouse gas emissions projected for the proposed project. 76 California, State of. OPR Technical Advisory CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. June 19, SECTION 3.7 GREENHOUSE GASSES IMPACTS PAGE 80

81 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Table 3-4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Source GHG Emissions (Lbs/Day) CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E Construction Phase - Demolition 2, , Construction Phase - Site Preparation 2, , Construction Phase - Grading Construction Phase - Construction 2, , Construction Phase - Paving 1, , Construction Phase - Coatings Long-Term Area Emissions Long-Term - Energy Emissions Long-Term - Mobile Emissions 15, , Long-Term - Total Emissions 16, , Construction GHG Emissions were calculated for on-site sources and assumed unmitigated emissions. Source: CalEEMod. As an interim threshold based on guidance provide in the California Air Pollution Controls Officers Association (CAPCOA) CEQA and Climate Change White Paper, a non-zero threshold based on Approach 2 of the handbook will be used. Threshold 2.5 (Unit-Based Thresholds Based on Market Capture) establishes a numerical threshold based on capture of approximately 90 percent of emissions from future development. The latest threshold developed by SCAQMD using this method is 3,000 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO 2 E) per year for mixed use projects. Table 3-4 summarizes annual greenhouse gas emissions from build-out of the proposed project. As indicated in Table 3-4, the CO 2 E total for the project is 16,089 pounds per day or 2,663 MTCO 2 E which is below the threshold. B. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Monterey Park adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in The CAP was the first step in the City's development of a long-range, comprehensive plan to move from business-as usual growth and current development practices to a more sustainable model of growth and development. Actions at the local level are important because local jurisdictions hold a unique and influential position in the day-to-day activities of local residents and businesses. This allows local jurisdictions to design and implement a wide range of strategies that help to combat climate change locally, which is supported and informed by larger federal, regional, and state efforts. A CAP s primary purpose is to aid local governments in the identification of those strategies that are unique to the community as a means to achieve GHG emission reductions. The CAP is designed to support California's climate change objectives and emissions-reduction goals by achieving a "fair share" reduction SECTION 3.7 GREENHOUSE GASSES IMPACTS PAGE 81

82 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK in GHG emissions. The requirements are rooted in the California Global Warming Solutions Act that are designed to reduce California s GHG emissions to 1990 levels by The Monterey Park CAP includes the following five categories of GHG reduction strategies: Building Efficiency Measures. Energy that is used to cool, heat, and power homes and business account for up to 24% of total community s GHG emissions. These measures (designated as E1 through E4) will assist the City to achieve the targeted GHG emission reductions. Increased Renewable Energy Generation Measures. Green building and energy conservation practices are creating a new framework for how people can save energy. This energy consumption may be accomplished by reducing the building's overall energy demand (by using energy efficient appliances), creating an energy-efficient building using properly sealed doors, windows, and ducts, and installing renewable energy technologies (such solar water heaters and solar panels). The City s corresponding strategies are referred to as R1 and R2). Land Use Measures. Land use patterns can affect the modes of transportation used to move within a City. Where there are many services and amenities located near residential or employment centers, the opportunity to walk, bike, or use public transit increases. By encouraging mixed use development and more development concentrated near transit facilities (refer to LU 1 and LU 2), substantial reductions in GHG may be realized. Transportation Measures. The transportation of goods and people accounted for approximately 63% of Monterey Park's GHG emissions in The majority of these trips (commuting, shopping, and recreational) are done in private automobiles. The City developed three primary actions (refer to measures T1 through T3) to help achieve the City's emissions-reduction goals. Water Conservation/Waste Disposal Measures. Less than 5% of the Monterey Park s GHG emissions are related to water use. The City has developed two main water conservation and waste disposal measures to aid in achieving the City 's emissions-reduction goals. Each of these strategies (W1 and W2) indicates how the City intends to achieve the targeted GHG emission reductions by The aforementioned programs will be the CAP elements that may translate into a direct or indirect physical impact on the on the environment. The CAP s programs are summarized below and on the following pages in Table The State Attorney General's Office has stated that community-wide GHG reduction targets should align with an emissions trajectory that Evaluates current GHG emissions and forecasts "business-as-usual" emissions. 78 City of Monterey Park and AECOM. City of Monterey Park Climate Action Plan. [Revised Public Draft] January, SECTION 3.7 GREENHOUSE GASSES IMPACTS PAGE 82

83 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Table 3-5 Monterey Parks Climate Action Plan Programs Program Description GHG Reductions Building Efficiency Measures E1. Efficiency Requirements for New Development The city, in coordination with the California Building Standards Commission and the California Energy Commission, will adopt energy efficiency regulations for new construction projects that comply with the Tier I energy efficiency standards. The Tier I energy efficiency standards require a building's energy performance to exceed Title 24 standards by 15% for both residential and nonresidential development. Because of the long operational life of new and renovated buildings, this measure will provide long-term energy and GHG emission savings. This measure is expected to result in a 811 MT reduction in CO2 by the year Building Efficiency Measures E2. Building Retrofits Approximately 25% of total GHG emissions in Monterey Park are the result of energy used for commercial and residential buildings. Because increasing building energy efficiency can significantly reduce GHG emissions, there are a range of state and federal incentives to help promote implementation of these upgrades. The City is also considering making energy efficiency retrofits a condition of sale, which would greatly increase the level of GHG reductions achievable. This measure is expected to result in a 3,590 MT reduction in CO2 by the year Building Efficiency Measures E3. Appliance Upgrades The City will partner with SCE, the Southern California Gas Company, and the Metropolitan Water District to provide to increase awareness about rebate and incentive programs, the efficiencies that may be gained from Energy-Star-rated appliances, and the cost savings associated with Energy Star appliances. This measure is expected to result in a 1,846 MT reduction in CO2 by the year Building Efficiency Measures E4. Smart Meters Emerging energy management systems or Smart Meters are currently being installed by SCE as a means to improve how electricity consumption is managed. These Smart Meters will eventually provide utility customers with access to detailed and instantaneous energy use and cost information, new pricing programs based on peak-energy demand, and the ability to program home appliances and devices to respond to cost, comfort, and convenience. This measure is expected to result in a 413 MT reduction in CO2 by the year Increased Renewable Energy Generation Measures R1. Solar Water Heater The California Solar Water Heating and Efficiency Act of 2007 (AB 1470) created a 10-year program aimed at installing solar water heaters in homes and businesses. AB 1470 was designed to lower the initial costs of purchasing a system. This measure is expected to result in a 1,997 MT reduction in CO2 by the year Increased Renewable Energy Generation Measures R2. Solar Photovoltaic Systems The City will promote PV installations to provide 5% of residential electricity and 2% of commercial electricity energy use from solar PV generation by The City will provide targeted outreach to developers and builders about renewable energy incentives and energy efficiency programs when they apply for permits. This measure is expected to result in a 2,494 MT reduction in CO2 by the year SECTION 3.7 GREENHOUSE GASSES IMPACTS PAGE 83

84 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Table 3-5 Monterey Parks Climate Action Plan Programs (continued) Program Description GHG Reductions Land Use Measures LU1. Mixed-Use Development To meet the 0.5% VMT reduction target, the City will create incentives to facilitate new mixed-use development near existing and planned transit corridors. With a combination of existing commercial center retrofits and mixed-use infill development, the City may increase local access to goods and services along with transportation options to reach those amenities reducing the need for automobile trips. Increasing the availability, the effectiveness, and the use of transit could result in a 1,424 mt co2e reduction in the City by Land Use Measures LU2. Service Nodes Through changes proposed under the new Zoning Ordinance, the City will provide more opportunities for walking, biking, and short-distance vehicular trips by allowing eating establishments, coffee shops, day care, dry cleaners, and other services to develop in proximity to employment centers. To reduce VMT by 0.5% by 2020, the City will revise the zoning code to allow for commercial and retail services in employment centers. This measure is expected to result in a 1,424 MT reduction in CO2 by the year Transportation Measures T1.1. Lower Cost of Riding Transit The City currently provides discounts to older adults on the purchase of transit passes, which are accepted locally and by regional transit providers. Pending funding availability, the City will expand the program to provide discounts to resident, such as students, or increase the subsidy in order to further promote transit use. City-wide VMT could be reduced 1% by This measure is expected to result in a 2,848 MT reduction in CO2 by the year Transportation Measures T1.2. Promote Use of Transit Network The majority of the City s residents work outside of Monterey Park and most of those working in the City come from other areas. The City will develop marketing or outreach programs to promote increased use of the Spirit Bus and other transit options. The potential VMT reduction with the implementation of this measure is 1% by This measure is expected to result in a 2,848 MT reduction in CO2 by the year Transportation Measures T2.1. Expand Pedestrian Network and Increase Bicycle Parking The City will focus on implementation of traffic-calming projects and other necessary pedestrian amenities and safety improvements to enable walking as an attractive travel mode. In addition, the City will identify opportunities to install bicycle parking in public spaces or to modify existing parking requirements for bicycles, with the aim of increasing the supply of bicycle parking. These actions have the potential to reduce VMT in the City by 1.5% by This measure is expected to result in a 4,273 MT reduction in CO2 by the year Transportation Measures T2.2. Provide End-Of-Trip Facilities As part of this measure, the City will work with local employers to facilitate the expansion or provision of multimodal facilities. As part of the outreach, the City will spotlight the facilities offered to its own employees, which includes a ride-share program for employees. With 50% of the travel within the City associated with commuting, this action can achieve 1% VMT reduction by This measure is expected to result in a 2,848 MT reduction in CO2 by the year SECTION 3.7 GREENHOUSE GASSES IMPACTS PAGE 84

85 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Table 3-5 Monterey Parks Climate Action Plan Programs (continued) Program Description GHG Reductions Transportation Measures T3. Transportation Demand Management The City will designate a TDM Coordinator who will be responsible for promoting these programs at local businesses, showcasing the current municipal program, and encouraging additional TDM at existing and future businesses. With up to a 3% of commute-related VMT reduction possible, this measure would equate to a 1.5% Citywide reduction in VMT by This measure is expected to result in a 4,273 MT reduction in CO2 by the year Water Conservation and Waste Reduction Measures W1 Conserving Water The City, in partnership with the San Gabriel Valley Water District, will continue to develop pilot or demonstration projects related to water conservation. The City will continue to work with the San Gabriel Valley Water District to complete irrigation and revegetation of medians throughout Monterey Park with water-efficient irrigation equipment and native vegetation. This measure is expected to result in a 1,073 MT reduction in CO2 by the year Water Conservation and Waste Reduction Measures W2. Reducing Waste This program allows the City to meet the 50% landfill diversion mandate required by state law while providing a service to residents and businesses. In addition to the MRF program, the City has additional waste diversion and recycling programs, ranging from backyard composting/smart gardening workshops to participation in county-wide Household Hazardous Waste collection events. Not quantified since the reduction is already being implemented. Source: City of Monterey Park and AECOM. City of Monterey Park Climate Action Plan. [Revised Public Draft] January, The proposed project will be required to comply with those pertinent CAP programs and measures. As a result, the proposed project will not be in conflict with the applicable local climate action plan or policy CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The analysis herein determined that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to the emissions of greenhouse gasses. As a result, no significant adverse cumulative impacts will result from the proposed project s implementation MITIGATION MEASURES The analysis of potential impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions indicated that no significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project s implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are required. SECTION 3.7 GREENHOUSE GASSES IMPACTS PAGE 85

86 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 3.8 HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to the City of Monterey Park, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on risk of upset and human health if it results in any of the following: The creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials; The creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; The generation of hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; Locating the project on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code resulting in a significant hazard to the public or the environment; Locating the project within an area governed by an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport; Locating the project in the vicinity of a private airstrip that would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; The impairment of the implementation of, or physical interference with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or, The exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild lands fire, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A Phase I and Phase II environmental analysis of the project site was prepared by Robin Environmental Management (REM). 79 REM s field engineer visited or contacted the following public agencies to find any 79 Robin Environmental Management. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, N Atlantic Blvd., Monterey Park, CA. August 14, SECTION 3.8 HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS PAGE 86

87 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK records related to underground storage tank (UST) of gasoline or any other hazardous substances on the subject premises: City of Monterey Park Building Department Records. The 633 N. Atlantic Boulevard property was occupied by various gas stations. Records available at the City of Monterey Park Building Division (CMPBD) indicated that, in 1978, three gasoline underground storage tanks (UST s) were removed from this property. No post-ust removal soil sampling was conducted as these tanks were removed prior to the current agency supervised post-ust removal soil sampling/analysis started being implemented in However, in 2006 a Phase II investigation did not find evidence of any significant soil contamination. 80 County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (CLADPW). This record search identified an additional 500-gallon waste oil UST that was installed near the northeastern corner of the former gasoline station in The waste oil UST was removed in 1998 with soil sampling/analysis conducted in association with the UST removal under the supervision of the CLADPW. This sampling did not identify evidence of significant soil contamination. In October, 1998, the CLADPW issued a case closure for the waste oil UST removal case. Another records search also indicated the Monterey Park Car Wash (521 N. Atlantic Boulevard) was listed on State Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)/Spills database with a Case Closed status. In 1993, two 10,000-gallon gasoline UST s and their associated four dispensers were removed from the site. Post-UST removal sampling conducted under the supervision of the CLADPW identified Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon-gasoline (TPH-g) concentration up to 1,106 parts per million (PPM). The site was subsequently listed on the State Water Board-compiled Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) database. In 1995, the CLADPW transferred the site s LUST case to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB-LA) as the lead/supervising agency. 81 Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region (RWQCB-LA). In 1996, RWQCB-LA determined that the identified TPH-g level was not likely to significantly impact groundwater (the groundwater depth occurring at the site is approximately 190 feet) underneath the site and granted case closure for the site LUST case with no cleanup actions required. Even though the RWQCB-LA granted Case Closure (No Further Actions Required) for the 521 N. Atlantic Boulevard LUST/Spills case, any gasoline-impacted soils remaining on the site, if encountered during future excavation, will be required being disposed of as such at much higher cost than disposal of clean excavated soils. Therefore, in August 2013, a Phase II subsurface soil investigation around former dispenser area and did not find evidence of significant soil contamination Robin Environmental Management. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, N Atlantic Blvd., Monterey Park, CA. August 14, Ibid. 82 Ibid. SECTION 3.8 HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS PAGE 87

88 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Permits, licenses, and registrations. All present and past records of permits, licenses, registrations, certificates of environmental relation were searched. There is currently an in-ground clarifier present on APN (521 N. Atlantic Boulevard). This clarifier is appropriately permitted with the CLADPW for its operation. Violation or non-compliance notice. No pending violation or notice of non-compliance was issued with the present environmental regulations, according to the findings of the environmental assessment completed for the property. Environmental lien records. A government records search shows that there are no environmental liens placed by the federal environmental agency under CERCLA regulations for the subject site. REM staff searched the California State Department of Toxic Substances website EnviroStor data search and found no environmental liens were placed by the State environmental agency for the subject site. City of Monterey Park records also show that there are no environmental liens placed by the local environmental agency for the subject site. 83 Lists and quantities of the hazardous materials previously or presently used, disposed, treated, stored, or generated at the subject property were searched and assessed. During the site inspection, there were five 55-gallon plastic drums for containing used coolants, used transmission fluid, used cleaning agents, and used parts degreaser stored in the north side of the 621 N. Atlantic Boulevard repair garage building (occupied by Purrfect Auto Service). Near the southeastern corner of the main auto repair garage, there are six aboveground storage tanks, (from west to east) two currently being used for containing new motor oil, three are currently empty, and one is currently used for containing used motor oil. No apparent significant surface staining was observed around the aforementioned containers and aboveground tanks. The conducted government records search also identifies that Econo Lube & Tune, formerly listed on RCRA small quantities of hazardous wastes generator database (for disposal of used motor oil generated during its auto repair/maintenance operations), as having no spills or violation records. 84 REM s environmental assessor/geologist performed the field survey of the subject site and adjacent properties on August 1, 2013 and the results of this survey are outlined below. Indoor and Visible Emissions. No unusual smells, obnoxious odors, or visual emissions were observed during the inspection of the property. Neither air emission stacks nor paint booth were present, thus no pertinent permits were searched for the previous records of violation history. 85 Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM). Asbestos-containing building materials are normally found in older buildings. REM inspected such materials as to the visual conditions and locations. Potential asbestos-containing building materials may be found in floor tile and associated mastic adhesive underneath the floor tile, carpet mastic, linoleum sheeting and associated backing 83 Robin Environmental Management. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, N Atlantic Blvd., Monterey Park, CA. August 14, Ibid. 85 Ibid. SECTION 3.8 HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS PAGE 88

89 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK material or leveling compound, drywall joint compound or mud product, plaster compound, acoustic ceiling texture, ceiling tile and associated mastic adhesive, window putty or glazing, roofing material (shingle, cap-sheet, etc.), roofing penetration mastic, transite panel or flue pipe, fire-proofing material, pipe insulation or wrapping, etc. 86 Lead-Based Paint (LBP). With the exception of the office building located at N. Atlantic Boulevard which was constructed in 1981, the on-site buildings were all constructed prior to the year of 1978 when lead-based paint was banned by federal government. Due to the dangers of lead poisoning, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the sale of lead-based paint (LBP). Prior to demolition, or any activity that will cause a disturbance of any suspect lead-based paint, sampling to determine lead content is recommended. 87 Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB s). Prior to 1978, PCBs were commonly used in dielectric fluids in transformers, capacitors, and light ballasts due to their desirable thermal characteristics, and hydraulic fluid compactor. Due to their demonstrated toxicity and persistence in the environment, PCB manufacturing in the United States was discontinued. Pole- and pad-mounted transformers were found in the vicinity of the subject site buildings. However, this equipment appears to be in good condition without any sign of leakage. No PCB-containing hydraulic fluid trash compactor was discovered on the site premise. 88 Underground Storage Tank (UST). The visual inspection of the subject site revealed no evidence of surface or above ground (e.g., fill pipe, vent pipes, fill connections, concrete pads, saw cuts, sumps, spill containment device, leak detection device) features normally associated with underground storage tanks (UST s). 89 Aboveground Storage Tank. Near the southeastern corner of the main auto repair garage portion of the 621 N. Atlantic Blvd auto repair garage building (occupied by Purrfect Auto Service), there were six aboveground storage tanks, two currently being used for containing new motor oil, three are currently empty, and one is currently being used for containing used motor oil. No significant surface staining was noticed around these aboveground tanks. These on-site new/used motor oil aboveground storage tanks (AST's) were appropriately permitted with the City of Monterey Park Fire Department Robin Environmental Management. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, N Atlantic Blvd., Monterey Park, CA. August 14, In 1978, the federal government banned the use of lead-based paint in residential applications; however, usage in general industry continued at a decreased rate to the present. Lead-based paint presents a hazard through inhalation or ingestion of paint chips or vapor fumes. The greatest cumulative health threat is to young children, and for this reason the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has promulgated lead standards and survey requirements for buildings affected by HUD funding. This HUD regulation represents the only federal requirement for lead-based paint, hazard management applicable to privately owned structures. 88 Robin Environmental Management. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, N Atlantic Blvd., Monterey Park, CA. August 14, Ibid. 90 Ibid. SECTION 3.8 HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS PAGE 89

90 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Fuel Islands. The visual inspection of the subject site revealed no evidence of fuel islands or dispensers either in operation or abandoned. Hydraulic Hoist Unit. There are four in-ground hydraulic hoists in-use, three abandoned inground hydraulic hoists, and two above-ground hydraulic hoists present within the 621 N Atlantic Blvd auto repair garage building (occupied by Purrfect Auto Service). No significant staining was noticed around these hoist units. Based on REM s experience, leakage, if any, of these hydraulic units typically affect soils in limited volume and would not induce significant impact to the subsurface environment of the property. 91 Hazardous Materials/Petroleum Products Storage & Handling. In addition to the new/used motor oil aboveground storage tanks described previously, there were five 55-gallon plastic drums for containing used coolants, used transmission fluid, used cleaning agents, and used parts degreaser along the north side of the Purrfect Auto Service. No apparently significant surface staining was noticed around these containers. To the west of this site, there is an outdoor fenced asphalt-paved yard used for the storage of empty drums. No surface staining was observed around these drums. 92 No storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste, other than described above, was found during the site investigation. No severely improper waste stream processing or disposal practices were observed on the subject property. Wastewater Treatment Unit/ Clarifier. There is currently an in-ground clarifier present on APN (521 N. Atlantic Boulevard). This clarifier is permitted by the CLADPW. Storm water drainage system in the close proximity of the subject area did not identify any abnormal accumulation of petroleum or chemical run-off or foreign materials. No unusual blockage of the storm-water control system was observed during the site visual investigation. No additional investigation on described storm-water systems at the subject property was recommended. 93 Solid Waste Disposal. No improper activities of treatment or disposal of hazardous, medical, or toxic wastes are performed on the subject site. Asphalt/concrete pavement surfaces appeared to serve as impermeable structure where no major cracks or crevices were found in the areas of waste disposal and handling, if any. 94 Wells and Underground Pipelines. REM s site walk-through did not discover any irrigation wells, injection wells, abandoned wells, groundwater-monitoring wells, dry wells, septic wells oil wells, gas wells, domestic water wells, other-monitoring wells on the subject premises. REM s site inspection did not reveal any evidence of underground pipelines beneath the ground of subject 91 Robin Environmental Management. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, N Atlantic Blvd., Monterey Park, CA. August 14, Ibid. 93 Ibid. 94 Ibid. SECTION 3.8 HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS PAGE 90

91 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK property, other than public utility lines such as sewer, power, and electric lines, for which public dig-alert service would easily identify upon 48-hour telephone notice in advance. 95 Visual Indication of Spills, Leakage, Staining. REM s site inspection did not reveal any evidence of on-site or off-site spills, leakages, or staining significant enough to pose immediate environmental concern onto the subject property. No significantly stained catch basins, drip pads, or sumps were observed. There were no major spills around surface drains, pipes, gutters, spouts, or tubes, if any, at the time of site investigation. No staining or surface staining on the bare soil or unpaved lands were identified during the site investigation. 96 Radon. Radon sources can be found from earth and rock beneath building structures, well water, and building materials themselves. According to the California EPA, Los Angeles and Riverside County is classified as a Zone 2 county having a predicted average screening level between two to four picocuries per liter of air. If a region reportedly has radon concentration below four picocuries per liter of air in 99.5% of homes within the region, then, it is not likely impacted by the presence of radon gas. 97 REM s field engineer contacted the following public agencies to find any records of former operation of gasoline UST or any other hazardous substances in the vicinity of the project site. County of Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (CLADPW), Environmental Programs Division; Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region; and, California State Department of Toxic Substances Control. The conducted government records search identifies that both Mars Investment, Inc. (331 N Atlantic Boulevard, located immediately to the south of the project site) and BCTC Development/Former Superior Pontiac (500 N Atlantic Blvd, located, across Atlantic Boulevard, to the east of the project site) are listed on State Water Board-compiled Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)/Spills facilities database with Case Closed status. The former UST leakage/spills cases at these two neighboring sites were apparently satisfactorily treated under the supervision of the lead agency to the degree that no significant environmental concerns for its neighboring areas will likely occur from any untreated UST leakage/spills. In summary, no locations 95 Robin Environmental Management. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, N Atlantic Blvd., Monterey Park, CA. August 14, Ibid. 97 Ibid. SECTION 3.8 HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS PAGE 91

92 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK within close proximity to the project site are considered to pose any environmental threat to the property, based upon the data obtained from the government records search. 98 The project s construction will involve the removal of the existing debris located throughout the site. During these activities, hazardous materials may be encountered due to the age of some of the buildings that occupy the project site. As a result, the following mitigation is required: The Applicant and/or the contractors must adhere to the recommendations outlined in the Phase I Environmental Assessment prepared for the project site (Robin Environmental Management, Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, N Atlantic Blvd., Monterey Park, CA. August 14, 2013). Documentation as to the amount, type of, and evidence of disposal of materials at an appropriate hazardous material landfill site must be provided to the Chief Building Official before the City issues building permits. This mitigation will reduce the potential impact to levels that are considered to be less than significant. B. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, or result in reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Impact. Future on-site grading activities must comply with all pertinent requirements of the Fire Department, SCAQMD, Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, and other regulatory agencies. Compliance with the regulations of these agencies will reduce the potential risk to levels that are less than significant (also refer to the mitigation measure included in Subsection A). The use of any hazardous materials will be limited to those that are commercially available and typically used in a household setting. As a result, the impacts will be less than significant. C. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. Because of the nature of the proposed use (a hotel and ancillary commercial uses), no hazardous or acutely hazardous materials will be emitted that may affect a sensitive receptor. As a result, no impacts from the future uses are anticipated. The project will involve the grading of the site and the removal of the existing on-site improvements. During these activities, lead and/or asbestos containing materials may be encountered. The mitigation identified in Subsection A addresses potential impacts associated with demolition and site preparation activities. As a result, the potential impacts will be less than significant. 98 Robin Environmental Management. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, N Atlantic Blvd., Monterey Park, CA. August 14, SECTION 3.8 HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS PAGE 92

93 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK D. Would the project be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code , and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. A database search conducted through CalEPA s Cortese List Data Resources website identified 1 site within the City, the Operating Industries, Inc landfill. The former landfill was located at 900 Potrero Drive, approximately 2.5 miles to the southeast of the project site. 99 The proposed project site is not included on a hazardous sites list compiled pursuant to Government Code As a result, no impacts will occur with respect to locating the development on a site included on a hazardous list pursuant to the Government Code. E. Would the project be located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is not located within two miles of an operational public airport. The nearest airport, El Monte Airport, is located approximately 5.84 miles to the northeast. 101 As a result, the proposed project s implementation will not present a safety hazard to aircraft and/or airport operations at a public use airport. F. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The proposed project site is located approximately 1.16 miles southeast of the Santa Fe International Corp Heliport and 1.11 miles southeast of the Southern California Edison Company s Heliport in the neighboring City of Alhambra. 102 Applicable safety lighting will be installed on the hotel building. As a result, the proposed project will not be safety hazard related to aircraft and/or airport operations at a private use airstrip. G. Would the project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. At no time will any designated emergency evacuation routes be closed to vehicular traffic as a result of the proposed project s implementation. The project contractors will be required to submit a construction and staging plan to the City for approval. Thus, no impacts on emergency response or evacuation plans will result from the project s construction. 99 Google Earth. Accessed September 5, California, State of, Department of Toxic Substances Control, DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List - Site Cleanup (Cortese List). Site was accessed in September Google Earth. Accessed September 5, Ibid. SECTION 3.8 HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS PAGE 93

94 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK H. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild lands fire, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands? No Impact. As stated previously, the project site and surrounding areas are completely urbanized. Due to the location of the project site, no impacts regarding wild land fires are anticipated CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The potential impact related to hazardous materials is site specific. Furthermore, the analysis herein also determined that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant unmitigable impacts related to hazards and/or hazardous materials. As a result, no significant adverse cumulative impacts will result from the proposed project s implementation MITIGATION MEASURES The environmental analysis determined that there may be a potential for hazardous materials to be encountered during the land clearance and grading phases of development. As a result, the following mitigation measure is required: Mitigation Measure 10 (Hazardous Materials Impacts). The Applicant and/or the contractors will must adhere to the recommendations outlined in the Phase I Environmental Assessment prepared for the project site (Robin Environmental Management, Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, N Atlantic Blvd., Monterey Park, CA. August 14, 2013). Documentation as to the amount, type of, and evidence of disposal of materials at an appropriate hazardous material landfill site shall be provided to the Chief Building Official before the City issues building permits. SECTION 3.8 HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS PAGE 94

95 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 3.9 HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY IMPACTS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to the City of Monterey Park, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse environmental impact on water resources or water quality if it results in any of the following: A violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; A substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level; A substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site or area through the alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site; A substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site; The creation or contribution of water runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or the generation of substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; The substantial degradation of water quality; The placement of housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map; The placement of structures within 100-year flood hazard areas that would impede or redirect flood flows; The exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of flooding as a result of dam or levee failure; or The exposure of a project to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. SECTION 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS PAGE 95

96 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed and covered over in impervious surfaces. In the absence of mitigation, the new impervious surfaces (internal driveways, parking areas, etc.) that will be constructed as part of the site s development could lead to the presence of debris, leaves, soils, oil/grease, and other pollutants within the parking areas. These pollutants may enter the storm drain system during periods of rainfall. The proposed project will be required to implement storm water pollution control measures pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The Applicant will also be required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) utilizing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control or reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP will also identify post-construction BMPs that will be the responsibility of the hotel management. The following standard conditions will also be required as part of the proposed project s implementation. The Applicant must demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under California's General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number or other proof of filing shall be provided to the Chief Building Official and the City Engineer. The project Applicant will also be required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The aforementioned standard condition will reduce the potential impacts to levels that are less than significant. No additional mitigation measures will be required. B. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge in such a way that would cause a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. The City of Monterey Park Water System obtains all of its water supplies from local groundwater. This water is obtained via 12 City water wells with a total pumping capacity of 20 million gallons per day (mgd). All of the wells are located within the main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin in the vicinity of the Rio Hondo River. These wells are all located outside of the City s corporate boundaries. At the present time, the Monterey Park Water System supplies an average of 10 mgd to its customers. Current use in the City averages from 7.3 mgd to 12 mgd during the hottest summer month. 103 The proposed project, once operational, is projected to consume 42,066 gallons per day. This consumption rate is well within the remaining capacity of available groundwater. As a result, the proposed project will not affect the local groundwater basin that underlies the City s existing 12 wells. 103 City of Monterey Park Website Site accessed on January 14, SECTION 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS PAGE 96

97 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK C. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? No Impact. There are no designated blue line streams or Waters of the U. S. located within the project site. Furthermore, there are no natural drainage areas or riparian habitats located in the vicinity of the project site as the site and surrounding areas are presently developed. The project will not affect or alter any existing drainage pattern of a stream or river. 104 No changes to any existing stream bed will occur as a result of the proposed project s implementation. As a result, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. D. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or offsite? No Impact. The proposed project s implementation will not impact any designated blue-line stream, drainage course, or Waters of the U. S. as indicated in the previous section. No other natural stream channels remain within the affected area. As a result, no impacts are anticipated. E. Would the project create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. In the absence of mitigation, the impervious surfaces (internal driveways, parking areas, etc.) that will be constructed as part of the site s development could lead to the presence of debris, leaves, soils, oil/grease, and other pollutants within the parking areas. 105 The Applicant will be required to ensure that all catch basins and public access points that cross or abut an open channel shall be marked by the Applicant with a water quality signage (a painted stencil on the storm drain inlet) in accordance with City standards. In addition, the Applicant shall be responsible for the construction of all on-site drainage facilities as required by the City Engineer. The City will also review and must approve the drainage study and plan. The aforementioned standard conditions will reduce the potential impacts to levels that are less than significant. No additional mitigation measures will be required. F. Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact. In the absence of mitigation, the impervious surfaces (internal driveways, parking areas, etc.) that will be constructed as part of the site s development could lead to the presence of debris, leaves, soils, oil/grease, and other pollutants within the parking areas. 106 However, the proposed project will also be required to comply with all pertinent Clean Water Act (CWA) requirements. This requirements and the previous 105 Blodgett/Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site Survey (Site survey was conducted on August 28, t 2014). 105Ibid. 106 Ibid. SECTION 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS PAGE 97

98 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK standard conditions identified under Section E will address this issue. As a result, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. G. Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The proposed project site is located outside of a designated 100-year flood zone (Zone X) according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (2014). Therefore, no floodrelated impacts with respect to the placement of housing within a 100-year flood zone will occur. H. Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area, structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within a designated 100-year flood hazard area as defined by FEMA, refer to Exhibit 3-8 on the following page. As a result, the future development contemplated as part of the proposed project s implementation will not impede or redirect the flows of potential floodwater, since the proposed project site is not located within a flood hazard area. Therefore, no flood-related impacts are anticipated. I. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of flooding as a result of dam or levee failure? Less than Significant Impact. Per the Monterey Park General Plan, the areas surrounding the Garvey Reservoir and Laguna Basin are at risk for flooding following a dam failure. 107 According to the General Plan, the proposed project site is located within the inundation area of the Garvey Reservoir, located approximately 1.6 miles to the southeast of the project site. The potential inundation risk is applicable to the majority of the City located outside of the hillside areas. As a result, the potential impacts are less than significant. J. Would the project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The City of Monterey Park and the project site are located inland approximately 21 miles from the Pacific Ocean and the project area would not be exposed to the effects of a tsunami. 108 As a result, no impacts related to seiche, tsunami, or mudflows will result from the implementation of the proposed project CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The potential impacts related to hydrology and storm water runoff are typically site specific. The implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant adverse impacts related to hydrology. As a result, no cumulative impacts are anticipated. 107 City of Monterey Park General Plan. Safety and Community Services Element. Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and ESRI Google Earth. Website accessed September 5 th, SECTION 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS PAGE 98

99 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK EXHIBIT 3-8 FEMA FLOOD MAP Source: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and ESRI SECTION 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS PAGE 99

100 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK MITIGATION MEASURES The analysis of potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality indicated that no significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project s implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are required. SECTION 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS PAGE 100

101 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 3.10 LAND USE IMPACTS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to the City of Monterey Park, a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on land use and development if it results in any of the following: The disruption or division of the physical arrangement of an established community; A conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of the agency with jurisdiction over the project; or A conflict with any applicable conservation plan or natural community conservation plan ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Would the project physically divide or disrupt an established community or otherwise result in an incompatible land use? No Impact. The 2.14-acre project site is located in the midst of an urban area. The site is comprised of four parcels and three of the four parcels are occupied by buildings. Within the four parcels, there are two businesses that are presently operating (the car wash and automotive repair shop). The existing improvements that occupy the project site are described below: The Monterey Park Car Wash is an operational automated carwash and a small restaurant. The Monterey Park Car Wash is located on the southernmost part of the proposed project site. Its APN is and address is 521 N. Atlantic Boulevard. 109 The Mount Hua Studio, comprised of two vacant buildings, is located directly north of the Monterey Park Car Wash. This use includes a smaller building located in the southwest corner and a larger building located in the center east portion of the parcel. The site s APN is and legal address is 603 N. Atlantic Boulevard. 110 The Purrfect Auto Service, abuts the entertainment studio to the north and is currently operational. The building is small, with the office located on the eastern portion of the property abutting Atlantic Boulevard, and a garage area consisting of four work bays extending westward from the office towards the property boundary. The parcel s legal address is 621 N. Atlantic Boulevard and its APN is Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor. Parcel Viewer. Website accessed in December Ibid. 111 Ibid. SECTION 3.10 LAND USE IMPACTS PAGE 101

102 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK A Vacant Lot occupies the northernmost parcel within the project site. The site is currently vacant, with the foundations of the previous building still visible. This property was formerly occupied by service station businesses. The parcel s legal address is 633 N. Atlantic Boulevard and its APN is The location and extent of these existing uses and improvements are shown in Exhibit 2-5. Commercial uses are located along the east and west sides of Atlantic Boulevard. Residential neighborhoods are located behind the commercial uses that have frontage along Atlantic Boulevard. The existing improvements will be demolished to accommodate the proposed project. Land uses that surround the project site include the following: Residential uses abut the project site along the site s entire west side. These homes have frontage along Hathaway Avenue. A total of ten residential properties abut the project site on the west side. 113 Atlantic Boulevard extends along the project site s east side. A mixed-use development (Atlantic Times Square) is located opposite the project site on the east side of Atlantic Boulevard. The Atlantic Times Square consists of approximately 200,000 square feet of residential and commercial uses, which include an AMC 14 theaters, a 24-hour fitness, Johnny Rockets, Coldstone Creamery, Tokyo Wako, Fluff Ice, Tasty Garden, Aji Ichiban, and an Advance Vision Optometry, among others. 114 In addition, a Best Western Inn is located along the east side of Atlantic Boulevard directly south of the Atlantic Times Square. Hellman Avenue extends along the project site s north side. Residential development is located along both sides of Hellman Avenue west of the Atlantic Boulevard intersection. To the east, residential units abut the street s north side while the Atlantic Times Square occupies frontage along Hellman Avenue s south side. 115 The Mar Plaza abuts the project site to the south and includes a Human Restaurant, Huge Tree Pastry, Yum Cha Café, KCAL Insurance Agency, and a Shunfat Supermarket. Emerson Avenue, located approximately 645 feet to the south of the project site, extends in an east-west orientation. Residential and Commercial uses occupy frontage along both sides of the street. The north side of Emerson Avenue is occupied by a lone single family residential unit located on the corner of Emerson Avenue and Hathaway Avenue, the Mar Plaza shopping center, M Motorcars, Inc, a family dentistry, an unoccupied building, and more residential uses. The south side of Emerson Avenue features residential uses, a Bank of The West, and a Ralph s Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor. Parcel Viewer. Website accessed in December Blodgett/Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site Survey (Survey was conducted on August 28, 2014). 114 Atlantic Times Square Shop and Dine. Website accessed August 29, Blodgett/Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site Survey (Survey was conducted on August 28, 2014). 116 Ibid. SECTION 3.10 LAND USE IMPACTS PAGE 102

103 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK The proposed development will be confined to the project site. No additional land area will be required to accommodate the proposed use and no division of an existing residential neighborhood will occur as part of the proposed project s implementation. As a result, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. B. Would the project conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to, a general plan, proposed project, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The City s General Plan includes a number of focus areas where special land use and development policies are identified for specific areas of the City, including the North Atlantic corridor. 117 The focus area s guiding principal that is applicable to the North Atlantic corridor includes the following: establishment of new commercial uses at the Atlantic Boulevard/Hellman Avenue gateway into the City to create a positive entry and "arrival" statement, and to maximize the revenue potential of these key commercial sites. The following goal and supporting policies provide the legislative framework for the enhancement of the North Atlantic Boulevard corridor. Goal Three. Establish the North Atlantic area as a focal point for diverse retail, entertainment, and hospitality development. Policy 3.1. Permit higher intensity development around and south of the Atlantic Boulevard/Hellman Avenue intersection. Policy 3.2. Encourage shared parking and parking in public lots and structures. Policy 3.3. Revise the North Atlantic Specific Plan, or set aside the Plan in favor of new zoning regulations and design guidelines that will facilitate private redevelopment efforts. Policy 3.4. Allow multi-story buildings along Atlantic Boulevard while ensuring appropriate buffering from adjacent residential neighborhoods. To expand development opportunities within the North Atlantic focus area, the Land Use Policy Map, included in the Draft General Plan has designated most of the area Downtown Mixed Use (MU I). Uses encouraged within the North Atlantic focus area include entertainment, restaurants, retail, and service. The General Plan and Zoning designations that are applicable to the site and the surrounding area are shown in Exhibits 3-9 and 3-10, respectively. 117 City of Monterey Park. Website was accessed on January 14, SECTION 3.10 LAND USE IMPACTS PAGE 103

104 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Project Site EXHIBIT 3-9 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS Source: City of Monterey Park SECTION 3.10 LAND USE IMPACTS PAGE 104

105 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Project Site EXHIBIT 3-10 EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS Source: City of Monterey Park SECTION 3.10 LAND USE IMPACTS PAGE 105

106 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK The proposed project site is currently designated as Downtown Mixed Use (MU I). The requirements governing permitted uses are outlined below. Principal Use. The primary use within the Atlantic Gateway Courtyard by Marriott development will be a hotel use. The guest room count may not exceed the figure identified on the architectural plans (288 rooms). The amount of available parking is the variable that controls the room count. Mixed Use Requirements. The area is designed as Mixed Use which requires a portion of the ground level to include certain types of commercial retail uses. For purposes of the proposed project (and the applicable Precise Plan), the ground level retail and commercial uses that are permitted will include the following: - Quality Sit-Down Restaurant use with on-site food preparation facilities will be permitted on the ground level. - Lounge/Bar use that is ancillary to the sit-down restaurant will be permitted as long as the alcohol is consumed on-site. The serving of alcohol will be permitted with acquisition of necessary ABC licenses. - Retail and Commercial uses will be limited to the ground level. Retail uses must be accessible to pedestrians from the public sidewalk. Permitted uses include specialty retail that may include florists, gift stores, confectionary sales, cards and/or books, cosmetics, clothing, personal electronics, coffee and/or teahouse, or other establishments consistent with the developing pedestrian character of North Atlantic Boulevard. - Commercial kiosks will be permitted on the ground level within the Great Lobby area and the connecting corridors. These kiosks must be mobile in nature and may include souvenir sales, gifts, flowers, electronic sales, and personal grooming items. - Financial uses that do not exceed more than 500 square feet of floor area will be permitted in the Great Lobby area. This use may include ATM machines, which would serve as a convenience for hotel patrons. - Other Uses deemed to be compatible by the Director of Community Development will be permitted. Office Use. Office uses that are ancillary to the primary hotel function will be permitted. No other office uses are permitted within the Atlantic Gateway Courtyard by Marriott development. Lounge and Media Pod Areas. Seating, rest, and work areas will be permitted as long as their use is limited to guests and patrons. Fitness Center. The second level fitness center s use will be permitted though its use is limited to guests and patrons. SECTION 3.10 LAND USE IMPACTS PAGE 106

107 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK Meeting Rooms. The use of the four, second floor meeting rooms will be a permitted use. Banquet Facilities. The maximum seating capacity must conform to the requirements of the City of Monterey Fire Department. Discretionary approvals for this project include the following: The approval of the Precise Plan; The approval of a Conditional Use Permit; The Design Review approval; and, The approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Other permits will also be required including encroachment permits, demolition permits, grading permits, building (construction) permits, and occupancy permits. The proposed project will be required to conform to the Precise Plan prepared for this project and all pertinent General Plan and MPMC requirements. With adherence to these requirements, no significant impacts are anticipated. C. Will the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. No natural open space areas are located within the proposed project site. 118 In addition, the project site is surrounded by urban development and roadways. The project site and the adjacent parcels are not included within areas that are subject to a habitat conservation plan or a local coastal plan (LCP). As a result, no adverse impacts on local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans will result from the implementation of the proposed project CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The analysis determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse land use impacts. As a result, no significant adverse cumulative land use impacts will occur MITIGATION MEASURES The analysis of land use and development impacts indicated that no significant adverse impacts on land use and development would result from the implementation of the proposed project. As a result, no mitigation measures are required. 118 Blodgett/Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site Survey (Site survey was conducted on February 27, 2014). SECTION 3.10 LAND USE IMPACTS PAGE 107

108 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES IMPACTS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to the City of Monterey Park, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on energy and mineral resources if it results in any of the following: The loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State; or The loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, proposed project, or other land use plan ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? No Impact. No active or abandoned oil or gas well is located within the project site. 119 The project site is not located within a Significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Area (SMARA) nor is it located in an area with active mineral extraction activities. As a result, no impacts on existing mineral resources will result from the proposed project s implementation. B. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, proposed project or other land use plan? No Impact. There are no mineral, oil or energy extraction and/or generation activities located within the project site. Review of maps provided by the State Department of Conservation indicated that there are no oil wells located within the project site (refer to the previous discussion). 120 As a result, the project s implementation will not include any materials that are considered rare or unique. Thus, the proposed project will not result in any significant adverse effects on mineral resources in the region CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The potential impacts on mineral resources are site specific. Furthermore, the analysis determined that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impacts on mineral resources and no cumulative impacts will occur. 119 California Department of Conservation. Website accessed in December Ibid. SECTION 3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES IMPACTS PAGE 108

109 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK MITIGATION MEASURES The analysis of potential impacts related to mineral resources indicated that no significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project s implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are required. SECTION 3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES IMPACTS PAGE 109

110 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 3.12 NOISE IMPACTS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to the City of Monterey Park, a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on the environment if it results in any of the following: The exposure of persons to, or the generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan, noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies; The exposure of people to, or generation of, excessive ground-borne noise levels; A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project above levels existing without the project; A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; Locating within an area governed by an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, where the project would expose people to excessive noise levels; or, Locating within the vicinity of a private airstrip that would result in the exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Would the project result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Noise levels may be described using a number of methods designed to evaluate the loudness of a particular noise. The most commonly used unit for measuring the level of sound is the decibel (db). Zero on the decibel scale represents the lowest limit of sound that can be heard by humans. The eardrum may rupture at 140 db. In general, an increase of between 3.0 db and 5.0 db is the ambient noise level is considered to represent the threshold for human sensitivity. Noise levels that are associated with common, everyday activities are illustrated in Exhibit An interior CNEL of 45 db is mandated for all multiple family residential uses pursuant to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. This interior noise level standard of 45 db is also considered to be a desirable noise exposure limit for single family residential development. 121 The typical noise attenuation within residential structures with closed windows is about 20 db, an exterior noise exposure of 65 db (CNEL) is generally the noise/land use compatibility guideline for new residential dwellings. 121 California Building Standards Commission. Guide to Title 24 California 2013 Building Standards Code SECTION 3.12 NOISE IMPACTS PAGE 110

111 Noise Levels in dba Serious Injury Pain Discomfort Range of Typical Noise Levels Threshold of Hearing sonic boom jet take off at 200 ft music in night club interior 110 motorcycle at 20 ft. 105 power mower freight train at 50 ft. 90 food blender 85 electric mixer, light rail train horn portable fan, roadway traffic at 50 ft dishwasher, air conditioner normal conversation 45 refrigerator, light traffic at 100 ft library interior (quiet study area) rustling leaves 5 0 EXHIBIT 3-11 TYPICAL NOISE SOURCES AND LOUDNESS SCALE Source: Blodgett/Baylosis Environmental Planning SECTION 3.12 NOISE IMPACTS Page 111

112 In most urban environments, an exterior noise level of 65 db CNEL is, therefore, considered a good indicator of acceptable noise exposure for sensitive land uses while 70 to 75 db (CNEL) are appropriate for less noise-sensitive commercial and industrial land uses, respectively. 122 The ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site are dominated by traffic on the I-10 freeway located to the north of the project site approximately 225 feet, and Atlantic Boulevard which extends along the project site s east side. MPMC includes the following regulations: No person shall, at any location within the City, create nor allow for the creation of noise on any property which causes the noise level to exceed the applicable noise standards except as set forth in this section. The noise standards that are applicable to the commercial zones establishes the allowable noise levels for the daytime, evening, nighttime, and morning periods. The allowable noise levels are 65 dba between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM and 55 dba between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. If the intruding noise source is continuous and cannot be reasonably discontinued for sufficient time in which the ambient noise level can be determined, the above presumed ambient noise levels shall be used. If the property where the noise is received is located on the boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the quieter zone shall apply. A noise measurement survey was conducted at the project location on a weekday evening 9:00 AM and 10:00 AM January 12 when the local schools were in session. The measurement locations were located on the east and west property lines of the project site. The east property line is located adjacent to Atlantic Boulevard. A Sper Scientific Digital Sound Meter was used to conduct the noise measurements. A series of 100 discrete noise measurements were recorded and the results of the survey are summarized in Table 3-6. Table 3-6 indicates the time variation in noise levels over time during the measurement period. As indicated previously, the L 50 noise level represents the noise level that is exceeded 50% of the time. Half the time the noise level exceeds this level and half the time the noise level is less than this level. Noise levels averaged between 67.3 dba and 72.5 dba. This relatively high noise level is due to the site s proximity to the I-10 Freeway and Atlantic Boulevard. 123 The noise levels recorded at the project site generally reflected the expected noise levels for a site located in relatively close proximity to the I-10 Freeway. As indicated in Table 3-6, the noise levels exceeded 70 dba over the measurement period. 122 Blodgett/Baylosis Environmental Planning. Atlantic Courtyard by Marriott Noise Measurement Survey. January 12, Ibid. SECTION 3.12 NOISE IMPACTS Page 112

113 Table 3-6 Noise Measurement Results Noise Metric Noise Level (%Leq) East Side West Side L 25 (Noise levels <50% of time) 68.1 dba 66.1 dba L 50 (Noise levels <75% of time) 71.9 dba 69.7 dba L 90 (Noise levels <90% of time) 74.7 dba 70.9 dba L 99 (Noise levels <99% of time) 77.6 dba 76.1 dba Lmin (Minimum Noise Level) 56.2 dba 55.5 dba Lmax (Maximum Noise Level) 79.9 dba 76.7 dba Average Noise Level 67.4 dba 66.1 dba Source: Blodgett/Baylosis Environmental Planning. January 12, 2014 The dominant source of noise within the vicinity of the project site is freeway noise from traffic using the I- 10 Freeway and traffic traveling on Atlantic Boulevard. This traffic noise is generally referred to as mobilesource noise. To determine the existing noise levels along major roadways and transportation facilities, existing traffic volumes were modeled using the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANs) Traffic Noise Prediction Model. The model calculated the noise level for a particular reference set of conditions (such as existing traffic volumes, roadway grade, vehicle speeds, number of travel lanes, etc). Noise levels (in CNEL) were expressed using noise contours representing a line along which the ambient traffic noise levels were equal (the use of noise contours in this fashion are similar to how weather maps depict common temperatures or topographic maps show areas of equal elevation). For purposes of this analysis, the noise levels at a specified distance (50 feet, 100 feet, and 200 feet) were calculated for the I-10 Freeway segment located to the north of the project site, the segment of Atlantic Boulevard that extends along the project site s east side, and the segment of Hellman Avenue located to the north of the project site. These three roadway segments would be directly impacted by the proposed project s traffic. This figure indicated that all of the properties and land between the contour line and the roadway centerline would be exposed to noise levels of at least 65 CNEL. However, the actual distances to these contours could be considerably less than predicted where intervening structures and/or topography break the line-of-sight to the roadway. The traffic noise analysis relied on the traffic volume data included in the traffic study prepared for the proposed project. The traffic volumes provided in the traffic study were for the peak hour traffic periods only. For purposes of the analysis, the AM peak hour volumes were assumed to be 10% of the daily volumes for the roadway segments considered in Table 3-7. SECTION 3.12 NOISE IMPACTS Page 113

114 Table 3-7 Existing and Future Roadway Noise Levels Roadway Segment Average Daily Traffic Noise Level at a Specified Distance (dba) 50 ft. 100 ft. 200 ft. 50' from Centerline Existing Noise Contours I-10 Freeway Freeway N/O Site 211, dba 82 dba 77 dba 86 dba Atlantic Blvd. N/O Project Site 21, dba 65 dba 64 dba 73 dba Atlantic Blvd. S/O Project Site 19, dba 69 dba 64 dba 73 dba Future Plus Project Noise Contours I-10 Freeway Freeway N/O Site 211, dba 82 dba 77 dba 86 dba Atlantic Blvd. N/O Project Site 22, dba 69 dba 67 dba 73 dba Atlantic Blvd. S/O Project Site 22, dba 69 dba 67 dba 73 dba Change between Existing and Future Plus Project I-10 Freeway Atlantic Blvd. N/O Project Site 1, dba 3 dba-- -- Atlantic Blvd. S/O Project Site 2, dba The baseline (existing volumes) were derived from Caltrans counts. 2. Atlantic Blvd. volumes assumed that the AM peak volumes were 10% of the ADT. The traffic noise calculations are provided herein in Appendix C. Traffic generated by future development would result in an incremental increase in traffic noise along local streets. Generally, a change in the ambient noise levels of 5.0 db is required for it to be perceptible under normal conditions. Because of the logarithmic character related to noise propagation, a doubling in traffic volumes is generally required to result in result in such a change. The proposed project will not result in any significant adverse mobile noise impacts. In the absence of mitigation, stationary parking lot noise, noise from the parking structure, and noise related to property maintenance could impact nearby noise sensitive receptors. To address stationary on-site noise, the following measures will be required. Guest parking or loading areas will not be permitted along the west side (in or adjacent to the roadway. Mechanical equipment (gates, speaker boxes, etc.) located in the entry/exits to the subterranean parking levels must include proper sound attenuation. Employees must not use the exterior rear (west side) areas for breaks during the night-time periods. Exterior, ground level doors located to the rear (along the west elevation) must be kept closed at all times. Signage must be posted in key areas (the west wall, the garage entry, etc.) indicating that patrons and hotel guests should keep noise levels to a minimum. SECTION 3.12 NOISE IMPACTS Page 114

115 The idling of busses and delivery trucks will not be permitted. Deliveries should be limited to those hours before opening of business for the retail and restaurant uses. Other hotel deliveries should take place during the daytime periods. The aforementioned mitigation measure will reduce the potential impacts to levels that are less than significant. B. Would the project result in exposure of people to, or generation of, excessive ground-borne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed hotel will be located to the south of the I-10 Freeway approximately 225 feet. The hotel s north elevation will directly face the freeway s travel lanes. The impacts and the attendant mitigation measures are described in the previous subsection. The hotel will be located within an area that is subject to relatively high ambient noise levels largely due to traffic on the adjacent I-10 Freeway and Atlantic Boulevard. To address stationary on-site noise, the following measures will be required. The building elevations that face the I-10 Freeway and Atlantic Boulevard will be required to use double-paned windows or similar attenuation in the guest rooms that overlook these roadways. The proposed hotel must employ central air conditioning as a standard feature. All vents (such as those used in the bathrooms and guestroom) must be properly designed to keep out exterior noise. The aforementioned mitigation measure will reduce the potential impacts to levels that are less than significant. Construction activities may result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment, the characteristics of the soils, and the age and construction of nearby buildings. The operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that will spread through the ground though the vibration will diminish in strength with distance. Buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site respond to these vibrations with varying results ranging from no perceptible effect, low rumbling sounds, and discernable vibrations at moderate levels, and actual building damage may occur at the highest levels. Ground vibrations associated with construction activities using modern construction methods and equipment rarely reach the levels that result in damage to nearby buildings though vibration related to construction activities may be discernable in areas located near the construction site. A possible exception is in older buildings where special care must be taken to avoid damage. Those construction activities that typically generate the most vibration include blasting and impact pile driving. Vibration energy spreads out as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration level to diminish with distance away from the source. High frequency vibrations reduce much more rapidly than low frequencies, so that low frequencies tend to dominate the spectrum at large distances from the source. SECTION 3.12 NOISE IMPACTS Page 115

116 While people have varying sensitivities to vibrations at different frequencies, in general, they are most sensitive to low-frequency vibration. Vibration in buildings caused by construction activities may be perceived as motion of building surfaces or the rattling of windows, the displacement of items on shelves, and pictures hanging on walls. Building vibration can also take the form of an audible low-frequency rumbling noise, which is referred to as ground-borne noise. Ground-borne noise is usually only a problem when the originating vibration spectrum is dominated by frequencies in the upper end of the range (60 to 200 Hz), or when the structure and the construction activity are connected by foundations or utilities, such as sewer and water pipes. Table 3-8 summarizes the levels of vibration and the usual effect on people and buildings. The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) has guidelines for vibration levels from construction related to their activities, and recommends that the maximum peak-particle-velocity levels remain below 0.05 inches per second at the nearest structures. Vibration levels above 0.5 inches per second have the potential to cause architectural damage to conventional dwellings. The U.S. DOT also states that vibration levels above inches per second are sometimes perceptible to people, and the level at which vibration becomes annoying to people is 0.64 inches per second. Table 3-8 Common Effects of Construction Vibration Peak Particle Velocity (in/sec) Effects on Humans Effects on Buildings <0.005 Imperceptible No effect on buildings to Barely perceptible No effect on buildings 0.02 to 0.05 Level at which continuous vibrations begin to annoy occupants of nearby buildings No effect on buildings 0.1 to 0.5 Vibrations considered unacceptable for person exposed to continuous or long-term vibration. Minimal potential for damage to weak or sensitive structures 0.5 to 1.0 Vibrations considered bothersome by most people, however tolerable if short-term in length Threshold at which there is a risk of architectural damage to buildings with plastered ceilings and walls. Some risk to ancient monuments and ruins. 1.0 to 2.0 Vibrations considered unpleasant by most people U.S. Bureau of Mines data indicates that blasting vibration in this range will not harm most buildings. Most construction vibration limits are in this range. >3.0 Vibration is unpleasant Potential for architectural damage and possible minor structural damage Source: U. S. Department of Transportation SECTION 3.12 NOISE IMPACTS Page 116

117 Typical levels from vibration generally do not have the potential for any structural damage. Some construction activities, such as pile driving and blasting, can produce vibration levels that may have the potential to damage some vibration sensitive structures if performed within 50 to 100 feet of the structure. The reason that normal construction vibration does not result in structural damage has to do with several issues, including the frequency of the vibration and the magnitude of construction related vibration. Unlike earthquakes, which produce vibration at very low frequencies and have a high potential for structural damage, most construction vibration is in the mid- to upper- frequency range, and therefore has a lower potential for structural damage. Various types of construction equipment have been measured under a wide variety of construction activities with an average of source levels reported in terms of velocity levels as shown in Table 3-9. Although the table gives one level for each piece of equipment, it should be noted that there is a considerable variation in reported ground vibration levels from construction activities. The data in Table 3-9 does provide a reasonable estimate for a wide range of soil conditions. Table 3-9 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Construction Equipment ft. (inches/sec.) Vibration Noise Levels 25 ft. Pile Driver (impact) Pile Drive (Sonic) Upper range Typical Upper range Typical Clam Shovel Drop Large Bulldozer Caisson Drilling Loaded Trucks Small Bulldozer Source: Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA, May 2006) Based on the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA, May 2006), a vibration level of 102 VdB (velocity in decibels) (0.5 inches per second [iii/sec]) or less (FTA, May 2006) is considered safe and would not result in any construction vibration damage. At a distance of 60 feet, the on-site pile driving would generate a vibration level of up to 0.25 in/sec. The distances of the nearby buildings from the areas of construction activities are as follows: The Shunfat Supermarket is located approximately 120 feet from the construction area that will include the subterranean levels and the building footprint. The nearest homes located on the east side of Hathaway Avenue range from 50 feet to 70 feet from the construction area that will include the subterranean levels and the building footprint. SECTION 3.12 NOISE IMPACTS Page 117

118 The Atlantic Times Square development is located to the east of the project site approximately 150 feet from the construction area that will include the subterranean levels and the building footprint. The distances of these buildings from the construction activity areas (over 25 feet) would largely attenuate the effects of construction-borne vibration. Construction vibration levels would be below the figures indicated in Table 3-9. Although perceptible, the projected level would not exceed the vibration damage threshold of 0.5 in/sec. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse vibration impacts on neighboring buildings. In addition, the existing traffic on the I-10 Freeway will not generate vibration levels that will be in excess of those identified in Table 3-9. C. Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant Impact. The cumulative traffic associated with the proposed project will not be great enough to result in a measurable or perceptible increase in traffic noise (it typically requires a doubling of traffic volumes to increase the ambient noise levels to 3.0 dba or greater). As a result, the traffic noise impacts resulting from the proposed project s occupancy are deemed to be less than significant. Mitigation was required under Section A to mitigate stationary and other operational noise. D. Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The construction activities related to site preparation and building construction may lead to relatively high noise levels during the construction period. Noise levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized in Exhibit The noise levels described in Exhibit 3-12 are those that would be expected at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source. Composite construction noise is best characterized in a study prepared by Bolt, Beranek, and Newman. In that study, the noisiest phases of construction are anticipated to be 89 dba as measured at a distance of 50 feet from the construction activity. This value takes into account both the number of pieces and spacing of the heavy equipment typically used in a construction effort. In later phases during building erection, noise levels are typically reduced from these values and the physical structures further break up line-of-sight noise. However, as a worst-case scenario, the 89 dba value was used as an average noise level for the construction activities. The distances of the nearby buildings from the areas of construction activities are as follows: The Shunfat Supermarket is located approximately 120 feet from the construction area that will include the subterranean levels and the building footprint. The nearest homes located on the east side of Hathaway Avenue range from 50 feet to 70 feet from the construction area that will include the subterranean levels and the building footprint. The Atlantic Times Square development is located to the east of the project site approximately 150 feet from the construction area that will include the subterranean levels and the building footprint. SECTION 3.12 NOISE IMPACTS Page 118

119 Typical noise levels 50-ft. from source Compactors (Rollers) Front Loaders Equipment Powered by Internal Combustion Engines Earth Moving Equipment Materials Handling Equipment Stationary Equipment Backhoes Tractors Scrapers, Graders Pavers Trucks Concrete Mixers Concrete Pumps Cranes (Movable) Cranes (Derrick) Pumps Generators Compressors Impact Equipment Pneumatic Wrenches Jack Hammers Pile Drivers Other Equipment Vibrators Saws EXHIBIT 3-12 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Source: Blodgett/Baylosis Environmental Planning SECTION 3.12 NOISE IMPACTS Page 119

120 Based on spreading losses, noise levels could well exceed 70 dba at the property line. The following mitigation measure is required to mitigate potential construction noise impacts related to potential pile driver noise and vibration: The use of conventional pile driving (hammer-type) equipment is prohibited. The contractors will be required to use auger-types of equipment as a means to reduce noise and vibration. The above mitigation measures will reduce the short-term construction noise impacts to levels that are less than significant. In addition, the construction noise impacts will be short-term and end once the construction has been completed. E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not located within two miles of an operational public airport. The nearest airport, El Monte Airport, is located approximately 5.84 miles to the northeast. 124 As a result, the proposed project s implementation will not result in any significant aircraft noise exposure impacts. F. Within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The proposed project site is located approximately 1.16 miles southeast of the Santa Fe International Corp Heliport and 1.11 miles southeast of the Southern California Edison Company s Heliport in the neighboring City of Alhambra. 125 As a result, the proposed project s implementation will not result in any significant aircraft noise exposure impacts CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The analysis indicated the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant unmitigable adverse cumulative noise impacts. The existing daily traffic volume (ADT) on Atlantic Avenue is 26,690 for the segment north of the site and 21,120 for the segment south of the site. The future (existing plus project ) ADT on Atlantic Avenue is 27,160 for the segment north of the site and 21,430 for the segment south of the site. This net additional traffic will not result in a perceptible change in traffic noise. As a result, no significant adverse cumulative noise impacts will occur. 124 Google Earth. Accessed September 5, Ibid. SECTION 3.12 NOISE IMPACTS Page 120

121 MITIGATION MEASURES The following measures will further ensure that on-site construction and operational activities do not adversely impact noise sensitive land uses located nearby: Mitigation Measure 11 (Noise Impacts). Guest parking or loading areas are not permitted along the west side (in or adjacent to the roadway. Mitigation Measure 12 (Noise Impacts). Mechanical equipment (gates, speaker boxes, etc.) located in the entry/exits to the subterranean parking levels must include proper sound attenuation. Mitigation Measure 13 (Noise Impacts). Employees must not use the exterior areas for breaks. Doors located to the rear (along the west elevation) must be kept closed at all times. Mitigation Measure 14 (Noise Impacts). Signage must be posted in key areas (the west wall, the garage entry, etc.) indicating that patrons and hotel guests should keep noise levels to a minimum. Mitigation Measure 15 (Noise Impacts). The idling of busses and delivery trucks will not be permitted. Deliveries should be limited to those hours prior to the opening of business for the retail and restaurant uses. Other hotel deliveries should take place during the daytime periods. Mitigation Measure 16 (Noise Impacts). The building elevations that face the I-10 Freeway and Atlantic Boulevard will be required to use double-paned windows or similar attenuation in the guest rooms that overlook these roadways. Mitigation Measure 17 (Noise Impacts). The proposed hotel must employ central air conditioning as a standard feature. Mitigation Measure 18 (Noise Impacts). All vents (such as those used in the bathrooms and guestroom) must be properly designed to keep out exterior traffic noise. Mitigation Measure 19 (Noise Impacts). The use of conventional pile driving (hammer-type) equipment is prohibited. The contractors will be required to use auger-types of equipment as a means to reduce noise and vibration. SECTION 3.12 NOISE IMPACTS Page 121

122 3.13 POPULATION & HOUSING THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to the City of Monterey Park, a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on housing and population if it results in any of the following: A substantial growth in the population within an area, either directly or indirectly related to a project; The displacement of a substantial number of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing; or, The displacement of substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? No Impact. Growth-inducing impacts are generally associated with the provision of urban services to an undeveloped or rural area. The variables that typically contribute to growth-inducing impacts, and the project s potential growth-inducing impacts, are identified in Table Table 3-10 Potential Growth-Inducing Impacts Factor Contributing to Growth Inducement Project s Potential Contribution Basis for Determination New development in an area presently undeveloped. Extension of roadways and other transportation facilities. Extension of infrastructure and other improvements. Major off-site public projects (treatment plants, etc). Removal of housing requiring replacement housing elsewhere. Additional population growth leading to increased demand for services. Short-term growth inducing impacts related to the project s construction. The proposed project will promote development of an underutilized parcel. The project will not involve the extension or modification of any off-site roadways. No off-site water, sewer, and other infrastructure are anticipated. No major facilities are proposed at this time. The project does not involve the removal of existing affordable or subsidized units. The proposed project will provide longterm growth in employment. The proposed project may result in the creation of new construction employment. The project will promote development consistent with the City s land use policy. The only off-site improvements include those required to facilitate access. The only infrastructure improvements will serve the proposed project site only. No off-site facilities will be required to accommodate the projected demand. N0 affordable housing will be affected by the proposed project. Long-term employment will be provided by the proposed hotel development. Short-term increases in construction employment are a beneficial impact. SECTION 3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING IMPACTS Page 122

123 As indicated in the table, the proposed development would not result in any growth inducing impacts related to potential population growth. The jobs (less than 100) that will be provided by the proposed hotel and other ancillary elements will contribute to the local employment which has experience significant levels of unemployment in recent years. B. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. There are no residential units located within the project site. 126 As a result, no impacts related to housing dislocation will occur. C. Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. As indicated in the previous subsection, there are no residential units located within the project site. As a result, the potential population displacement impacts are considered to be less than significant CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The analysis of potential population and housing impacts indicated that no significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project s implementation. As a result, no significant adverse cumulative housing and population impacts will occur MITIGATION MEASURES The analysis of potential population and housing impacts indicated that no significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project s implementation. 126 Blodgett/Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site Survey (Site survey was conducted on February 27, 2014). SECTION 3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING IMPACTS Page 123

124 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to the City of Monterey Park, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on public services if it results in any of the following: A substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause a significant environmental impact in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives relative to fire protection services; A substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause a significant environmental impact in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives relative to police protection services; A substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause a significant environmental impact in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives relative to school services; or, A substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause a significant environmental impact in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives relative to other governmental services ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives relative to fire protection services? Less than Significant Impact. The City maintains its own fire department with fire stations located at the Civic Center, on Monterey Pass Road, and on Garfield Avenue. The three stations include the following: Monterey Park Station 61 is located at 350 W. Newmark Avenue. This station houses Quint 61, Engine 61, and Rescue Ambulance This station is located approximately 0.78 miles to southeast of the project site. 127 A quint refers to a combination fire service apparatus that serves the dual purpose of an engine and a ladder truck. SECTION 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES IMPACTS Page 124

125 Monterey Park Station 62 is located at 2001 S. Garfield Avenue. This station houses Engine 62, and Rescue Ambulance 62. This station is located approximately 2.0 miles to southeast of the project site. Monterey Park Station 63 is located at 704 Monterey Pass Road. This station houses Engine 63 and is located approximately 1.5 miles to southwest of the project site. These stations allow for an average response time for fire calls of 5.01 minutes and an average response time of 4.37 for emergency service calls. 128 The Department also maintains standards to assist in fire prevention and protection throughout the City. These standards are consistent with the California Fire Code, which has been adopted by the City. All future development within the City is subject to the requirements of Title 17 (Fire Code). The proposed project will place an incremental demand on the Department s services with the greatest potential increase being related to requests for paramedic assistance. The new hotel structure will be fully sprinklered and fire houses, extinguishers, and other fire suppression equipment will be provided. The Fire Department will also review the pertinent construction plans to ensure that their requirements are being adhered to. The Fire Department must also review the business safety plan, fire and emergency lanes, employee safety programs and the building evacuation plan. These standard conditions will reduce the potential impacts to levels that are less than significant. B. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives relative to police protection? Less than Significant Impact Monterey Park has had its own police department since 1916 when the City was incorporated. The Police Department operates out of its facility located in the Civic Center. The Police Department is a full service police agency with 72 sworn police officers and 46 civilian personnel supported by over 100 community volunteers through the police reserves, emergency communications, citizen patrol, explorer programs, and other civilian volunteers. The Police Station is located approximately 0.71 miles to the southeast of the project site. The proposed project will place an incremental demand on the Department s services. However, the hotel will also provide its own security staff, security cameras and surveillance equipment will be installed throughout the common areas. The Police Department will review the plans and specifications to ensure that Department policies and requirements are adhered to. The Police Department will also review the business safety plan, alarm systems and monitoring equipment, security camera placement, and on-site security personnel requirements. The aforementioned standard conditions will reduce the potential impacts to levels that are less than significant. 128 City of Monterey Park Website Site accessed on January 14, SECTION 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES IMPACTS Page 125

126 C. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance objectives relative to school services? Less than Significant Impact. The Applicant is required to pay school impact fees for construction of new facilities in accordance with AB-2926 to mitigate school impacts prior to issuance of Building Permits. Evidence of payment of the school fees shall be submitted to the Planning Division. The payment of these fees will reduce the potential impacts to levels considered less than significant. D. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives relative to other governmental services? No Impact. The proposed project s implementation is not expected to have any impact on existing governmental services other than those identified in the preceding sections. As a result, no significant impacts associated with the proposed project s implementation are anticipated CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project s implementation will result in an incremental increase in the demand for police and fire service calls. However, no new facilities will be required to accommodate the proposed use. As a result, no cumulative impacts are anticipated MITIGATION MEASURES The analysis of potential public service impacts indicated that no significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project s implementation. As a result, no mitigation is required. SECTION 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES IMPACTS Page 126

127 3.15 RECREATION IMPACTS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to the City of Monterey Park, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on the environment if it results in any of the following: The use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or, The construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The City of Monterey Park Recreation and Parks Department is responsible for the maintenance and operation of the City s public parks and recreational facilities. 129 Local parks and recreational services operated by the City include the following: Barnes Park is located at 350 S. McPherrin Avenue and includes approximately 17 acres. Improvements located within this park include a community center, basketball gym, a memorial bowl, a sheltered picnic pavilion, an Olympic-sized pool, a lighted softball field, tennis courts, and a children's play area. Bella Vista Park is located at 400 Pomona Boulevard. This park has a land area of approximately 4 acres and includes a softball field, children's play area, outdoor basketball, picnic facilities, lighted tennis court, and restrooms. Edison Trails Park is located at 1600 S. Garfield Avenue and has a land area of approximately 11 acres. Facilities at this park include picnic facilities, a play area, restrooms and hiking trail. Garvey Ranch Park is located at 781 S. Orange Avenue, on the north side of the Garvey Reservoir. The park s land area is approximately 28 acres and the park s facilities include two lighted baseball fields, picnic facilities, restrooms, lighted tennis courts, children's playground, a community room, a museum, and an observatory. George Elder Park is located at 1950 Wilcox Avenue, one half block east of the Garfield Avenue and Elmgate Street intersection. The park features a basketball gym, a community center, a swimming pool, picnic facilities, lighted tennis courts, a children's area, and restrooms. This park s land area is approximately 15 acres. 129 City of Monterey Park Website Site accessed on January 14, SECTION 3.15 RECREATION IMPACTS PAGE 127

128 Highlands Park is located at 400 Casuda Canyon Drive and contains approximately 6 acres. This park is located adjacent to Monterey Highlands School and features lighted tennis courts, a children's area, passive open space, and restrooms. La Loma Park is located at 1950 Fulton Avenue and includes approximately 7.5 acres. This park includes baseball and softball fields, a children's play area, a restroom, and picnic facilities. The Langley Senior Center is located on 400 West Emerson Avenue. This center provides activities for the local seniors. Activities at this park include dances, a lunch program, billiards, table tennis, computer classes, flea markets and special events. Sequoia Park is located at 750 Ridgecrest Avenue and has a total land area of approximately 5 acres. This park offers a Japanese garden with Azumaya View Deck, a softball field, a children's play area, lighted tennis courts, outdoor basketball court, restrooms and picnic facilities. Sierra Vista Park is located at 311 Rural Drive and has a land area of approximately 3 acres. This park includes a softball field, an outdoor basketball and paddle tennis court, a children's play area, picnic area, meeting room, and restrooms. Sunnyslopes Park is located at 1601 Sunnyslope Drive and has a land area and has an area of approximately 5 acres. This park features picnic facilities, a softball field, lighted tennis courts, a children's playground and restrooms. Cascades Park is located at 700 S. Atlantic Blvd. This park has a total area of approximately 2 acres. Pine Tree Park is located at 2167 Arriba Drive and has a total area of approximately 0.5 acres. This is a small neighborhood park with a picnic table and a children's play area. The Water Conservation Park is located at 720 Metro Drive. It measures approximately 1.3 acres and includes a small landscaped area with a walkway and benches. The nearest park to the project site is Barnes Park located approximately 0.80 miles to the southwest of the project site. Granada Park within the corporate boundaries of the City of Alhambra, is located 0.54 miles to the west of the project site. The proposed hotel project will not result in any measurable increase in the demand for recreational services nor will it physically impact any of the aforementioned park facilities. As a result, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. B. Would the project affect existing recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The proposed project will not significantly affect existing park facilities in the City. The proposed use is not located immediately adjacent to any existing park. As a result, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. SECTION 3.15 RECREATION IMPACTS PAGE 128

129 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The analysis determined the proposed project would not result in any potential impact on recreational facilities and services. As a result, no cumulative impacts on recreational facilities would result from the proposed project s implementation MITIGATION MEASURES The analysis of potential impacts related to parks and recreation indicated that no significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project s implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are required. SECTION 3.15 RECREATION IMPACTS PAGE 129

130 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to the City of Monterey Park, a project will normally have a significant adverse impact on traffic and circulation if it results in any of the following: A conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit; A conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways; Results in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in the location that results in substantial safety risks; Substantially increases hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); Results in inadequate emergency access; and, A conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. The project study area, as defined through consultation with the City of Monterey Park staff, includes the following 11 study intersections: 1. I-10/Atlantic Boulevard westbound off-ramp, northbound 2. I-10/Atlantic Boulevard westbound off-ramp, southbound 3. I-10/Atlantic Boulevard eastbound off-ramp, northbound 4. I-10/Atlantic Boulevard eastbound off-ramp, southbound 5. Atlantic Boulevard/Hellman Avenue 6. Atlantic Boulevard/Times Square Driveway 7. Atlantic Boulevard/Emerson Avenue 8. Atlantic Boulevard/Mar Center Driveway 9. Atlantic Boulevard/Garvey Avenue 10. Atlantic Boulevard/Valley Boulevard 11. Atlantic Boulevard/Glendon Way Exhibit 3-13 illustrates the locations of the study intersections. SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 130

131 EXHIBIT 3-13 STUDY INTERSECTION Source: KOA Associates SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 131

132 Traffic impacts associated with the proposed Project were analyzed at the study intersections for the weekday a.m., weekday p.m., and Saturday mid-day peak-hour periods. The study included the analysis of the following traffic scenarios: Existing; Existing with-project; Future without-project; and, Future with-project. 130 For analysis of level of service at signalized intersections, City of Monterey Park has designated the ICU methodology as the desired tool. The concept of roadway level of service under the ICU methodology is calculated as the volume of vehicles at the critical movements that pass through the facility divided by the capacity of that facility. A 10 percent adjustment to the clearance and loss time factor based on the critical phases of the signalized control was included in the traffic analysis. A facility is at capacity (ICU value of 1.00 or greater) when extreme congestion occurs. This volume/capacity ratio value is based upon volumes a function of hourly volumes by lane, signal phasing, and approach lane configuration. The City of Monterey Park Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, February 2006, lists the capacity of individual lane type to be used in the ICU calculations as follows: Left Turn Lanes; 1,600 vehicles per hour; Through Lanes: 1,700 vehicles per hour; Right Turn Lanes: 1,700 vehicles per hour; and, Shared Lanes: 1,600 vehicles per hour. 131 For analysis of stop-controlled intersections, the methodology from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) was utilized. The HCM expresses levels of service in terms of average delay (seconds per vehicle). For this methodology, conditions are based upon intersection delay, defined as the worst-case approach delay experienced by users of the intersection who must stop or yield to free-flow through traffic. Level of service values range from LOS A to LOS F. LOS A indicates excellent operating conditions with little delay to motorists, whereas LOS F represents congested conditions with excessive vehicle delay. LOS E is typically defined as the operating capacity of a roadway KOA Corporation. Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Atlantic Gateway Project, North Atlantic Boulevard, Monterey Park. March 3, 2014 (Revised December 30, 2014). 131 Ibid. 132 Ibid. SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 132

133 Table 3-11 defines the level of service criteria applied to the study intersections and Exhibit 3-14 illustrates the varying levels of service. Table 3-11 Level of Service Definitions LOS Interpretation Signalized Intersection ICU A Excellent operation. All approaches to the intersection appear quite open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation B Very good operation. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles. This represents stable flow. An approach to an intersection may occasionally be fully utilized and traffic queues start to form C Good operation. Occasionally backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted D Fair operation. There are no long-standing traffic queues. This level is typically associated with design practice for peak periods E Poor operation. Some long standing vehicular queues develop on critical approaches F Forced flow. Represents jammed conditions. Backups from locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movements of vehicles out of the intersection approach lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable. Potential for stop and go type traffic flow. Over Source: KOA Corporation. Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Atlantic Gateway Project North Atlantic Boulevard, Monterey Park. Prepared March 3 rd, Traffic impacts are identified if a proposed development will result in a significant change in traffic conditions at a study intersection. A significant impact is typically identified if Project-related traffic will cause service levels to deteriorate beyond a threshold limit specified by the overseeing agency. The City of Monterey Park has established specific thresholds for Project-related increases in the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) values of signalized study intersections; however, the City of Monterey Park does not have established impact criteria for unsignalized intersections. The I-10 freeway ramp intersections at Atlantic Boulevard are not signalized there are stop signs at the off-ramp intersections. The on-ramp intersections are uncontrolled at Atlantic Boulevard. Caltrans does not have defined impact standards for intersections. The poor level of service at these locations is a condition that exists without the proposed project. The project does not cause the poor conditions. SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 133

134 EXHIBIT 3-14 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Source: Blodgett/Baylosis Environmental Planning SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 134

135 The following increases in peak-hour ICU values, shown in Table 3-12, are considered significant traffic impacts: Table 3-12 ICU Thresholds Existing ICU Project Related increase in ICU Equal to or greater than 0.06 > Equal to or greater than 0.04 > Equal to or greater than 0.02 > Equal to or greater than 0.01 Source: KOA Corporation ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Would the project cause a conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less than Significant Impact. The key roadways within the study area are described below: 133 Atlantic Boulevard is classified as a Principal Arterial in the City of Monterey Park General Plan. This north-south roadway borders the Project site on the east. In the study area, this roadway provides two travel lanes in each direction and a striped center left-turn lane median. On-street parking is also permitted on both sides of the roadway. Atlantic Boulevard is designated at as a truck route within the City of Monterey Park. Garvey Avenue is classified as a Minor Arterial in the City of Monterey Park General Plan. This roadway provides two travel lanes in each direction. On-street parking is also permitted on both sides of the roadway. West of Atlantic Boulevard, it is designated as a truck route within the City of Monterey Park. Emerson Avenue is classified as a Minor Arterial in the City of Monterey Park General Plan. This roadway provides one travel lane in each direction. On-street parking is also permitted on both sides of the roadway. 133 KOA Corporation. Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Atlantic Gateway Project, North Atlantic Boulevard, Monterey Park. March 3, 2014 (Revised December 30, 2014). SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 135

136 Hellman Avenue is classified as a Minor Arterial in the City of Monterey Park General Plan and as a Secondary Arterial/Collector in the City of Alhambra General Plan. This roadway provides one travel lane in each direction. On-street parking is also permitted on both sides of the roadway. Glendon Way is classified as a Secondary Arterial/Collector in the City of Alhambra General Plan. This roadway provides one travel lane in each direction. On-street parking is also permitted on both sides of the roadway. Valley Boulevard is classified as a Major Arterial in the City of Alhambra General Plan. This eastwest roadway is located north of the Project site. In the study area, this roadway provides two travel lanes in each direction and a striped center left-turn lane median. On-street parking is also permitted on both sides of the roadway. 134 The discussion presented here is limited to specific roadways that traverse the study intersections and serve the Project site. Exhibit 3-15 illustrates the existing traffic controls and approach lane geometries at the study intersections. Study intersection counts were collected at the study intersections in January, February, and December, 2013 from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on the weekdays and from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturdays. 135 The highest four consecutive 15-minute vehicle counts during the a.m. and p.m. time periods were used to determine the peak-hour traffic volumes at each intersection. The existing weekday a.m. peak-hour and p.m. peak-hour traffic turn movement volumes are illustrated in Exhibits 3-16 and 3-17, respectively. 136 The existing Saturday mid-day peak hour traffic turn movement volumes are illustrated in Exhibit Based on the intersection lane geometries depicted in Exhibit 3-15 and the existing traffic volumes illustrated in Exhibits 3-16 through 3-18, volume-to-capacity ratios and corresponding levels of service (LOS) were determined for each of the study intersections during weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, and Saturday mid-day peak hour. The existing traffic analysis scenario worksheets are provided in Traffic Report (Appendix C of the traffic report) which is provided under a separate cover. 134 KOA Corporation. Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Atlantic Gateway Project, North Atlantic Boulevard, Monterey Park. March 3, 2014 (Revised December 30, 2014). 135 Ibid. 136 Ibid. SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 136

137 EXHIBIT 3-15 INTERSECTION GEOMETRY Source: KOA Corporation SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 137

138 EXHIBIT 3-16 EXISTING WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Source: KOA Corporation SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 138

139 EXHIBIT 3-17 EXISTING WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Source: KOA Corporation SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 139

140 EXHIBIT 3-18 EXISTING SATURDAY MID-DAY HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Source: KOA Corporation SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 140

141 Table 3-13, shown below, summarizes the volume-to-capacity ratios and LOS values for existing traffic conditions. Table 3-13 Intersection Performance Existing Conditions Study Intersection Weekday AM Peak Hour V/C or Delay (sec.) LOS Weekday PM Peak Hour V/C or Delay (sec.) LOS Mid-day Saturday Peak Hour V/C or Delay (sec.) LOS 1 Atlantic Bl & I-10 Fwy WB ramp Northbound 17.3 C F F 2. Atlantic Bl & I-10 Fwy WB ramp Southbound 17.4 C 34.6 D 54.1 F 3. Atlantic Bl & I-10 Fwy EB ramp Northbound* 28.7 D 47.2 E 47.0 E 4. Atlantic Bl & I-10 Fwy EB ramp Southbound* 13.0 B 16.3 C 62.8 F 5. Atlantic Bl & Hellman Ave D D E 6. Atlantic Bl & Times Square Driveway A B B 7. Atlantic Bl & Emerson Ave A C D 8. Atlantic Bl & Mar Center Driveway A B C 9. Atlantic Bl & Garvey Ave B C B 10. Atlantic Bl & Valley Bl D E E 11. Atlantic Bl & Glendon Way E E E Source: KOA Corporation. *=Denotes unsignalized intersection As shown in Table 3-13, 4 of the 11 study intersections are currently operating at LOS D or better during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, and Saturday mid-day hour. The seven study intersections that are operating at LOS E or F during one or more study periods are: I-10/Atlantic Boulevard westbound off-ramp, northbound (weekday PM, Saturday mid-day); I-10/Atlantic Boulevard westbound off-ramp, southbound (Saturday mid-day); I-10/Atlantic Boulevard eastbound off-ramp, northbound (weekday PM, Saturday mid-day); I-10/Atlantic Boulevard eastbound off-ramp, southbound (Saturday mid-day); Atlantic Boulevard/Hellman Avenue (Saturday mid-day); Atlantic Boulevard/Valley Boulevard (weekday PM, Saturday mid-day); and, Atlantic Boulevard/Glendon Way (weekday AM and PM, Saturday mid-day). 137 The Project trip generation estimates were based on trip rates defined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation (9th Edition). Trip rates for the hotel and retail land uses were utilized to calculate the trip generation for the proposed Project uses. A trip credit was applied for the existing auto repair and car wash uses. The trip rates and the trip generation are provided in Table KOA Corporation. Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Atlantic Gateway Project, North Atlantic Boulevard, Monterey Park. March 3, 2014 (Revised December 30, 2014). SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 141

142 Table 3-14 Project Trip Generation Land Use (ITE) Code & Measure Measure Daily Total Weekday Saturday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Midday Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out Total Total In Out Trip Generation Rates 310 Hotel (/room) % 41% % 49% % 44% 820 Retail (KSF) % 38% % 52% % 48% 942 Auto Center (KSF) % 34% % 52% % 50% 948 Car Wash (KSF) % 50% % 50% % 50% Proposed Project Trips Hotel (288 rooms) 2, , Cap. Mkt. Reduction (25%) (588) (38) (23) (15) (43) (22) (21) (590) (52) (29) (23) Hotel Subtotal 1, , Retail (6.200 KSF) Pass-by Reduction (50%) (133) (3) (2) (1) (11) (5) (6) (155) (15) (8) (7) Retail Subtotal Project Subtotal 1, , Existing Use Trips Auto Repair (4.044 KSF) (81) (9) (6) (3) (13) (6) (7) (96) (14) (7) (7) Car wash (6.86 KSF) (900) (36) (18) (18) (97) (49) (48) (900) (97) (49) (48) Existing Use Total (981) (45) (24) (21) (110) (55) (55) (996) (111) (56) (55) New Net Project Trips Total The proposed Project would generate approximately 916 net new daily weekday trips including 73 net new trips during the a.m. peak hour and 32 net new trips during the p.m. peak hour. For Saturday, the proposed Project would generate approximately 928 net new daily trips and 59 net new mid-day peak hour trips. Trip distribution is the process of assigning the directions from which traffic will access a Project site. Trip distribution is dependent upon the land use characteristics of the Project, the local roadway network, and the general locations of other land uses to which Project trips would originate or terminate. 138 Exhibit 3-19 illustrates the trip distribution percentages at the study intersections that were used for the traffic impact analysis. Based on the trip generation and distribution assumptions described above, Project traffic was assigned to the roadway system. Exhibits 3-20 and 3-21 illustrate the Project trips for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. Exhibit 3-22 illustrates the Project trips for the Saturday mid-day peak hour. Table 3-15 summarizes the resulting V/C and LOS values at the study intersections for the existing with-project conditions. 138 KOA Corporation. Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Atlantic Gateway Project, North Atlantic Boulevard, Monterey Park. March 3, 2014 (Revised December 30, 2014). SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 142

143 Table 3-15 Intersection Performance Existing With-Project Study Intersection Weekday AM Peak Hour V/C or Delay (sec.) LOS Weekday PM Peak Hour V/C or Delay (sec.) LOS Mid-day Saturday Peak Hour V/C or Delay (sec.) LOS 1 Atlantic Bl & I-10 Fwy WB ramp Northbound 17.4 C F F 2. Atlantic Bl & I-10 Fwy WB ramp Southbound 17.9 C 35.5 E 59.0 F 3. Atlantic Bl & I-10 Fwy EB ramp Northbound* 29.3 D 48 E 48 E 4. Atlantic Bl & I-10 Fwy EB ramp Southbound* 13.3 B 16.5 C 70.1 F 5. Atlantic Bl & Hellman Ave D D E 6. Atlantic Bl & Times Square Driveway 0.44 A B B 7. Atlantic Bl & Emerson Ave A C D 8. Atlantic Bl & Mar Center Driveway A B C 9. Atlantic Bl & Garvey Ave B C B 10. Atlantic Bl & Valley Bl D E E 11. Atlantic Bl & Glendon Way E E E Source: KOA Corporation. *=Denotes unsignalized intersection A total of four out of the 11 study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, and Saturday mid-day hour. The seven study intersections that will continue to operate at LOS E or F during one or more study periods are: I-10/Atlantic Boulevard westbound off-ramp, northbound (weekday PM, Saturday mid-day); I-10/Atlantic Boulevard westbound off-ramp, southbound (weekday PM, Saturday mid-day); I-10/Atlantic Boulevard eastbound off-ramp, northbound (weekday PM, Saturday mid-day); I-10/Atlantic Boulevard eastbound off-ramp, southbound (Saturday mid-day); Atlantic Boulevard/Hellman Avenue (Saturday mid-day); Atlantic Boulevard/Valley Boulevard (weekday PM, Saturday mid-day); and, Atlantic Boulevard/Glendon Way (weekday AM and PM, Saturday mid-day) KOA Corporation. Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Atlantic Gateway Project, North Atlantic Boulevard, Monterey Park. March 3, 2014 (Revised December 30, 2014). SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 143

144 EXHIBIT 3-19 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Source: KOA Corporation SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 144

145 EXHIBIT 3-20 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT (WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR) Source: KOA Corporation SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 145

146 EXHIBIT 3-21 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT (WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR) Source: KOA Corporation SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 146

147 EXHIBIT 3-22 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT (SATURDAY MID-DAY HOUR) Source: KOA Corporation SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 147

148 This section provides an analysis of future traffic conditions in the study area with area/related project trips and background growth added, but without Project traffic. The year 2016 was selected for analysis of future conditions since the proposed Project is anticipated to be completed by the end of In order to acknowledge regional population and employment growth outside of the study area, an ambient/background traffic growth rate was applied to the existing traffic counts. An annual growth rate of 0.82% from Regional Statistical Area 25 of the 2010 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program was used for this purpose. This annual rate was included in the scoping document to the City of Monterey Park. In addition to the application of the ambient traffic growth rate, traffic from related/area projects (approved and pending developments) was also included as part of the year-2016 analysis. Four related projects in the City of Monterey Park and 5 related project in the City of Alhambra were identified for inclusion in the traffic impact analysis. 140 The future without-project traffic volumes for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour are illustrated in Exhibits 3-23 and 3-24, respectively. The future without-project Saturday mid-day peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in Exhibit Table 3-16 summarizes the V/C and LOS values at the study intersections under this scenario. Table 3-16 Intersection Performance Future without Project Study Intersection Weekday AM Peak Hour V/C or Delay (sec.) LOS Weekday PM Peak Hour V/C or Delay (sec.) LOS Mid-day Saturday Peak Hour V/C or Delay (sec.) LOS 1 Atlantic Bl & I-10 Fwy WB ramp Northbound 18.6 C F F 2. Atlantic Bl & I-10 Fwy WB ramp Southbound 20.1 C 56.5 F F 3. Atlantic Bl & I-10 Fwy EB ramp Northbound* 35.2 E 75.3 F 76 F 4. Atlantic Bl & I-10 Fwy EB ramp Southbound* 14.3 B 19.8 C F 5. Atlantic Bl & Hellman Ave D E F 6. Atlantic Bl & Times Square Driveway A B C 7. Atlantic Bl & Emerson Ave B D E 8. Atlantic Bl & Mar Center Driveway A C C 9. Atlantic Bl & Garvey Ave B C C 10. Atlantic Bl & Valley Bl E E E 11. Atlantic Bl & Glendon Way E E E Source: KOA Corporation. *=Denotes unsignalized intersection 140 Exhibit 3- illustrates the locations of the related projects and Appendix D of this traffic report summarizes the trip generation. Related project traffic was distributed to the surrounding street system in the study area for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours and Saturday mid-day peak hour. The related project volumes figures for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours and Saturday mid-day peak hour are also provided in Appendix D. SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 148

149 EXHIBIT 3-23 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT (WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES) Source: KOA Corporation SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 149

150 EXHIBIT 3-24 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT (WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES) Source: KOA Corporation SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 150

151 EXHIBIT 3-25 FUTURE WITHOUT (SATURDAY MID-DAY HOUR VOLUMES) Source: KOA Corporation SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 151

152 A total of 3 out of the 11 study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the analyzed peak hours. The eight study intersections that will continue to operate at LOS E or F during one or more peak periods are: I-10/Atlantic Boulevard westbound off-ramp, northbound (weekday PM, Saturday mid-day); I-10/Atlantic Boulevard westbound off-ramp, southbound (weekday PM, Saturday mid-day); I-10/Atlantic Boulevard eastbound off-ramp, northbound (weekday AM and PM, Saturday midday); I-10/Atlantic Boulevard eastbound off-ramp, southbound (Saturday mid-day); Atlantic Boulevard/Hellman Avenue (weekday PM, Saturday mid-day); Atlantic Boulevard/Emerson Avenue (Saturday mid-day); Atlantic Boulevard/Valley Boulevard (weekday AM and PM, Saturday mid-day); and, Atlantic Boulevard/Glendon Way (weekday AM and PM, Saturday mid-day). 141 Traffic volumes for these conditions were derived by adding Project trips to the future without-project scenario volumes. The future with-project traffic volumes are illustrated in Exhibits 3-26 and 3-27 for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. The future with-project Saturday mid-day peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in Exhibit Table 3-17 summarizes the resulting V/C and LOS values at the study intersections for the future with-project traffic conditions. Table 3-17 Intersection Performance Future with-project Study Intersection Weekday AM Peak Hour V/C or Delay (sec.) LOS Weekday PM Peak Hour V/C or Delay (sec.) LOS Mid-day Saturday Peak Hour V/C or Delay (sec.) LOS 1 Atlantic Bl & I-10 Fwy WB ramp Northbound 18.7 C F 196 F 2. Atlantic Bl & I-10 Fwy WB ramp Southbound 20.9 C 58.4 F F 3. Atlantic Bl & I-10 Fwy EB ramp Northbound* 36.1 E 76.7 F 77.7 F 4. Atlantic Bl & I-10 Fwy EB ramp Sorthbound* 14.7 B 20.1 C F 5. Atlantic Bl & Hellman Ave E E F 6. Atlantic Bl & Times Square Driveway A B C 7. Atlantic Bl & Emerson Ave B D E 8. Atlantic Bl & Mar Center Driveway A C C 9. Atlantic Bl & Garvey Ave B C C 10. Atlantic Bl & Valley Bl E E E 11. Atlantic Bl & Glendon Way E E E Source: KOA Corporation. *=Denotes unsignalized intersection 141 KOA Corporation. Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Atlantic Gateway Project, North Atlantic Boulevard, Monterey Park. March 3, 2014 (Revised December 30, 2014). SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 152

153 EXHIBIT 3-26 FUTURE WITH PROJECT (WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES) Source: KOA Corporation SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 153

154 EXHIBIT 3-27 FUTURE WITH PROJECT (WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES) Source: KOA Corporation SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 154

155 EXHIBIT 3-28 FUTURE WITH PROJECT (SATURDAY MID-DAY HOUR VOLUMES ) Source: KOA Corporation SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 155

156 A total of 3 of the 11 study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the analyzed peak hours. The eight study intersections that will continue to operate at LOS E or F during one or more study periods are: I-10/Atlantic Boulevard westbound off-ramp, northbound (weekday PM, Saturday mid-day); I-10/Atlantic Boulevard westbound off-ramp, southbound (weekday PM, Saturday mid-day); I-10/Atlantic Boulevard eastbound off-ramp, northbound (weekday AM and PM, Saturday midday); I-10/Atlantic Boulevard eastbound off-ramp, southbound (Saturday mid-day); Atlantic Boulevard/Hellman Avenue (weekday AM and PM, Saturday mid-day); Atlantic Boulevard/Emerson Avenue (Saturday mid-day); Atlantic Boulevard/Valley Boulevard (weekday AM and PM, Saturday mid-day); and Atlantic Boulevard/Glendon Way (weekday AM and PM, Saturday mid-day). 142 Table 3-18 provides a summary of the Project impacts under existing conditions. Traffic impacts created by the proposed Project were determined by comparing the existing scenario conditions to the existing with-project scenario conditions. The proposed Project would not create any significant traffic impacts at the study intersections under existing with-project conditions, during either the weekday a.m. or p.m. peak hour, or Saturday mid-day hour. Project mitigation measures, therefore, are not recommended for existing conditions. 143 The proposed Project would not create any significant traffic impacts at the study intersections under existing with-project conditions, during either the weekday a.m. or p.m. peak hour, or Saturday mid-day hour. Project mitigation measures, therefore, are not recommended for existing conditions. 144 Table 3-18 Intersection Performance Existing With-Project Study Intersection Peak Hour Existing (2013) Conditions V/C or Delay (sec.) LOS Existing (2013) With Proposed Project V/C or Delay (sec.) LOS Chg. in V/C or Delay Significant Impact? 1. Atlantic Boulevard & I-10 Freeway Westbound Ramp Northbound 2. Atlantic Boulevard & I-10 Freeway Westbound Ramp Southbound AM 17.3 C 17.4 C 0.1 NO PM F F 1.6 NO Sat Mid F F 1.5 NO AM 17.4 C 17.9 C 0.5 NO PM 34.6 D 35.5 E 0.9 NO Sat Mid F 59.0 F 4.9 NO 142 KOA Corporation. Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Atlantic Gateway Project, North Atlantic Boulevard, Monterey Park. March 3, 2014 (Revised December 30, 2014). 143 Ibid. 144 Ibid. SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 156

157 Table 3-18 Intersection Performance Existing With-Project (continued) Study Intersection Peak Hour Peak Hour V/C or Delay (sec.) LOS Existing (2013) Conditions V/C or Delay (sec.) LOS Chg. in V/C or Delay Significant Impact? 3. Atlantic Boulevard & I-10 Freeway Eastbound Ramp Northbound 4. Atlantic Boulevard & I-10 Freeway Eastbound Ramp Southbound AM 28.7 D 29.3 D 0.6 NO PM 47.2 E 48.0 E 0.8 NO Sat Mid E 48.0 E 1.0 NO AM 13.0 B 13.3 B 0.3 NO PM 16.3 C 16.5 C 0.2 NO Sat Mid F 70.1 F 7.3 NO AM D D NO 5. Atlantic Boulevard & Hellman Avenue PM D D NO Sat Mid E E NO AM A A NO 6. Atlantic Boulevard & Times Square Driveway PM B B NO Sat Mid B B NO AM A A NO 7. Atlantic Boulevard & Emerson Avenue PM C C NO Sat Mid D D NO AM A A NO 8. Atlantic Boulevard & Mar Center Driveway PM B B NO Sat Mid C C NO AM B B NO 9. Atlantic Boulevard & Garvey Avenue PM C C NO Sat Mid B B NO AM D D NO 10. Atlantic Boulevard & Valley Boulevard PM E E NO Sat Mid E E NO AM E E NO 11. Atlantic Boulevard & Glendon Way PM E E NO Sat Mid E E NO Source: KOA Corporation. *=Denotes unsignalized intersection Table 3-19 provides a summary of the Project impacts under future conditions. Traffic impacts created by the Project were determined by comparing the future without-project scenario conditions to the future with-project scenario conditions. The proposed Project would not create any significant traffic impacts at the study intersections under future with-project conditions, during either the weekday a.m. or p.m. peak hour, or Saturday mid-day hour. Project mitigation measures, therefore, are not recommended for future conditions. SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 157

158 Table 3-19 Determination of Project Impacts Future With-Project Impacts Intersection Future 2016 No Project Peak Hour V/C or Delay (sec.) LOS Future 2016 with Project V/C or Delay (sec.) LOS Change- Signif. Impact? Atlantic Bl & I-10 Fwy WB ramp Northbound Atlantic Bl & I-10 Fwy WB ramp Southbound Atlantic Bl & I-10 Fwy EB ramp Northbound* Atlantic Bl & I-10 Fwy EB ramp Southbound* AM 18.6 C 18.7 C 0.1 NO PM F F 1.4 NO SAT Mid F F 1.9 NO AM 20.1 C 20.9 C 0.8 NO PM 56.5 F 58.4 F 1.9 NO SAT Mid F F 9.4 NO AM 35.2 E 36.1 E 0.9 NO PM 75.3 F 76.7 F 1.4 NO SAT Mid 76.0 F 77.7 F 1.7 NO AM 14.3 B 14.7 B 0.4 NO PM 19.8 C 20.1 C 0.3 NO SAT Mid F F 13.0 NO AM D D NO Atlantic Bl & Hellman Ave PM D D NO SAT Mid E E NO Atlantic Bl & Times Square Driveway AM A A NO PM B B NO SAT Mid C C NO AM B B NO Atlantic Bl & Emerson Ave PM D D NO SAT Mid E E NO Atlantic Bl & Mar Center Driveway AM A A NO PM C C NO SAT Mid C C NO AM B B NO Atlantic Bl & Garvey Ave PM C C NO SAT Mid C C NO AM E D NO Atlantic Bl & Valley Bl PM E E NO SAT Mid E E NO AM E E NO Atlantic Bl & Glendon Way PM E E NO SAT Mid E E NO Note I: LOS = Level of Service; V/C = Volume/Capacity Source: KOA, 2014 SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 158

159 Based on the applied City of Monterey Park significant traffic impact criteria, the proposed Project would not create any significant traffic impacts at the study intersections under existing with-project and future with-project conditions. 145 The existing northbound left-turn lane on Atlantic Boulevard at Hellman Avenue will be extended by modifying the center median to accommodate the northbound left-turn movement at the project s northerly driveway. Northbound left-turn inbound vehicle access to the southerly project driveway from Atlantic Boulevard would occur from the existing center two-way left-turn lane. 146 The project access driveway on Hellman Avenue will be restricted to provide right-turn outbound movements. Table 3-20 summarizes the delay and LOS values at the project driveways on Atlantic Boulevard. The northerly project driveway is projected to operate at LOS C or better under existing withproject and future with-project conditions. The southerly project driveway is projected to operate at LOS D or better under existing with-project and future with-project conditions, with the exception of the eastbound approach under the future with-project condition during Saturday which is projected to operate at LOS E. 147 Table 3-20 Northerly and Southerly Project Driveway Operations Scenario Turning Movement/ Approach Weekday AM Peak Hour Delay (sec.) LOS Weekday PM Peak Hour Delay (sec.) LOS Mid-day Saturday Peak Hour Delay (sec.) LOS Atlantic Boulevard and North Project Driveway Existing With-Project Future With-Project Northbound left-turn 10.4 B 11.6 B 15.2 C Eastbound Approach 10.6 B 11.3 B 13.0 B Northbound left-turn 11.1 B 12.7 B 17.3 C Eastbound Approach 11.0 B 11.8 B 13.9 B Atlantic Boulevard and South Project Driveway Existing With-Project Future With-Project Northbound left-turn 10.4 B 11.6 B 15.1 C Eastbound Approach 14.9 B 18.3 C 29.7 D Northbound left-turn 11.0 B 12.6 B 17.2 C Eastbound Approach 16.4 C 21.3 C 38.2 E Source: KOA Corporation. *=Denotes unsignalized intersection 145 KOA Corporation. Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Atlantic Gateway Project, North Atlantic Boulevard, Monterey Park. March 3, 2014 (Revised December 30, 2014). 146 KOA Corporation. Technical Memorandum Prepared for Ethan Capital, LLC. January 13, Ibid. SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 159

160 B. Would the project result in a conflict with an applicable congestions management program, including but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact. The CMP was created statewide because of Proposition 111 and was implemented locally by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). The CMP for Los Angeles County requires that the traffic impact of individual development projects of potentially regional significance be analyzed. A specific system of arterial roadways plus all freeways comprises the CMP system. Per CMP Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, a traffic impact analysis is conducted where: At CMP arterial monitoring intersections, including freeway on-ramps or off-ramps, where the proposed Project will add 50 or more vehicle trips during either a.m. or p.m. weekday peak hours. At CMP mainline freeway-monitoring locations, where the Project will add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during the either the a.m. or p.m. weekday peak hours. The nearest CMP arterial monitoring intersection to the Project site is at Fremont Avenue and Valley Boulevard, which is located approximately one and half miles northwest of the Project site. Based on the trip generation and distribution of the Project, it is not expected that 50 or more new Project trips per hour would be added at these CMP intersections. Therefore, no further analysis of potential CMP impacts is required. In addition, the proposed Project is expected to add less than 150 new trips per hour, in either direction, to any freeway segments based on the Project trip generation. Therefore, no further analysis of CMP freeway monitoring stations is required. 148 The City of Monterey Park does not have an agreement with Caltrans District 7 on freeway impact analysis procedures. The City of Los Angeles, which is near the City of Monterey Park, recently entered into an agreement with Caltrans on freeway impact analysis procedures. As part of the agreement, the City of Los Angeles requires project applicants to work with Caltrans and to prepare freeway impact analysis, utilizing Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies for land use proposals that meet any of the following criteria: The project s peak hour trips would result in a 1-percent or more increase to the freeway mainline capacity of a freeway segment operating at level-of-service (LOS) E or F (based on an assumed capacity of 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane); or The project s peak hour trips would result in a 2-percent or more increase to the freeway mainline capacity of a freeway segment operating at LOS D (based on an assumed capacity of 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane); or 148I KOA Corporation. Technical Memorandum Prepared for Ethan Capital, LLC. January 13, SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 160

161 The project s peak hour trips would result in a 1-percent or more increase to the capacity of a freeway off-ramp operating LOS E or F (based on an assumed ramp capacity of 1,500 vehicles per hour per lane); or The project s peak hour trips would result in a 2-percent or more increase to the capacity of a freeway off-ramp operating LOS D (based on an assumed ramp capacity of 1,500 vehicles per hour per lane). 149 Although the City of Monterey Park does not have an agreement with Caltrans District 7 on freeway impact analysis procedures, the above criteria, were used for the freeway ramp analysis based on discussions with City of Monterey Park staff. Project trips on the mainline freeway segments in the study area are shown on Table The existing I-10 freeway in the study area is operating at LOS F in the westbound direction during the a.m. peak hour and in the eastbound direction during the p.m. peak hour. Based on the 1- percent criteria on mainline freeways, the project would need to add 100 trips in each direction to meet the traffic impact analysis requirement. As shown on the table, the project is projected to add between three to nine net new trips to the mainline freeway in each direction. The project trips are less than the required 100 trips. Therefore, a freeway impact analysis is not required. 150 Location Peak Hour Los (A) Table 3-21 Caltrans Freeway Analysis Project Trips Freeway Mainline Capacity (B) Caltrans Criteria for Impact Analysis WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB Freeway Impact Analysis Required? I-10 Freeway west of Atlantic Bl AM F C ,000 10, NO PM D F ,000 10, NO I-10 Freeway east of Atlantic Bl AM F C ,000 10, NO PM D F ,000 10, N0 Source: KOA 149 KOA Corporation. Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Atlantic Gateway Project, North Atlantic Boulevard, Monterey Park. March 3, 2014 (Revised December 30, 2014). 150 Ibid. SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 161

162 Although City of Monterey Park does not have an agreement with Caltrans District 7 on freeway impact analysis procedures, the above criteria were used for the Caltrans freeway off-ramp analysis for this project. Project trips on the freeway off-ramps segments in the study area shown on Table The key findings of the traffic analysis are outlined below. The freeway off-ramp intersections are operating as LOS D or better during the a.m. peak hour. The I-10/Atlantic Boulevard westbound off-ramp, southbound, and the I-10/Atlantic Boulevard eastbound off-ramp, southbound, are operating at LOS D or better during the p.m. peak hour. The I-10/Atlantic Boulevard westbound off-ramp, northbound, and the I-10/Atlantic Boulevard eastbound off-ramp, northbound, are operating at LOS E or F during the p.m. peak hour. If the 1-percent criteria on freeway off-ramps were used, the project would need to add 15 trips to the off-ramps to meet the traffic impact analysis requirement. If the 2-percent criteria on freeway off-ramps were used, the project would need to add 30 trips to the off-ramps to meet the traffic impact analysis requirement. As shown in Table 3-22, the project is projected to add between three to nine net new trips to the freeway off-ramps. The project trips are less than the required 15 to 30 trips. Therefore, a freeway impact analysis is not required. 151 Table 3-22 Caltrans Freeway Off-Ramp Analysis Location Peak Hour Existing Los Project Trips Freeway offramp Capacity (a) Caltrans 1% Criteria for Impact Analysis (b) Caltrans 2% Criteria for Impact Analysis (b) Off-Ramp Impact Analysis Required? Atlantic Bl & I-10 AM C 0 1, NO Freeway Westbound Ramp- Northbound PM F 0 1, NO Atlantic Bl & I-10 AM C 9 1, NO Freeway Westbound Ramp- Southbound PM D 3 1, NO Atlantic Bl & I-10 AM D 0 1, NO Freeway Easttbound Ramp- Northbound PM E 0 1, NO Atlantic Bl & I-10 AM B 9 1, NO Freeway Easttbound Ramp- Southbound PM C 3 1, NO Source: KOA Corporation 151 KOA Corporation. Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Atlantic Gateway Project, North Atlantic Boulevard, Monterey Park. March 3, 2014 (Revised December 30, 2014). SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 162

163 C. Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in the location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project will not impact any Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic height restrictions. Finally, the project site is not located within an approach or take-off aircraft safety zone. As a result, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. D. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The applicable City of Monterey Park Municipal Code requirements for off-street parking, for the hotel and retail uses, are as follows: Hotel: 1 space per room (without kitchen facilities). Retail: 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The proposed Project uses would be required to provide 313 parking spaces per City parking code requirements. The proposed Project would provide 365 parking spaces on the site. Therefore, there would be a surplus of 52 parking spaces. 152 E. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. At no time will any designated emergency evacuation route be closed to traffic due to the proposed project. As a result, the project will not result in any significant adverse impacts. F. Would the project result in a conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No Impact. As indicated in Table 3-23, the project site is well served by both local and regional transit providers. There are no bus stops located along the Atlantic Boulevard frontage that would be physically impacted by the proposed project. Any potential increase in transit patronage would be a beneficial impact. 152 KOA Corporation. Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Atlantic Gateway Project, North Atlantic Boulevard, Monterey Park. March 3, 2014 (Revised December 30, 2014). SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 163

164 Table 3-23 Existing Transit Service Summary Agency Line From To Via Weekday Peak Frequency Saturday Peak Frequency Monterey Park Spirit Bus 1 Circular Loop Within City Limit Atlantic Boulevard & Emerson Avenue 40 minutes 40 minutes Monterey Park Spirit Bus 2 Circular Loop Within City Limit Atlantic Boulevard & Emerson Avenue 40 minutes 40 minutes Monterey Park Spirit Bus 4 Circular Loop Within City Limit Atlantic Boulevard & Emerson Avenue & Garvey Avenue 40 minutes 40 minutes Alhambra Community Transit Green Line Circular Loop Within City Limit Valley Boulevard 20 minutes 20 minutes Los Angeles Metro 70 Los Angeles El Monte Garvey Avenue 8 to 15 minutes 16 minutes Los Angeles Metro 76 Los Angeles El Monte Los Angeles Metro 260 Compton Altadena Valley Boulevard Atlantic Boulevard 12 to 15 minutes 15 to 20 minutes 12 to 20 minutes 16 minutes Los Angeles Metro Rapid 762 Compton Pasadena Atlantic Boulevard 17 to 30 minutes n/a Los Angeles Metro Rapid 770 Los Angeles El Monte Atlantic Boulevard & Garvey Avenue 10 to 13 minutes n/a Source: KOA Corporation CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project s implementation will result in an incremental increase in City-wide traffic. The project s traffic impacts together with traffic from ambient growth were considered herein in Section A. This additional traffic will not significantly impact the peak hour levels of service of any area intersections. As a result, no cumulative impacts are anticipated MITIGATION MEASURES The traffic analysis determined that no mitigation measures were required. SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION IMPACTS PAGE 164

165 3.17 UTILITIES IMPACTS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to the City of Monterey Park, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on utilities if it results in any of the following: An exceedance of the wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board; The construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts; The construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; An overcapacity of the storm drain system causing area flooding; A determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand; The project will be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs; Non-compliance with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations relative to solid waste; A need for new systems or substantial alterations in power or natural gas facilities; or, A need for new systems or substantial alterations in communications systems ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less than Significant Impact. The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County operate ten water reclamation plants (WRPs) and one ocean discharge facility (Joint Water Pollution Control Plant), which treat approximately 510 million gallons per day (mgd), 200 mgd of which are available for reuse (reclaimed water). The Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) located at S. Figueroa Street in Carson serves the City. 153 The design capacities of the Districts wastewater treatment facilities are based on population forecasts adopted in the Southern California Association of Government s (SCAG) Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG). All expansions of the districts facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the Growth Management Element of the RCPG. The available capacity of the districts 153 Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Website Website accessed on January 15, SECTION 3.17 UTILITIES IMPACTS PAGE 165

166 treatment facilities will be limited to levels associated with approved growth identified in the RCPG. The City s sanitary sewer system is a gravity-flow system that connects to county trunk lines. These lines collect more than two billion gallons of raw sewage per year and convey it out of the City. The sewer system is comprised of 126 miles of main line sewers and approximately 2,498 manholes. Based on average flow summaries, industrial waste permit flow data, and population estimates, the estimated wastewater generation in the City was 4.6 million gallons per day (MGD) in As indicated previously the wastewater from Monterey Park is sent to the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson for treatment. The facility provides both primary and secondary treatment for approximately 280 million gallons of wastewater per day (mgd), and has a total permitted capacity of 400 mgd The proposed project is anticipated to generate 33,741 gallons of effluent on a daily basis. 156 This figure is well within the remaining capacity projected in the RCPG. As a result, the impacts are less than significant. B. Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts? Less than Significant Impact. There is an 8-inch vitrified clay pipe (VCP) sewer main located in Hellman Avenue that flows easterly then southerly to the 8-inch concrete cylinder pile (CCP) sewer main in Atlantic Boulevard. There is also an 8- inch VCP along the southerly line of the project site. Wastewater service for the proposed project site will be provided by a new connection to an existing main in Atlantic Boulevard. Contact with the City of Monterey Park Public Works Department indicated the existing mains have sufficient capacity to accommodate the project s water and sewer system requirements. The proposed project s anticipated effluent rate generation is 33,741 gallons per day assuming a rate of 105 gallons per room and 3,510 gallons per day for the commercial project elements. These effluent rates (loading rates) were obtained from the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. 157 This additional effluent generation can be accommodated by existing facilities. Monterey Park relies solely upon local groundwater supplies to meet local demand. 158 For emergencies, the City can utilize water supplies from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and the California Water Services Company. The Water Master Plan identifies several concerns with the City's aging water production and transmission system, as well as deteriorating water quality conditions at selected wells where concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have risen over the years. 159 The Water Master Plan outlines a phased program to address water line maintenance and replacement as a 154 City of Monterey Park Website Website accessed on January 14, Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Website. Website accessed on January 14, Utility consumption and generation rates are included in Appendix D. 157 Ibid. 158 City of Monterey Park Website Website accessed on January 14, City of Monterey Park Website Website accessed on January 14, SECTION 3.17 UTILITIES IMPACTS PAGE 166

167 means to accommodate increased demands and to avoid groundwater contamination in the future. 160 The site is presently served by an 8 inch asbestos cement pipe (ACP) water main line along Atlantic Boulevard on the east side of the street. There is also a 6-inch cast iron pipe (CIP) water main in Hellman Avenue, located in the northern side of the street. The City of Monterey Park Water System obtains all of its water supplies from local groundwater. This water is obtained via 12 City water wells with a total pumping capacity of 20 million gallons per day (mgd). All of the wells are located within the main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin in the vicinity of the Rio Hondo River. These wells are all located outside of the City s corporate boundaries. At the present time, the Monterey Park Water System supplies an average of 10 mgd to its customers. Current use in the City averages from 7.3 mgd to 12 mgd during the hottest summer month. 161 The proposed project s anticipated water consumption is 42,066 gallons per day. 162 The City of Monterey Park Water Division confirmed that adequate supplies are available to serve the proposed project based on available water supplies. As a result, the potential impacts are considered to be less than significant. C. Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The majority of the storm drain system in Monterey Park is municipally owned and operated; however, about 20% is managed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. 163 The Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) has the regional, county-wide flood control responsibility. LACFCD responsibilities include planning for developing, and maintaining flood control facilities of regional significance which serve large drainage areas. Within the project site, the topography conveys surface runoff from the northwest to the southeast corner. No significant change on the surface flows (Q) since the existing site is mostly impervious area. The proposed site will be consistent with the existing in term of the square footage of impervious area. The proposed drainage will be exiting to the southeast corner into Atlantic Boulevard storm drains. As a result, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. D. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less than Significant Impact. Monterey Park relies solely upon local groundwater supplies to meet local demand. 164 For emergencies, the City can utilize water supplies from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and the California Water Services Company. The proposed project s anticipated water consumption is 42, City of Monterey Park Website Website accessed on January 14, Ibid. 162 Ibid. 163 Ibid. 164 Ibid. SECTION 3.17 UTILITIES IMPACTS PAGE 167

168 gallons per day. 165 The City of Monterey Park Water System obtains all of its water supplies from local groundwater. This water is obtained via 12 City water wells with a total pumping capacity of 20 million gallons per day (mgd). All of the wells are located within the main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin in the vicinity of the Rio Hondo River. These wells are all located outside of the City s corporate boundaries. At the present time, the Monterey Park Water System supplies an average of 10 mgd to its customers. Current use in the City averages from 7.3 mgd to 12 mgd during the hottest summer month. 166 The proposed project s anticipated water consumption is 42,066 gallons per day. 167 As a result, the potential impacts are considered to be less than significant. E. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less than Significant Impact. The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County operate ten water reclamation plants (WRPs) and one ocean discharge facility (Joint Water Pollution Control Plant), which treat approximately 510 million gallons per day (mgd), 200 mgd of which are available for reuse (reclaimed water). The design capacities of the Districts wastewater treatment facilities are based on population forecasts adopted in the Southern California Association of Government s (SCAG) Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG). All expansions of the districts facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the Growth Management Element of the RCPG. Projects that are consistent with the employment and population forecasts identified in the RCPG prepared by SCAG are considered consistent with the growth projections, since the RCPG forms the basis of the land use and transportation in Southern California. The utility providers are required to consider these growth projections in the formulation of capital improvement programs. According to SCAG s 2012 growth forecasts, Monterey Park will have a population of 77,700 by The City is also expected to add approximately 3,300 jobs between 2008 and The proposed project will not add any housing units and the projected employment figures will be below 100 new jobs. The available capacity of the districts treatment facilities will be limited to levels associated with approved growth identified in the RCPG. As a result, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. F. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? Less than Significant Impact. The City of Monterey Park contracts with Athens Services for all of its waste removal services. Before taking the City's waste to a landfill for final disposal, the City requires Athens to process Monterey Park's waste through a materials recovery facility (MRF) sorting center. 165 City of Monterey Park Website Website accessed on January 14, Ibid. 167 Ibid. 168 Southern California Association of Governments. Growth Forecast. Regional Transportation Plan April Ibid. SECTION 3.17 UTILITIES IMPACTS PAGE 168

169 This program allows the City to meet the 50 percent landfill diversion mandate required by California law while providing the greatest convenience possible to residents and businesses. The proposed project is anticipated to generate 320 pounds of solid waste on a daily basis. 170 The Athens MRF and 171 currently processes 1,920 tons per day (TPD) of trash and its maximum permitted capacity is 5,000 TPD. The proposed project, like all other uses within the City, will be required to comply with the City s solid waste reduction requirements. 172 As a result, the impacts on solid waste generation are considered to be less than significant. G. Would the project comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) was enacted to reduce, recycle, and reuse solid waste generated in the state. The Act required cities and counties to identify measures to divert 50% of the total solid waste stream from landfill disposal. The State has continued to refine program goals and work toward preserving land resources for productive uses, not landfills. The City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element identifies programs that must be implemented to meet waste diversion goals. These measures include curbside collection of recyclables, separation of yard and other "green" waste from non-biodegradable materials. 173 Future development within the City is required to adhere to all applicable law related to waste reduction and recycling. The proposed use, like all other development in the City, will be required to adhere to all pertinent ordinances related to waste reduction and recycling. As a result, no significant adverse impacts on the existing regulations pertaining to solid waste generation will result from the proposed project s implementation. H. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations in power or natural gas facilities? No Impact. Southern California Edison and Sempra Energy (Southern California Gas Company) provide service upon demand, and early coordination with these utility companies will ensure adequate and timely service to the project site. Thus, no significant adverse impacts on power and natural gas services will result from the adoption and subsequent implementation of the proposed project. 170 Utility consumption and generation rates are included in Appendix D. 171 City of Monterey Park Website and Athens Services. com/recycling2/material-recovery-facility.html. Websites were accessed on January 14, City of Monterey Park Website Website was accessed on January 14, City of Monterey Park. Website was accessed on January 14, SECTION 3.17 UTILITIES IMPACTS PAGE 169

170 I. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations in communications systems? No Impact. The proposed development will continue to require telephone service from various local and long-distance providers. The existing telephone lines in the area will continue to be utilized to provide service to future development. Thus, no impacts on communication systems are anticipated CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The potential impacts related to water line and sewer line capacities are site specific. Furthermore, the analysis herein also determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on utility infrastructure and/or services. The ability of the existing sewer and water lines to accommodate the projected demand from future development in the area will require evaluation on a caseby-case basis. As a result, no cumulative impacts on utilities will occur MITIGATION MEASURES The analysis of utility impacts indicated that no significant impacts are anticipated. As a result, no mitigation is required. SECTION 3.17 UTILITIES IMPACTS PAGE 170

171 SECTION 4 - CONCLUSIONS 4.1 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following findings can be made regarding the Mandatory Findings of Significance set forth in Section of the CEQA Guidelines based on the results of this environmental assessment: The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of the mitigation measures included herein. The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, with the implementation of the mitigation measures referenced herein. The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed project will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, with the implementation of the mitigation measures contained herein. The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of the mitigation measures contained herein. The Initial Study indicated there is no evidence that the proposed project will have an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitant upon which any wildlife depends. SECTION 4 CONCLUSIONS Page 171

172 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. SECTION 4 CONCLUSIONS Page 172

173 SECTION 5 REFERENCES 5.1 PREPARERS BLODGETT/BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNINT E. Colima Road, Suite 206 Hacienda Heights, California (626) Marc Blodgett, Project Manager Rosalyn Perry, Project Planner Liesl Sullano, Project Planner 5.2 REFERENCES Bugliarello, et. al., The Impact of Noise Pollution, Chapter 127, California Administrative Code, Title 24, Energy Conservation, California Department of Conservation, Mineral Land Classification of the Los Angeles County Area, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database, California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazards Mapping Program, California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Historical Landmarks, California Office of Planning and Research, California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended California, State of California Public Resources Code Division 13, The California Environmental Quality Act. Chapter 2.5, Section and Section Monterey Park, City of. Monterey Park General Plan. As amended. Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Housing Needs Assessment, South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, as amended South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan, U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census, SECTION 5 REFERENCES Page 173

174 U.S. Geological Survey, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region - An Earth Science Perspective, USGS Professional Paper 1360, U.S. Geological Survey, Monterey Park 7-1/2 Minute Quadrangle, SECTION 5 REFERENCES Page 174

175 APPENDICES APPENDIX A AIR EMISSIONS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX B PHASE I SOILS STUDY APPENDIX C TRAFFIC NOISE WORKSHEETS APPENDIX D UTILITIES COMPUTER WORKSHEETS APPENDICES Page 175

176 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. APPENDICES Page 176

177 APPENDIX A AIR EMISSIONS WORKSHEETS APPENDICES Page 177

178 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. APPENDICES Page 178

179 APPENDICES Page 179

180 APPENDICES Page 180

181 APPENDICES Page 181

182 APPENDICES Page 182

183 APPENDICES Page 183

184 APPENDICES Page 184

185 APPENDICES Page 185

186 APPENDICES Page 186

187 APPENDICES Page 187

188 APPENDICES Page 188

189 APPENDICES Page 189

190 APPENDICES Page 190

191 APPENDIX B PHASE I SOILS STUDY APPENDICES Page 191

192 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. APPENDICES Page 192

193 APPENDICES Page 193

194 APPENDICES Page 194

195 APPENDICES Page 195

196 APPENDICES Page 196

197 APPENDICES Page 197

198 APPENDICES Page 198

199 APPENDICES Page 199

200 APPENDICES Page 200

201 APPENDICES Page 201

202 APPENDICES Page 202

203 APPENDICES Page 203

204 APPENDICES Page 204

205 APPENDICES Page 205

206 APPENDICES Page 206

207 APPENDICES Page 207

208 APPENDICES Page 208

209 APPENDICES Page 209

210 APPENDICES Page 210

211 APPENDICES Page 211

212 APPENDICES Page 212

213 APPENDICES Page 213

214 APPENDICES Page 214

215 APPENDICES Page 215

216 APPENDICES Page 216

217 APPENDICES Page 217

218 APPENDICES Page 218

219 APPENDICES Page 219

220 APPENDICES Page 220

221 APPENDICES Page 221

222 APPENDICES Page 222

223 APPENDICES Page 223

224 APPENDICES Page 224

225 APPENDICES Page 225

226 APPENDICES Page 226

227 APPENDICES Page 227

228 APPENDICES Page 228

229 APPENDICES Page 229

230 APPENDICES Page 230

231 APPENDICES Page 231

232 APPENDICES Page 232

233 APPENDIX C TRAFFIC NOISE WORKSHEETS APPENDICES Page 233

234 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. APPENDICES Page 234

235 APPENDICES Page 235

236 APPENDICES Page 236

237 APPENDICES Page 237

238 APPENDICES Page 238

239 APPENDICES Page 239

240 APPENDICES Page 240

241 APPENDICES Page 241

242 APPENDICES Page 242

243 APPENDICES Page 243

244 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. APPENDICES Page 244

245 APPENDIX D UTILITIES COMPUTER WORKSHEETS APPENDICES Page 245

246 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. APPENDICES Page 246

247 APPENDICES Page 247

248 APPENDICES Page 248

249 APPENDICES Page 249

250 APPENDICES Page 250