Agenda packet — Montebello City Council, April 10, 2024 (part 7 of 9)

City of Montebello Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
2-18

Page 942 of 1273 ends

Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-1
3 Amendments to the Draft EIR
The following pages provide a summary record of all proposed text amendments to the Draft EIR.

Most amendments are the result of comments received during the public review period, and directly respond to those comments, or correction of typographical errors within the Draft EIR.

These amendments serve as clarifications and amplifications on the content of the Draft EIR. None of the changes would warrant recirculation of the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

The amendments serve to clarify and strengthen the content of the EIR, but do not introduce significant new information.

Changes in text are signified by strikeouts (strikeouts) where text is removed and by underlined font (underline font) where text is added. The page number cited is the page number in the Draft EIR.

Executive Summary
Page ES-5 through ES-6:
 No Project (Current General Plan). The “No Project” Alternative involves continued implementation of the City’s current General Plan, which was adopted in 1999.1 The No Project Alternative assumes that the City’s existing General Plan policies would continue to facilitate development in accordance with existing land use designations. The overall amount of growth anticipated to occur under the City’s current General Plan is less than what could be facilitated under the proposed Project. Plan. The proposed Project increases allowed density in areas including the Downtown Montebello Specific Plan Area and transportation corridors and as a result increases capacity for residential and commercial development. The proposed Project would allow for an increase in the amount of development overall in the Plan Area because it allows increased residential and commercial development in these key focus areas. Therefore, it also increases the Plan Area’s total potential population and amount of commercial development compared to the current General Plan. Under the current General Plan, the Plan Area’s population would not be expected to reach the SCAG forecast of 67,800 by 2045, while under the proposed Project future residential growth is predicted to increase the Plan Area’s City’s total population to 113,338. SCAG forecasts for population, households, and employment in Montebello through the year 2045 are shown in Table 4.14-4 of Section 4.14, Population and Housing of this EIR.
1 The City also considered a “no growth” alternative, but rejected it as infeasible for the reasons discussed in Section 6.3 of this EIR.

Page 943 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 3-2
Page ES-20 to ES-26 (portions not relevant to revisions excluded):

Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: Development
carried out under the
proposed Project may cause a
substantial adverse change in
the significance of historical
resources that have already
been identified or may be
identified in the Plan Area. This
impact would be significant
and unavoidable.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure
CUL-1 would reduce impacts to
historical resources by identifying and
evaluating significant historical
resources and managing relocation,
rehabilitation, or alteration in
compliance with the Standards as
applicable. However, even with
implementation of this mitigation
measure, historical resources could still
be materially impaired by future
development that carried out under the
proposed Project. While HABS-like
documentation would reduce these
impacts to the greatest extent feasible
in cases where compliance with the
Standards or avoidance is not possible,
legal precedent has established that
such a measure cannot mitigate impacts
to a level of less than significant because
the loss of historical fabric cannot be
readily compensated for by
commemorative mitigation.2 Therefore,
impacts would be significant and
unavoidable.

Impact CUL-2: Development
carried out under the
proposed Project may cause
a substantial adverse change
in the significance of
archaeological resources that
may be present in the Plan
Area, including those that
qualify as historical
resources. This impact would
be significant but mitigable.

MM-CUL-6 Phase III Data Recovery
Should the results of the Phase II site
evaluation (Mitigation Measure CUL-5)
yield resources that meet CRHR
significance standards and if the
resource cannot be avoided by project
construction in accordance with CUL-4,
the project applicant shall ensure that all
feasible recommendations for mitigation
of archaeological impacts are
incorporated into the final design and
approved by the City of Montebello
prior to construction, through the
development of a Phase III Data
Recovery report (pPhase III) program.

MM-CUlL-8 Unanticipated Discovery of
Archaeological Resources
2 League For Protection of Oakland's Architectural and Historic Resources, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. City of Oakland et al., Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., et al. No. A074348. First District, Division One. Feb 10, 1997.

Page 944 of 1273 ends

Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-3
Section 4.5, Cultural Resources

Page 4 ends

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce impacts to historical resources by identifying and evaluating significant historical resources and managing relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration in compliance with the Standards as applicable. However, even with implementation of this mitigation measure, historical resources could still be materially impaired by future development that carried out under the proposed Project.

Page 4 ends

IMPACT CUL-3 THE DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS IS ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY DURING GROUNDDISTURBING ACTIVITIES. GROUND DISTURBANCE ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT CARRIED OUT UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY DISTURB OR DAMAGE KNOWN OR UNKNOWN HUMAN REMAINS. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH ADHERENCE TO EXISTING REGULATIONS.

Section 4.6, Energy

Page 4 ends

In 1996, the USEPA joined with the Energy Department to expand the program, which now also includes certifying commercial and industrial buildings as well as homes (Energy Star 2023USEPA 2021).

Page 4 ends

The most recent assessment, the 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report, highlights the implementation of California’s innovative policies and the role they have played in establishing a clean energy economy and provides more detail on several key energy policies, including decarbonizing buildings, increasing energy efficiency savings, and integrating more renewable energy into the electricity system (CEC 2022cd).

Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Page 4 ends

Existing Hazardous Materials Sites
A database search conducted in August January 2023 2024 through the DTSC EnviroStor Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List website (DTSC 20232024) found two nine active sites in Montebello, two of which have active statuses. These two The DTSC EnviroStor Hazardous Waste and Substances sites are listed in Table 4.9-1. There are six open sites listed by the SWRCB’s Geotracker database in the Plan Area. These six sites are listed in Table 4.9-2. One of these sites is listed by the USEPA under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), Title III as shown in Table 4.9-3 (USEPA 2023b).

Page 945 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 3-4

Page 4 ends

Table 4.9-1 DTSC Active Sites in the Montebello
Site Name Site Location DTSC Site Type Status
Metro Heights 1400 North Montebello Boulevard Voluntary Cleanup Active Georgia Pacific Corporation 760 South Vail Ave Corrective Action Active Burke Concrete 1625 Washington Boulevard Voluntary Cleanup No Further Action Chapin Road Landfill All properties on Chapin and Bluff Roads
Evaluation Inactive - Action Required
Grow Group 760 South Vail Ave Non-Operating Undergoing Closure Lilly Industries,
Inc./Montebello
901 West Union Street Refer: Other Agency Tiered Permit Mines and Maple School Site Mines/Maple School Investigation No Further Action Myers Electric Products, Inc. 1130 S. Vail Avenue Tiered Permit Refer: Other Agency Royal Dry Cleaners 2600 West Beverly Boulevard. Evaluation Refer: 1248 Local Agency Source: DTSC 20234

Page 4 ends

According to the Well Finder search tool hosted by the California Department of Conservation’s Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM, which was formerly named the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), a majority of the City of Montebello lies over an oil and gas field (Geologic Energy Management Division [CalGEM] 2023). There are numerous plugged oil and gas wells located within, and within 1,000 feet of, the City of Montebello (CalGEM 2023).

Page 4 ends

Construction Site Well Review Program
CalGEM Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) oversees the drilling, operation, maintenance, and plugging and abandonment of oil, natural gas, and geothermal wells throughout California. The regulatory program emphasizes the wise development of oil, natural gas, and geothermal resources in the state through sound engineering practices that protect the environment, prevent pollution, and ensure public safety. DOGGR CalGEM is charged with implementing Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 3208.1. As a result, DOGGR CalGEM developed the Construction Site Well Review program to assist local permitting agencies in identifying and reviewing the status of oil or gas wells located near or beneath proposed structures. Before issuing building or grading permits, local permitting agencies review and implement DOGGR CalGEM’s preconstruction well requirements.

The Construction Site Well Review Program provides important information on the current status of all known wells located on a development site property, and it provides other important information when development occurs near oil or gas wells. DOGGR CalGEM provides this information in an advisory role, so that responsible decisions can be made by the property owner, developer, and local permitting agency when development occurs near oil or gas wells.

According to PRC Section 3208.1, if any property owner, developer, or local permitting agency either fails to obtain an opinion from CalGEM, DOGGR, or fails to follow the advice of CalGEM

Page 946 of 1273 ends

Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-5
DOGGR when development occurs near an oil or gas well, then the owner of the property on which the well is located may be responsible for abandonment costs should a future problem arise with the well.

Page 4 ends

Wells
Section 4.9.1, Environmental Setting acknowledges the presence of numerous plugged oil and gas wells located within, and within 1,000 feet of, the City of Montebello, and Section 4.9.2, Regulatory Framework discusses relevant state agencies and regulations applicable to wells, including plugged, abandoned, or unrecorded wells that could be damaged or uncovered during excavation for future construction projects carried out under the proposed Project. As required by these regulations, the City will contact CalGEM to obtain information on the requirements and approval to perform remedial operations if it becomes aware that any such damage or discovery has occurred as part of future development carried out under the proposed Project.

Chapter 6, Alternatives

Page 6 ends

The “No Project” Alternative involves continued implementation of the City’s current General Plan, which was adopted in 1973. The No Project Alternative assumes that the City’s existing General Plan policies would continue to facilitate development in accordance with existing land use designations. The overall amount of growth anticipated to occur under the City’s current General Plan is less than what could be facilitated under the proposed Project. Plan. The proposed Project increases allowed density in areas including the Downtown Montebello Specific Plan Area and transportation corridors and as a result increases capacity for residential and commercial development. The proposed Project would allow for an increase in the amount of development overall in the Plan Area because it allows increased residential and commercial development in these key focus areas. Therefore, it also increases the Plan Area’s total potential population and amount of commercial development compared to the current General Plan.

Under the current General Plan, the Plan Area’s population would not be expected to reach the SCAG forecast of 67,800 by 2045, while under the proposed Project future residential growth is predicted to increase the Plan Area’s City’s total population to 113,338. SCAG forecasts for population, households, and employment in Montebello through the year 2045 are shown in Table 4.14-4 of Section 4.14, Population and Housing of this EIR.

Page 6 ends

The No Project Alternative would potentially increase impacts to historic resources compared to the proposed Project. General Plan Update. As discussed in Chapter 4.5 Cultural Resources, the proposed Project does not call for substantial changes to established residential neighborhoods and includes specific policies aimed at preserving historic resources. The No Project Alternative would not include these policies and mitigation measures and would, therefore, be more likely than the proposed Project to lead to or allow the loss of, or negative effects on, historic resources in such areas. The No Project Alternative would therefore have potentially greater impacts to historical resources, and cultural resources in general, than the proposed Project.

Page 947 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 3-6

Page 6 ends

m. Noise
The No Project Alternative would result in less development than the proposed General Plan Update. Therefore, less construction and associated construction noise and vibration would occur under this alternative, particularly in the identified development areas and housing opportunity sites for the proposed Project, and there would be less of an increase in operational noise sources. However, construction noise and increased operational noise under this alternative might be spread more widely across the Plan Area. Also, while this alternative would result in less development, the City’s current General Plan has fewer operational noise reduction policies and restrictions than the proposed Project. Furthermore, mitigation measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 requiring actions to reduce construction noise and vibration would not be included in this alternative. Therefore, noise impacts under the No Project Alternative would be greater than under the proposed Project.

Page 6 ends

c. Air Quality
As with the proposed Project, impacts to Air Quality would be significant and unavoidable. As discussed in Impacts AQ-1 through AQ-4 in Chapter 4.3 Air Quality of this EIR, individual developments projects carried out under the proposed Project would generate construction and operational related emissions that could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants, and result in adverse impacts to local air quality, all of which may create significant and unavoidable impacts. While the Reduced Growth Alternative’s individual project emissions haves the potential to create all the same significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, there would less overall development in the Plan Area under this alternative and this alternative would have less construction and operational emissions than the proposed Project.

However, because the Reduced Growth Alternative would result in less development in the identified focus areas and more dispersed development, VMT per capita would not be reduced to the same degree as under the proposed Project, thereby potentially increasing vehicular emissions. Overall, this alternative’s air quality impacts would be less in some respects and greater in others than those of the proposed Project, but similar overall.

Page 6 ends

6.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative among the options studied. When the “No Project” alternative is determined to be environmentally superior, CEQA also requires identification of the environmentally superior alternative among the development options.

As shown in Table 6-2,the Reduced Growth Alternative would, overall, be environmentally superior to the proposed Project. When the two alternatives are compared to each other and the proposed Project, the Reduced Growth Alternative would be environmentally superior because apart from greater impacts to Land Use and Planning and Transportation, it would have reduced or similar environmental impacts compared to the proposed Project, while the No Project Alternative would result in greater impacts to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources,

Page 948 of 1273 ends

Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-7
Energy, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems; with reduced impacts in Air Quality, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Population and Housing.

Chapter 7, References

Page 7 ends

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 20243. EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ (accessed January 2024August 2023).

Page 949 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 3-8
This page intentionally left blank.

Page 950 of 1273 ends

Appendix A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 951 of 1273 ends

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report A-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). This mitigation monitoring and reporting program is intended to track and ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during the project implementation phase. For each mitigation measure recommended in the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR), specifications are made herein that identify the action required, the monitoring that must occur, and the agency or department responsible for oversight.

The proposed project to which these mitigation measures apply is the City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan (the proposed Project), which includes the following components:
 A comprehensive update of the City of Montebello’s General Plan, reorganizing and formatting the Plan to include the following eight chapters: Our Natural Community, Our Prosperous Community, Our Well Planned Community, Our Accessible Community, Our Healthy Community, Our Safe Community, Our Active Community, and Our Creative Community  The proposed General Plan Update includes an update of the City’s Housing Element (6th Cycle, 2021-2029), which was adopted by the City Council in June 2022 and subsequently certified by HCD on July 11, 2022. While an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS-ND) was prepared and adopted concurrently with the Housing Element, the 6th Cycle Housing Element is a component of the proposed General Plan Update and is also analyzed in the EIR  The Downtown Montebello Specific Plan, which focuses on Downtown Montebello and is intended to enhance the public right-of-way through selective market supported infill development that includes, among other things, multi-story buildings that will augment the character and quality of the street as well as activate uses in the immediate area, giving new energy to the downtown corridor through unique, local, and high-quality experience-based retail opportunities

Page 952 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan A-2
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Air Quality
AQ-1- Tier 4 and Alternatively Fueled Equipment
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Chief
Building Official in coordination with the City
Engineer or designee shall confirm that the
grading plan, building plans, and specifications
stipulate that the following measures shall be
implemented:
 All mobile off-road equipment (wheeled or
tracked) used during construction activities
shall meet the USEPA Tier 4 final standards.

Tier 4 certification can be for the original
equipment or equipment that is retrofitted
to meet the Tier 4 Final standards.
 Alternative Fuel (natural gas, propane,
electric, etc.) construction equipment shall
be incorporated where available. These
requirements shall be incorporated into the
contract agreement with the construction
contractor. A copy of the equipment’s
certification or model year specifications
shall be available upon request for all
equipment on-site.
 Electricity shall be supplied to the site from
the existing power grid to support the
electric construction equipment. If
connection to the grid is determined to be
infeasible for portions of the project, a nondiesel fueled generator shall be used.  The construction contractor shall water the
site two times per day during demolition
activities.
 The project shall comply with the CARB Air
Toxics Control Measure that limits diesel
powered equipment and vehicle idling to no
more than five minutes at a location, and
the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle
Regulation; compliance with these would
minimize emissions of TACs during
construction.

Confirm that the actions required under this
mitigation measure are implemented for
construction activities carried out under the
proposed Project
Prior to issuance of grading
permits
Once City of
Montebello
Chief Building
Official in
coordination
with the City
Engineer or
designee

Page 953 of 1273 ends

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report A-3
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
AQ-2: Architectural Coating
Prior to issuance of building permits, the Chief
Building Official in coordination with the City
Engineer or designee shall confirm that building
plans and specifications stipulate that all
architectural coating phases shall implement
low/zero VOC coating unless project specific
modeling determines higher VOC content
coatings result in VOC emissions below the 75
lbs./day.

Confirm that the actions required under this
mitigation measure are implemented for
individual projects under the proposed
Project where unmitigated VOC impacts
exceed regulatory thresholds.

Prior to granting building
permits
Once City of
Montebello
Chief Building
Official in
coordination
with the City
Engineer or
designee
AQ-3: Hearth
Prior to issuance of building permits, the Chief
Building Official in coordination with the City
Engineer or designee shall confirm that the
building plans stipulate that all multi-family
residential developments shall not incorporate
wood or natural gas fireplaces. Electric
fireplaces are allowable under this mitigation
measure.

During plan check, confirm that all multifamily residential projects do not include wood or natural gas fireplace on the project
plans.

Prior to granting building
permits
Once City of
Montebello
Chief Building
Official in
coordination
with the City
Engineer or
designee
AQ-4: Air Quality Assessment
Individual developments carried out under the
proposed Project shall do the following:
 Discretionary Projects: Discretionary
projects shall complete the analysis
described in the Non-Discretionary Projects
bullet below, consistent with CEQA
requirements. Impacts shall be reduced
below regulatory thresholds or to the
furthest extent possible.
 Non-Discretionary Projects: The following
types of non-discretionary projects shall
require an air quality technical assessment
and incorporate measures such that impacts
are reduced to below regulatory thresholds
or to the furthest extent possible:
 Projects where sensitive receptors are
less than 1,000 feet from the project
boundary
 Discretionary Projects: Confirm that
discretionary projects have completed
the analysis described in the NonDiscretionary Projects bullet below, consistent with CEQA requirements, and
that methods to reduce the
environmental impacts of each
discretionary project below regulatory
thresholds or to the furthest extent
possible are identified in the analysis.
 Non-Discretionary Projects: Confirm that
non-discretionary projects subject to this
mitigation measure have completed an
air quality technical assessment and
incorporated measures such that impacts
are reduced to below regulatory
thresholds or to the furthest extent
possible.

Prior to project approval Once City of
Montebello
Chief Building
Official in
coordination
with the City
Engineer or
designee

Page 954 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan A-4
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
 Construction with use of substantial
(more than two pieces) heavy
construction equipment use
 Projects with construction period lasting
longer than 2 months of heavy
equipment use
Biological Resources
BIO-1 Project-specific Biological Resources Assessment
For projects that require vegetation removal,
ground disturbance of unpaved areas, parking or
staging of equipment or material on unpaved
areas, access routes on unpaved areas, or
rehabilitation or construction staging within 300
feet of unpaved areas (except for landscaped
developed areas) that contain or have the
potential to support special-status species, open
space, sensitive natural communities, or suitable
habitat to support special-status species, the
following shall apply:

Prior to the issuance of a development permit, a
qualified biologist shall be retained by the
project applicant to conduct a site-specific
biological resources reconnaissance survey of
the site. The biological resources assessment
shall characterize the biological resources
present on the project site and evaluate the
presence or absence of sensitive species and
habitats. The biological resources assessment
will aid in determining the project’s potential
direct, indirect, and cumulative biological
impacts, as well as specific avoidance measures
necessary to offset those impacts.

1. Confirm that, for projects subject to
this mitigation measure, that a
biological resources reconnaissance
survey has been prepared by a
qualified biologist, consistent with
the requirements of this mitigation
measure.

2. If the biologist determines that
special-status plant species may
occur or the project site has
suitable habitat for special-status
wildlife, confirm that focused
surveys have been prepared
consistent with the requirements of
this mitigation measure.

3. If it is determined that biological
resources may be impacted by a
project, confirm that any necessary
mitigation measures identified in
the biological resources assessment
are carried out, consistent with the
requirements of this mitigation
measure.

4. If ESA and/or CESA listed species or
wildlife movement corridors are
identified by the biological
resources assessment confirm that
consultation with the appropriate
agencies, as required under this
mitigation measure, takes place.

1. Prior to issuance of
development permits

2. Prior to issuance of
development permits

3. Prior to granting grading
permits and, if
necessary, during
construction

4. Prior to issuing a
development permit

1. Once

2. Once

3. Once prior to
granting
grading permits
and periodically during
construction

4. Once
City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department

Page 955 of 1273 ends

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report A-5
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants (USFWS,
September 23, 1996; or its successor). If it is
determined that the project site has suitable
habitat for special-status wildlife, focused
surveys shall be conducted to determine
presence/absence including species-specific
surveys in accordance with CDFW or USFWS
protocols for sensitive, state or federally listed
species, respectively, that may occur. If the
biologist determines that sensitive habitats
and/or regulated aquatic resources may be
present, additional focused studies to further
assess and delineate the habitat (such as a
formal jurisdictional determination for wetlands
and waters) shall be conducted.

A report shall be prepared that identifies 1)
approximate population size and distribution of
any sensitive plant or animal species, 2) any
sensitive habitats or sensitive natural
communities (such as wetlands or riparian
areas), and 3) any potential impacts of the
project on wildlife corridors. Off-site areas that
may be directly or indirectly affected by the
individual project shall also be surveyed. The
report shall include site location, literature
sources, methodology, timing of surveys,
vegetation map, site photographs, and
descriptions of on-site biological resources (e.g.,
observed and detected species, as well as an
analysis of those species with the potential to
occur on-site). The biological resources
assessment report and surveys shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist, and any
special status species surveys shall be conducted
according to standard methods of surveying for
the species as appropriate.

If sensitive species and/or habitat are absent
from the individual project site and adjacent
lands potentially affected by the individual
project, a written report substantiating such
shall be submitted to the City Planning Division
prior to issuance of a grading permit, and the

Page 956 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan A-6
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
project may proceed without any further
biological investigation.

If it is determined that a special-status species
and/or habitats may be impacted by a project,
the biological report shall identify additional
mitigation measures such as avoidance,
minimization, restoration, or compensation to
reduce impacts to a less that significant level
prior to issuance of a development permit from
the City or performing any ground disturbance
activities (e.g., geotechnical boring or vegetation
removal). In the case of ESA and/or CESA listed
species, consultation with USFWS and/or CDFW
shall occur prior to issuance of a development
permit from the City or performing any ground
disturbance activities, to determine measures to
address impacts such as avoidance,
minimization, restoration, or compensation. In
the case of regulated aquatic resources, the
USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB will be consulted
regarding their respective jurisdictions and any
necessary permits obtained prior to issuance of
a development permit from the City.

1. Confirm that a pre-construction
nesting bird survey has been
prepared by a qualified biologist,
consistent with the requirements of
this mitigation measure

2. If the nests are found, confirm that
the requirements of this mitigation
measure are enacted on the
construction site

3. Confirm that a report summarizing
the pre-construction survey(s)
prepared by a qualified biologist
has been submitted to the City

1. Prior to construction
activities carried out
from February 1 through
August 31

2. Whenever nests are
found

3. Prior to commencement
of construction activities

1. Once

2. Once per find

3. Once
City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department

Page 957 of 1273 ends

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report A-7
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
work activity, and existing disturbances
associated with land uses within and outside of
the site. The avoidance buffer shall be
demarcated by the biologist with bright orange
construction fencing, flagging, construction
lathe, or other means to demarcate the
boundary. All construction personnel shall be
notified as to the existence of the buffer zone
and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the
nesting season. No ground disturbing activities
shall occur within the buffer until the biologist
has confirmed that breeding/ nesting is
completed, and the young have fledged the
nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur
only at the discretion of the qualified biologist
on the basis that the encroachment will not be
detrimental to an active nest. A report
summarizing the pre-construction survey(s) shall
be prepared by a qualified biologist and shall be
submitted to the City prior to the
commencement of construction activities.

Site plans shall include a statement
acknowledging compliance with the federal
MBTA and CFGC that includes avoidance of
active bird nests and identification of Best
Management Practices to avoid impacts to
active nests, including checking for nests prior to
construction activities during February 1 to
August 31 and what to do if an active nest is
found so that the nest is not inadvertently
impacted during grading or construction
activities.

4. Confirm that project site plans
include a statement acknowledging
compliance with the federal MBTA
and CFGC

4. Prior to granting building
and grading permits

4. Once

Page 958 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan A-8
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Cultural Resources
CUL-1 Historical Resources
A historical resources evaluation (HRE) shall be
prepared for any discretionary project carried
out under the proposed Project involving the
demolition or physical alteration of any building,
structure, object, or other built environment
feature that is 45 years of age or older. The
evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified
architectural historian or historian who meets
the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Professional
Qualifications Standards (PQS) in architectural
history or history (National Park Service 1983).

The qualified architectural historian or historian
shall conduct an intensive-level evaluation in
accordance with the guidelines and best
practices promulgated by the California Office of
Historic Preservation to identify any potential
historical resources within the proposed
development site. All properties 45 years of age
or older shall be evaluated within their historic
context and documented in a report meeting
California Office of Historic Preservation
guidelines. All evaluated properties shall be
documented on California Department of Parks
and Recreation Series 523 Forms. HREs shall be
submitted to the City for review and
concurrence. If the property is already listed in
the NRHP or CRHR, the HRE described above
shall not be required.

1. Confirm that a historic resources
evaluation has been prepared by a
qualified architectural historian or
historian who meets the Secretary
of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards (PQS) in
architectural history or history,
consistent with the requirements of
this mitigation measure.

2. If historical resources are identified
within the project area of a
proposed development, confirm
that efforts are made, to the extent
feasible, to ensure that impacts are
mitigated, consistent with the
requirements of this mitigation
measure.

3. If historical resources are identified
within a proposed development
site, confirm that efforts have been
made to the greatest extent
feasible to ensure that impacts are
mitigated, and that the relocation,
rehabilitation, or alteration of the
resource is consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for the Treatments of Historic
Properties (Standards) and the
requirements of this mitigation
measure.

4. If significant historical resources are
identified on a development site
and compliance with the Standards
and or avoidance is not possible,
confirm that appropriate sitespecific mitigation measures are

1. Prior to construction and
grading activities

2. Prior to construction and
grading activities

3. Prior to construction and
grading activities

4. Prior to construction and
grading activities

1. Once

2. Once

3. Once

4. Once
City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department

Page 959 of 1273 ends

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report A-9
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards). In
accordance with CEQA, a project that has been
determined to conform with the Standards
generally would not cause a significant adverse
direct or indirect impact to historical resources
(14 CCR § 15126.4(b)(1)). Application of the
Standards shall be overseen by a qualified
architectural historian or historic architect
meeting the PQS. In conjunction with any
development application that may affect the
historical resource, a report identifying and
specifying the treatment of character-defining
features and construction activities shall be
prepared by a historian or architectural historian
meeting the PQS in history or architectural
history and provided to the City for review and
concurrence. As applicable, the report shall
demonstrate how the project complies with the
Standards and be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to the issuance of any
permits.

The report shall comply with the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and
Engineering Documentation and shall generally
follow the HABS Level III requirements, including
digital photographic recordation, detailed
historic narrative report, and compilation of
historical research. The documentation shall be
completed by a qualified architectural historian
or historian who meets the SOI PQS and
submitted to the City of Montebello, Planning &
Community Development Department, Planning
Division prior to issuance of any permits for
established and undertaken,
consistent with the requirements of
this mitigation measure.

Page 960 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan A-10
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
demolition or alteration of the historical
resource.

CUL-2 Phase 1 Archaeological Resources Study
For any discretionary project carried out the
proposed Project, a Phase I Archaeological
Resources Study (Phase I) shall be prepared if
the project will involve ground disturbance
(unless the project site is within soils that can be
reliably demonstrated as being non-native or
artificial fill). If a project would solely involve the refurbishment of an existing building and no
ground disturbance would occur, this measure
would not be required. The study shall be
performed by a qualified professional meeting
the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI’s)
Professional Qualification Standards (PQS) for
archaeology (National Park Service 1983).

Methods shall include a pedestrian survey of the
project site and sufficient background research
and field sampling to determine whether
archaeological resources may be present.

Archival research shall include a records search
of the South Central Coastal Information Center
no more than two years old and a Sacred Lands
File search with the Native American Heritage
Commission. The Phase I technical report
documenting the study shall include
recommendations that must be implemented
prior to and/or during construction to avoid or
reduce impacts on archaeological resources. The
Phase I shall be submitted to the City of
Montebello, Planning & Community
Development Department, Building and Safety
Division for review and approval prior to the
issuance of any grading or construction permits.

Recommendations in the Phase I shall be made
Conditions of Approval and shall be
implemented throughout all ground disturbance
activities.

1. If any project carried out under the
General Plan Update will involve
any ground disturbance (unless the
project site is within soils that can
be reliably demonstrated as being
non-native or artificial fill) confirm
that a Phase I cultural resources
study consistent with the
requirements of this mitigation
measure has been performed by a
qualified professional meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI’s)
Professional Qualification Standards
(PQS) for archaeology (National
Park Service 1983), and review and
approve this study.

2. Make all recommendations of the
Phase I technical report Conditions
of Approval of the project.

3. Confirm that all Conditions of
Approval are carried out
throughout all ground disturbance
activities.

1. Prior to issuance of
construction and
grading permits

2. Prior to issuance of
construction and
grading permits

3. During ground
disturbance activities

1. Once

2. Once

3. Periodically
City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department,
Building and
Safety Division

Page 961 of 1273 ends

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report A-11
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
CUL-3 Extended Phase 1 Testing
For any projects proposed within 100 feet of a
known archaeological site and/or in areas
identified as sensitive by a Phase I [Mitigation
Measure CUL-2], the project applicant shall
retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct an
Extended Phase I (XPI) study to determine the
presence/absence and extent of archaeological
resources on the project site. XPI testing should
comprise a series of shovel test pits and/or hand
augured units and/or mechanical trenching to
establish the boundaries of archaeological site(s)
on the project site. If the boundaries of the
archaeological site are already well understood
from previous archaeological work, an XPI will
not be required. If the archaeological
resource(s) of concern are Native American in
origin, the qualified archaeologist shall confer
with local California Native American tribe(s).

All archaeological excavation shall be conducted
by a qualified archaeologist(s) under the
direction of a principal investigator meeting the
SOI’s PQS for archaeology (National Park Service
1983). If an XPI report is prepared, it shall be
submitted to the Planning & Community
Development Department, Building and Safety
Planning Division for review and approval prior
to the issuance of any grading or construction
permits. Recommendations contained therein
shall be implemented for all ground disturbance
activities.

1. Confirm that an XPI study has been done
by a qualified archaeologist retained by
the project applicant if required under
this mitigation measure, and review and
approve the XPI.

2. Confirm that all recommendations of the
XPI are carried out throughout all ground
disturbance activities.

1. Prior to issuance of
construction and
grading permits

2. During ground
disturbance activities

1. Once

2. Periodically
City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department
CUL-4 Archaeological Site Avoidance
Any identified archaeological sites (determined
after implementing mitigation measures CUL-2
and/or CUL-3) shall be avoided by projectrelated construction activities, where feasible. A barrier (temporary fencing) and flagging shall be
placed between the work location and any
resources within 60 feet of a work location to
minimize the potential for inadvertent impacts.

1. Confirm that the avoidance measures
described in this mitigation measure, when
applicable, are being carried out during
project-related construction activities.

1. During construction and
grading activities

1. Periodically City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department,
Building and
Safety Division

Page 962 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan A-12
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
CUL-5 Phase II Site Evaluation
If the results of any Phase I and/or XPI
(mitigation measures CUL-2 and/or CUL-3)
indicate the presence of archaeological
resources that cannot be avoided by the project
(Mitigation Measure CUL-4) and that have not
been adequately evaluated for the National
Register of Historic Places or California Register
of Historical Resources (CRHR) listing at the
project site, the qualified archaeologist shall
conduct a Phase II investigation (Phase II) to
determine if intact deposits remain and if they
may be eligible for the CRHR or qualify as unique
archaeological resources. If the archaeological
resource(s) of concern are Native American in
origin, the qualified archaeologist shall confer
with local California Native American tribe(s).

The Phase II evaluation shall include any
necessary archival research to identify
significant historical associations and mapping
of surface artifacts, collection of functionally or
temporally diagnostic tools and debris, and
excavation of a sample of the cultural deposit.

The sample excavation will characterize the
nature of the sites, define the artifact and
feature contents, determine horizontal and
vertical boundaries, and retrieve representative
samples of artifacts and other remains.

If the archeologist and, if applicable, a Native
American monitor (see Mitigation Measure TCR1 [Section 4.17, Tribal Cultural Resources]) or other interested tribal representative determine
it is appropriate, cultural materials collected
from the site shall be processed and analyzed in
a laboratory according to standard
archaeological procedures. The age of the
materials shall be determined using radiocarbon
dating and/or other appropriate procedures;
lithic artifacts, faunal remains, and other cultural
materials shall be identified and analyzed
according to current professional standards. The
significance of the sites shall be evaluated

1. If the results of any Phase I and/or XPI
(mitigation measures CUL-2 and/or CUL-3)
indicate the presence of archaeological
resources that cannot be avoided by the
project (Mitigation Measure CUL-4) and that
have not been adequately evaluated for the
NRHP or CRHR listing at the project site,
confirm that a Phase II cultural resources
study consistent with the requirements of
this mitigation measure has been performed
by a qualified professional meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI’s) Professional
Qualification Standards (PQS) for
archaeology (National Park Service 1983),
and review and approve this study.

2. Make all recommendations of the Phase II
technical report Conditions of Approval of
the project.

3. Confirm that all Conditions of Approval are
carried out throughout all ground
disturbance activities.

1. Prior to issuance of
construction and grading
permits

2. Prior to issuance of
construction and grading
permits

3. During ground
disturbance activities

1. Once

2. Once

3. Periodically

1. City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department

2. City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department

3. City of
Montebello
Planning
Department,
Building and
Safety Division

Page 963 of 1273 ends

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report A-13
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
according to the criteria of the CRHR. The results
of the investigations shall be presented in a
technical report following the standards of the
California Office of Historic Preservation
publication “Archaeological Resource
Management Reports: Recommended Content
and Format (1990 or latest edition).” The report
shall be submitted to the City of Montebello for
review and approval prior to the issuance of any
grading or construction permits.

Recommendations in the Phase II shall be
implemented for all ground disturbance
activities.

CUL-6 Phase III Data Recovery
Should the results of the Phase II site evaluation
(Mitigation Measure CUL-5) yield resources that
meet CRHR significance standards and if the
resource cannot be avoided by project
construction in accordance with CUL-4, the
project applicant shall ensure that all feasible
recommendations for mitigation of
archaeological impacts are incorporated into the
final design and approved by the City of
Montebello prior to construction, through the
development of a Phase III Data Recovery report
(Phase III) program. Any necessary Phase III data
recovery excavation, conducted to exhaust the
data potential of significant archaeological sites,
shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist
meeting the SOI PQS for archaeology according
to a research design reviewed and approved by
the City of Montebello prepared in advance of
fieldwork and using appropriate archaeological
field and laboratory methods consistent with
the California Office of Historic Preservation
Planning Bulletin 5 (1991), Guidelines for
Archaeological Research Design, or the latest
edition thereof. If the archaeological resource(s)
of concern are Native American in origin, the
qualified archaeologist shall confer with local
California Native American tribe(s). If applicable,
a Native American monitor shall be present.

1. Confirm that any reports found to be
necessary under the requirements of this
mitigation measure have been submitted
to, and reviewed and approved by, the
City of Montebello prior to issuance of
any grading or construction permit.

2. If the reports required under this
mitigation measure identify
archaeological resources of concern that
are also Native American in origin,
confirm that the qualified archaeologist
required under this mitigation measure
has conferred with local California Native
American tribe(s).

3. Confirm that all feasible
recommendations of the reports
required under this mitigation measure
have been incorporated into the final
design of the project and approved by
the City of Montebello

1. Prior to issuance of
construction and
grading permits

2. Prior to issuance of
construction and
grading permits

3. Prior to issuance of
construction and
grading permits

1. Once

2. Once

3. Once
City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department

Page 964 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan A-14
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
As applicable, the final Phase III Data Recovery
reports shall be submitted to the City of
Montebello, Planning & Community
Development Department, Building and Safety
Division prior to issuance of any grading or
construction permit. Recommendations
contained therein shall be implemented
throughout all ground disturbance activities.

4. Confirm that all feasible
recommendations of the reports
required under this mitigation measure
(including, if applicable, presence during
construction of a Native American
monitor) are carried out as described in
this mitigation measure.

4. During all ground
disturbance activities

4. Periodically
CUL-7 Cultural Resources Monitoring
If recommended by Phase I, XPI, Phase II, or
Phase III studies [mitigation measures CUL-2,
CUL-3, CUL-5, and/or CUL-6], the project
applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to
monitor project-related, ground-disturbing
activities, subject to review and approval by the
City of Montebello Planning & Community
Development Department, Building and Safety
Division. If archaeological resources are
encountered during ground-disturbing activities,
mitigation measures CUL-4 through CUL-6 shall
be implemented, as appropriate.

1. Confirm that, if required by this
mitigation measure, the project applicant
has retained a qualified archaeologist to
monitor project-related, grounddisturbing activities and approve the use of this monitor.

2. If archaeological resources are
encountered during ground-disturbing
activities, confirm that mitigation
measures CUL-4 through CUL-6 are
implemented, as appropriate.

1. Prior to project-related,
ground-disturbing
activities

2. During construction
and grading activities

1. Once

If necessary, the evaluation may require
preparation of a treatment plan and
archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility. If the
discovery proves to be significant under CEQA
and cannot be avoided by the project, additional
work may be warranted, such as data recovery
excavation, to mitigate any significant impacts
to historical resources. Any reports required to
document and/or evaluate unanticipated
discoveries shall be submitted to the City of
Montebello Planning & Community
Development Department, Building and Safety
Division for review and approval.

Recommendations contained therein shall be

1. Review and approve any reports
submitted to the City under the
requirements of this mitigation measure.

2. Confirm that recommendations
contained in any reports submitted to
the City under the requirements of this
mitigation measure are implemented.

1. Prior to issuance of
construction and
grading permits

2. Throughout the
remainder of ground
disturbance activities

1. Once

2. Periodically
City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department,
Building and
Safety Division

Page 965 of 1273 ends

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report A-15
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
implemented throughout the remainder of
ground disturbance activities.

Noise
NOI-1 Measures to Reduce Construction Noise
To minimize noise during construction, the City
of Montebello shall require construction
contractors to implement the following
measures for construction activities conducted
within the City. Construction plans submitted to
the City shall include construction noise analysis
and identify these measures on demolition,
grading, and construction plans submitted to
the City. The City of Montebello Building
Division shall verify that grading, demolition,
and/or construction plans submitted to the City
include these notations prior to issuance of
demolition, grading and/or building permits.
 Mufflers. During excavation and grading
construction phases, all construction
equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be
operated with closed engine doors and shall
be equipped with properly operating and
maintained mufflers consistent with
manufacturers’ standards.
 Stationary Equipment. All stationary
construction equipment shall be placed so
that emitted noise is directed away from the
nearest sensitive receivers.
 Equipment Staging Areas. Equipment
staging shall be located in areas that will
create the greatest distance feasible
between construction-related noise sources
and noise-sensitive receivers.
 Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction
equipment shall have smart back-up alarms
that automatically adjust the sound level of
the alarm in response to ambient noise
levels. Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be
disabled and replaced with human spotters
to ensure safety when mobile construction
equipment is moving in the reverse
Confirm that construction plans submitted to
the City include construction noise analysis
and that the construction noise reduction
measures identified in this mitigation
measure are included on demolition, grading,
and construction plans submitted to, and
reviewed and approved by, the City of
Montebello.

Prior to issuance of
demolition, grading, and/or
building permits
Once City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department

Page 966 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan A-16
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
direction in compliance with applicable
safety laws and regulations.
 Electrically Powered Tools and Facilities.

Electrical power shall be used to run air
compressors and similar power tools and to
power any temporary structures, such as
construction trailers or caretaker facilities,
where feasible.
 Noise Disturbance Coordinator. The project
applicant shall designate a “noise
disturbance coordinator” responsible for
responding to any local complaints about
construction noise. The disturbance
coordinator shall determine the cause of
any noise complaint and shall require that
reasonable measures be implemented to
correct the problem. A telephone number
for the disturbance coordinator and the City
shall be posted at the construction site.
 Temporary Noise Barriers. Erect temporary
noise barriers, where feasible, when
construction noise is predicted to exceed
the acceptable standards (e.g., 80 dBA Leq
at residential receivers, schools or other
sensitive receptors during the daytime) or
when the anticipated construction duration
is greater than is typical (e.g., two years or
greater) and there are sensitive receptors
within 500 feet of the construction site.

Temporary noise barriers shall be
constructed with solid materials (e.g., wood)
with a density of at least 1.5 pounds per
square foot with no gaps from the ground to
the top of the barrier. If a sound blanket is
used, barriers shall be constructed with solid
material with a density of at least 1 pound
per square foot with no gaps from the
ground to the top of the barrier and be lined
on the construction side with acoustical
blanket, curtain or equivalent absorptive
material rated sound transmission class
(STC) 32 or higher.

Page 967 of 1273 ends

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report A-17
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
MM-NOI-2 Measures to Reduce Construction Vibration
To reduce potential construction vibration
impacts, the City of Montebello shall require the
following:

Prior to issuance of a building permit for a
project requiring pile driving during construction
within 135 feet of fragile structures such as
historical resources, 100 feet of non-engineered
timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most
residential buildings), or within 75 feet of
engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); a
vibratory roller within 40 feet of fragile historical
resources or 25 feet of any other structure; or a
dozer or other large earthmoving equipment
within 20 feet for a fragile historical structure or
15 feet of any other structure, the project
applicant shall prepare a groundborne noise and
vibration analysis to assess and mitigate
potential noise and vibration impacts related to
these construction activities. This noise and
vibration analysis shall be conducted by a
qualified and experienced acoustical consultant
or engineer. The vibration levels shall not
exceed FTA architectural damage thresholds
(e.g., 0.12 in/sec PPV for fragile or historical
resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered
timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec
PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If
vibration levels would exceed this threshold,
alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed
to pile driving, static rollers as opposed to
vibratory rollers, and lower horsepower
earthmoving equipment shall be used. If
necessary, construction vibration monitoring
shall be conducted to ensure FTA vibration
thresholds are not exceeded.

1. For projects to which this mitigation
measure applies, review and approve any
required groundborne noise and
vibration analysis.

2. For projects to which this mitigation
measure applies, confirm that any
actions required by the noise and
vibration analysis are implemented for
project construction activities.

1. Prior to construction

2. During construction

1. Once

2. Periodically
City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department

Page 968 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan A-18
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources If archaeological resources of Native American
origin are identified during implementation of
projects carried out under the proposed Project,
ground-disturbing activities within 50 feet of the
find shall be temporarily suspended or
redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated
the nature and significance of the find as a
cultural resource and an appropriate local
Native American representative is consulted. If
the City, in consultation with traditionally and
culturally affiliated Native American group(s),
determines the resource is a tribal cultural
resource and thus significant under CEQA, a
mitigation plan shall be prepared and
implemented in consultation with traditionally
and culturally affiliated Native American
group(s). The mitigation plan shall include
measures to ensure the find is treated in a
manner that respectfully retains, to the degree
feasible, the qualities that render the resource
of significance to the local Native American
group(s). Examples of appropriate mitigation for
tribal cultural resources include, but are not
limited to, avoidance, protecting the cultural
character and integrity of the resource,
protecting traditional use of the resource,
protecting the confidentiality of the resource, or
heritage recovery.

1. Upon the discovery of any archaeological
resources of Native American origin,
confirm construction is temporarily
suspended within 50 feet of the find until
an archaeologist has evaluated the
nature and significance of the find as a
cultural resource and an appropriate
local Native American representative is
consulted.

2. If applicable, confirm that the mitigation
plan required under this mitigation
measure has been completed

3. If applicable, confirm that any avoidance
measures described in the mitigation
plan, are implemented

1. Upon the discovery of
any archaeological
resources of Native
American origin

2. Prior to resumption of
construction within 50
feet of the find

3. Throughout
construction and
grading activities after
the discovery of any
tribal cultural resource

1. Once for
each
occurrence

2. Once

3. Periodically
City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department

Page 969 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello General Plan Update and
Downtown Montebello Specific Plan
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations
prepared by
City of Montebello
Planning and Community Development Department, Planning Division 1600 West Beverly Boulevard
Montebello, California 90640
Contact: Joseph Palombi, Director
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
February 2024

Page 970 of 1273 ends

Page 971 of 1273 ends

Table of Contents
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations i Table of Contents

1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................1

2. Project Description.........................................................................................................................2

3. Project Objectives...........................................................................................................................3

4. Findings of Fact...............................................................................................................................4

4.1 Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant............................................................4

4.2 Findings for Significant but Mitigated Effects.....................................................................4

4.2.1 Biological Resources...............................................................................................4 Impact BIO-1 ..........................................................................................................4

4.2.2 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................7 Impact CUL-2..........................................................................................................7

4.2.3 Noise ....................................................................................................................10 Impact N-2............................................................................................................10

4.2.4 Tribal Cultural Resources.....................................................................................11 Impact TCR-1........................................................................................................11

4.3 Findings for Significant and Unavoidable Effects..............................................................12

4.3.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................................13 Impact AQ-1 .........................................................................................................13 Impact AQ-2 .........................................................................................................14 Impact AQ-3 .........................................................................................................16

4.3.2 Cultural Resources...............................................................................................18 Impact CUL-1........................................................................................................18

4.3.3 Noise ....................................................................................................................19 Impact N-1............................................................................................................19

5. Project Alternatives......................................................................................................................21

5.1 Alternative 1: No Project...................................................................................................22

5.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Growth ........................................................................................22

5.2.1 Environmentally Superior Alternative .................................................................23

5.3 Alternatives’ Ability to Avoid Significant and Unavoidable Impacts of Plan.....................24

5.4 Alternatives' Ability to Meet Objectives/Guiding Principles of the Plan ..........................26

6. Statement of Overriding Considerations......................................................................................27

6.1 Benefits of the Proposed Project......................................................................................28

6.2 Findings.............................................................................................................................29

7. Statement of Location and Custodian of Documents..................................................................29

8. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).............................................................29

Page 972 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan ii
Tables
Table 1 Mitigated Localized Operational Emissions.........................................................................17 Table 2 Total New Development Potential of Reduced Growth Alternative Compared to the Proposed Project .......................................................................................................23

Page 973 of 1273 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1

1. Introduction
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared for the City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan (the proposed Project), made available for public review on December 4, 2023, and was distributed to local and State agencies. Copies of the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR were mailed to a list of interested parties, groups, and public agencies. The Draft EIR and an announcement of its availability were posted electronically on the proposed Project website at https://www.montebelloca.gov/planning and at the following locations:
▪ City of Montebello Planning and Community Development Department, Planning Division 1600 West Beverly Boulevard Montebello, CA 90640
▪ Chet Holifield Public Library, 1060 S. Greenwood Avenue, Montebello, CA 90640 ▪ Montebello Library, 1550 W. Beverly Boulevard, Montebello, CA 90640 ▪ Montebello Senior Center – City Park, 1301 W. Whittier Boulevard, Montebello, CA 90640 The public review period for the Draft EIR ran from Monday December 4, 2023, to Wednesday January 17, 2024. The public was encouraged to submit comments to Joseph Palombi, Director of Planning and Community Development, via email no later than 5:00 p.m. on January 17, 2024.

After close of the Draft EIR public review and comment period, the City prepared a Final EIR consisting of responses to comments and changes to the Draft EIR. The City plans to bring the Final EIR before the City of Montebello Planning Commission at a public hearing on March 5, 2024, at which the Planning Commission is expected to make a recommendation regarding the EIR and approval of the proposed Project to the Montebello City Council, which in turn is expected to decide on the certification of the Final EIR and approval of the proposed Project at a public hearing April 10, 2024.

The Findings of Fact (Findings) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) presented herein address the environmental effects associated with the proposed Project that are described and analyzed within the Final EIR, reflect the Council’s determinations about feasible mitigation measures, and the adequacy of the Final EIR. These Findings have been made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources code Section 21081 and 21081.6, as well as the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) Sections 15091 and 15093.

Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 require that the City of Montebello (City), as the Lead Agency for the proposed Project, prepare written findings for any identified significant environmental effects along with a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. Specific findings under CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

Page 974 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 2 (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

Furthermore, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, whenever a project’s significant effects cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the City as the decision-making agency is required to balance, as applicable, the benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable,” in which case the lead agency must adopt a formal statement of overriding considerations.

The Final EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects that could result from the proposed Project but could be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of mitigation measures. Those effects were related to biological resources (impacts related to special status species, particularly nesting birds and their habitat), cultural resources (impacts on archaeological resources), noise (impacts related to project construction vibration), and tribal cultural resources (impacts to unidentified tribal cultural resources). The Final EIR also identified potentially significant environmental effects that could result from the proposed Project that could not be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of mitigation measures.

These potentially significant and unavoidable effects were related to air quality (impacts related to construction and operational emissions), cultural resources (impacts on historical resources), and noise (impacts related to construction noise). Thus, a statement of overriding considerations is required.

2. Project Description
The proposed Project includes an update of the City of Montebello General Plan and adoption of a new Montebello Downtown Specific Plan, as well as other related actions. The actions that make up the proposed Project are described below.

The proposed Project includes a comprehensive update of the City’s General Plan. The General Plan is Montebello's blueprint for meeting the community’s long-term vision for the future. The proposed General Plan Update provides comprehensive policies for the entire City relating to land use/community design, mobility, quality of life, resources, services and infrastructure, and health and safety. The Planning Area for the proposed Project includes the land within Montebello’s City Limits. The proposed Project does not involve any annexation of lands or adjustments to the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). If any annexations are pursued in the future, they would require approval from the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission.

As part of the proposed Project, the General Plan has been reorganized and reformatted, with updated goals and policies that reflect the community’s vision of Montebello that the proposed General Plan Update seeks to achieve. The General Plan Land Use Map has also been updated.

Page 975 of 1273 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 The proposed General Plan Update includes eight chapters:
▪ Our Natural Community
▪ Our Prosperous Community
▪ Our Well Planned Community
▪ Our Accessible Community
▪ Our Healthy Community
▪ Our Safe Community
▪ Our Active Community
▪ Our Creative Community
The proposed General Plan Update includes an update of the City’s Housing Element (6th Cycle, 2021-2029), which was adopted by the City Council in June 2022 and subsequently certified by HCD on July 11, 2022. While an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS-ND) was prepared and adopted concurrently with the Housing Element, the 6
th Cycle Housing Element is a component of the
proposed General Plan Update and is also analyzed in the EIR. All proposed population and housing growth relative to the 6
th Cycle Housing Element and the rest of the proposed Project is accounted for and analyzed in the EIR.

The proposed Downtown Montebello Specific Plan has been developed concurrently with the proposed General Plan Update. These documents are intended to enhance the public right-of-way through selective market supported infill development that includes, among other things, two and three-story buildings that will augment the character and quality of the street as well as activate the street, giving new energy to the area through unique, local, and high-quality experience-based retail opportunities.

3. Project Objectives
Based on input from the community, the General Plan Update includes the overarching purposes listed below to guide General Plan Update policies and City decision-making. These overarching purposes also serve as the objectives of the proposed Project. The overarching purpose/objective is a vision statement that provides general direction for each chapter of the proposed General Plan Update.
▪ Our Natural Community. Promote clean air and clean water, prevent urban heat islands, reduce stormwater runoff, and promote greener neighborhoods and nature-based recreation. ▪ Our Prosperous Community. Attract and retain jobs within growth industries; nurture small entrepreneurial businesses; redevelop underutilized properties along key corridors and districts; and build the City’s fiscal capacity.
▪ Our Well Planned Community. Conserve and enhance stable areas, promote contextual infill, and direct new growth to downtown, commercial districts, and corridors. ▪ Our Accessible Community. Provide safe and convenient multimodal travel options for residents, employees, and visitors of all ages and abilities through creative reimagining of the City’s transportation facilities.
▪ Our Healthy Community. Promote preventative health and well-being for all through inclusive approaches where healthy habits are encouraged.
▪ Our Safe Community. Focus on holistic, equitable, and preventive public safety measures, increase awareness, and be prepared for natural or human-caused hazards.

Page 976 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 4 ▪ Our Active Community. Create environments that incorporate physical activity into daily activity that support health, wellness, and social connections, and provide children and adults a range of high-quality recreational opportunities.
▪ Our Creative Community. Nurture and promote arts and cultural activities, organizations, and events and give them more visibility and prominence in the region.

4. Findings of Fact
Having received, reviewed, and considered the information in the Final EIR for the proposed Project, as well as the supporting administrative record, the City of Montebello makes findings pursuant to, and in accordance with, Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code.

4.1 Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant
Through the scoping process for the proposed Project, and the environmental analysis contained within the Final EIR, it was determined that the proposed Project would not result in potentially significant effects on the environment with respect to aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. No further findings are required for these subject areas.

4.2 Findings for Significant but Mitigated Effects
The following findings are hereby made by the City of Montebello Council for the significant but mitigable environmental effects identified in the EIR related to biological resources (impacts related to special status species, particularly nesting birds and their habitat), cultural resources (impacts on archaeological resources), noise (impacts related to project construction vibration), and tribal cultural resources (impacts to unidentified tribal cultural resources).

4.2.1 Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1
The Plan Area is largely urbanized, and the proposed Project would prioritize development on infill sites that have been previously developed and/or disturbed. Nevertheless, reasonably foreseeable development carried out under the proposed Project could potentially adversely impact specialstatus species or their habitat. Local special-status species and nesting birds are expected to occur within the Plan Area during potential construction periods and may be affected by construction activity. Impacts would be less than significant with adherence to goals and policies from the proposed General Plan Update and Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2.

Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. (Section 15091(a)(1)). Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts to special-status species, locally important species, sensitive habitats, and nesting birds to less than significant levels.

Page 977 of 1273 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 5 Facts in Support of Finding
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update’s goals and policies would ensure that projects carried out under the proposed Project would be completed in accordance with protecting and preserving special status species and their habitats. While these goals and policies generally aim at protecting special-status species, if vegetation and trees are to be trimmed or removed during project construction or if construction would occur near trees and vegetation, nesting birds could be impacted. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires a project-specific biological resources assessment for projects that require vegetation removal, ground disturbance of unpaved areas, parking or staging of equipment or material on unpaved areas, access routes on unpaved areas, or rehabilitation or construction staging within 300 feet of unpaved areas (except for landscaped developed areas) that contain or have the potential to support special-status species, open space, sensitive natural communities, or suitable habitat to support special-status species. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 also requires actions to protect special-status species if the biological resources assessment determines that any are present and may be impacted by a project. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires preconstruction bird surveys and nest avoidance for construction activities initiated during the bird nesting season (February 1 through August 31) involving removal of trees, vegetation, or other nesting bird habitat, including abandoned structures and other man-made features. With implementation of the proposed General Plan Update’s goals and policies, Mitigation Measure BIO1, and Mitigation Measure BIO-2, potential impacts to special-status species and sensitive habitat would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measures have been included in a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.

BIO-1 Project-specific Biological Resources Assessment
For projects that require vegetation removal, ground disturbance of unpaved areas, parking or staging of equipment or material on unpaved areas, access routes on unpaved areas, or rehabilitation or construction staging within 300 feet of unpaved areas (except for landscaped developed areas) that contain or have the potential to support special-status species, open space, sensitive natural communities, or suitable habitat to support special-status species, the following shall apply:

Prior to the issuance of a development permit, a qualified biologist shall be retained by the project applicant to conduct a site-specific biological resources reconnaissance survey of the site. The biological resources assessment shall characterize the biological resources present on the project site and evaluate the presence or absence of sensitive species and habitats. The biological resources assessment will aid in determining the project’s potential direct, indirect, and cumulative biological impacts, as well as specific avoidance measures necessary to offset those impacts.

If the biologist determines that special-status plant species may occur, focused surveys for specialstatus plants shall be completed in accordance with Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW, March 20, 2018, or its successor) and Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants (USFWS, September 23, 1996; or its successor). If it is determined that the project site has suitable habitat for special-status wildlife, focused surveys shall be conducted to determine presence/absence including species-specific surveys in accordance

Page 978 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 6 with CDFW or USFWS protocols for sensitive, state or federally listed species, respectively, that may occur. If the biologist determines that sensitive habitats and/or regulated aquatic resources may be present, additional focused studies to further assess and delineate the habitat (such as a formal jurisdictional determination for wetlands and waters) shall be conducted.

A report shall be prepared that identifies 1) approximate population size and distribution of any sensitive plant or animal species, 2) any sensitive habitats or sensitive natural communities (such as wetlands or riparian areas), and 3) any potential impacts of the project on wildlife corridors. Off-site areas that may be directly or indirectly affected by the individual project shall also be surveyed. The report shall include site location, literature sources, methodology, timing of surveys, vegetation map, site photographs, and descriptions of on-site biological resources (e.g., observed and detected species, as well as an analysis of those species with the potential to occur on-site). The biological resources assessment report and surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, and any special status species surveys shall be conducted according to standard methods of surveying for the species as appropriate.

If sensitive species and/or habitat are absent from the individual project site and adjacent lands potentially affected by the individual project, a written report substantiating such shall be submitted to the City Planning Division prior to issuance of a grading permit, and the project may proceed without any further biological investigation.

If it is determined that a special-status species and/or habitats may be impacted by a project, the biological report shall identify additional mitigation measures such as avoidance, minimization, restoration, or compensation to reduce impacts to a less that significant level prior to issuance of a development permit from the City or performing any ground disturbance activities (e.g., geotechnical boring or vegetation removal). In the case of ESA and/or CESA listed species, consultation with USFWS and/or CDFW shall occur prior to issuance of a development permit from the City or performing any ground disturbance activities, to determine measures to address impacts such as avoidance, minimization, restoration, or compensation. In the case of regulated aquatic resources, the USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB will be consulted regarding their respective jurisdictions and any necessary permits obtained prior to issuance of a development permit from the City.

If nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist dependent upon the species, the location of the nest, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses within and outside of the site. The avoidance buffer shall be demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to demarcate the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within the buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist on the basis that the encroachment will not be detrimental

Page 979 of 1273 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 7 to an active nest. A report summarizing the pre-construction survey(s) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of construction activities.

Site plans shall include a statement acknowledging compliance with the federal MBTA and CFGC that includes avoidance of active bird nests and identification of Best Management Practices to avoid impacts to active nests, including checking for nests prior to construction activities during February 1 to August 31 and what to do if an active nest is found so that the nest is not inadvertently impacted during grading or construction activities.

4.2.2 Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-2
Development carried out under the proposed Project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological resources that may be present in the Plan Area, including those that qualify as historical resources. This impact would be significant but mitigable.

Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. (Section 15091(a)(1)). Implementation of mitigation measures CUL-2 through CUL-8 would reduce impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant levels by ensuring the avoidance of archeological resources to the extent feasible, or by identifying, evaluating, and conducting data recovery of archaeological resources that may be impacted by future projects in a timely manner.

Facts in Support of Finding
Ground-disturbing activities associated with development carried out under the proposed Project have the potential to damage or destroy archaeological resources that may be present on or below the ground surface, particularly in areas not studied in a cultural resources investigation or when excavation depths exceed those attained previously for past development. Neither the proposed General Plan Update nor the proposed Downtown Montebello Specific Plan contain goals, policies, or implementation programs related to archaeological resources. Consequently, damage to or destruction of known or previously unknown archaeological resources could occur because of the proposed Project. Therefore, mitigation measures are required to reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measures have been included in a MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.

CUL-2 Phase I Archaeological Resources Study
For any discretionary project carried out the proposed Project, a Phase I Archaeological Resources Study (Phase I) shall be prepared if the project will involve ground disturbance (unless the project site is within soils that can be reliably demonstrated as being non-native or artificial fill). If a project would solely involve the refurbishment of an existing building and no ground disturbance would occur, this measure would not be required. The study shall be performed by a qualified professional

Page 980 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 8 meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI’s) Professional Qualification Standards (PQS) for archaeology (National Park Service 1983). Methods shall include a pedestrian survey of the project site and sufficient background research and field sampling to determine whether archaeological resources may be present. Archival research shall include a records search of the South Central Coastal Information Center no more than two years old and a Sacred Lands File search with the Native American Heritage Commission. The Phase I technical report documenting the study shall include recommendations that must be implemented prior to and/or during construction to avoid or reduce impacts on archaeological resources. The Phase I shall be submitted to the City of Montebello, Planning & Community Development Department, Building and Safety Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of any grading or construction permits. Recommendations in the Phase I shall be made Conditions of Approval and shall be implemented throughout all ground disturbance activities.

CUL-3 Extended Phase I Testing
For any projects proposed within 100 feet of a known archaeological site and/or in areas identified as sensitive by a Phase I [Mitigation Measure CUL-2], the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct an Extended Phase I (XPI) study to determine the presence/absence and extent of archaeological resources on the project site. XPI testing should comprise a series of shovel test pits and/or hand augured units and/or mechanical trenching to establish the boundaries of archaeological site(s) on the project site. If the boundaries of the archaeological site are already well understood from previous archaeological work, an XPI will not be required. If the archaeological resource(s) of concern are Native American in origin, the qualified archaeologist shall confer with local California Native American tribe(s).

All archaeological excavation shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist(s) under the direction of a principal investigator meeting the SOI’s PQS for archaeology (National Park Service 1983). If an XPI report is prepared, it shall be submitted to the Planning & Community Development Department, Building and Safety Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of any grading or construction permits. Recommendations contained therein shall be implemented for all ground disturbance activities.

CUL-4 Archaeological Site Avoidance
Any identified archaeological sites (determined after implementing mitigation measures CUL-2 and/or CUL-3) shall be avoided by project-related construction activities, where feasible. A barrier (temporary fencing) and flagging shall be placed between the work location and any resources within 60 feet of a work location to minimize the potential for inadvertent impacts.

CUL-5 Phase II Site Evaluation
If the results of any Phase I and/or XPI (mitigation measures CUL-2 and/or CUL-3) indicate the presence of archaeological resources that cannot be avoided by the project (Mitigation Measure CUL-4) and that have not been adequately evaluated for the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) listing at the project site, the qualified archaeologist shall conduct a Phase II investigation (Phase II) to determine if intact deposits remain and if they may be eligible for the CRHR or qualify as unique archaeological resources. If the archaeological resource(s) of concern are Native American in origin, the qualified archaeologist shall confer with local California Native American tribe(s).

Page 981 of 1273 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 9 The Phase II evaluation shall include any necessary archival research to identify significant historical associations and mapping of surface artifacts, collection of functionally or temporally diagnostic tools and debris, and excavation of a sample of the cultural deposit. The sample excavation will characterize the nature of the sites, define the artifact and feature contents, determine horizontal and vertical boundaries, and retrieve representative samples of artifacts and other remains.

If the archeologist and, if applicable, a Native American monitor (see Mitigation Measure TCR-1 [Section 4.17, Tribal Cultural Resources]) or other interested tribal representative determine it is appropriate, cultural materials collected from the site shall be processed and analyzed in a laboratory according to standard archaeological procedures. The age of the materials shall be determined using radiocarbon dating and/or other appropriate procedures; lithic artifacts, faunal remains, and other cultural materials shall be identified and analyzed according to current professional standards. The significance of the sites shall be evaluated according to the criteria of the CRHR. The results of the investigations shall be presented in a technical report following the standards of the California Office of Historic Preservation publication “Archaeological Resource Management Reports: Recommended Content and Format (1990 or latest edition).” The report shall be submitted to the City of Montebello for review and approval prior to the issuance of any grading or construction permits. Recommendations in the Phase II shall be implemented for all ground disturbance activities.

CUL-6 Phase III Data Recovery
Should the results of the Phase II site evaluation (Mitigation Measure CUL-5) yield resources that meet CRHR significance standards and if the resource cannot be avoided by project construction in accordance with CUL-4, the project applicant shall ensure that all feasible recommendations for mitigation of archaeological impacts are incorporated into the final design and approved by the City of Montebello prior to construction, through the development of a Phase III Data Recovery report (Phase III) program. Any necessary Phase III data recovery excavation, conducted to exhaust the data potential of significant archaeological sites, shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist meeting the SOI PQS for archaeology according to a research design reviewed and approved by the City of Montebello prepared in advance of fieldwork and using appropriate archaeological field and laboratory methods consistent with the California Office of Historic Preservation Planning Bulletin 5 (1991), Guidelines for Archaeological Research Design, or the latest edition thereof. If the archaeological resource(s) of concern are Native American in origin, the qualified archaeologist shall confer with local California Native American tribe(s). If applicable, a Native American monitor shall be present.

As applicable, the final Phase III Data Recovery reports shall be submitted to the City of Montebello, Planning & Community Development Department, Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of any grading or construction permit. Recommendations contained therein shall be implemented throughout all ground disturbance activities.

CUL-7 Cultural Resources Monitoring
If recommended by Phase I, XPI, Phase II, or Phase III studies [mitigation measures CUL-2, CUL-3, CUL-5, and/or CUL-6], the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor projectrelated, ground-disturbing activities, subject to review and approval by the City of Montebello Planning & Community Development Department, Building and Safety Division. If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, mitigation measures CUL-4 through CUL-6 shall be implemented, as appropriate.

Page 982 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 10 CUL-8 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within 60 feet shall be halted and the project archaeologist meeting the SOI’s PQS for archaeology shall immediately evaluate the find. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA and cannot be avoided by the project, additional work may be warranted, such as data recovery excavation, to mitigate any significant impacts to historical resources. Any reports required to document and/or evaluate unanticipated discoveries shall be submitted to the City of Montebello Planning & Community Development Department, Building and Safety Division for review and approval. Recommendations contained therein shall be implemented throughout the remainder of ground disturbance activities.

4.2.3 Noise
Impact N-2
Construction of individual projects carried out under the proposed Project would temporarily generate groundborne vibration, potentially affecting nearby land uses. Operation of development carried out under the proposed Project would not result in substantial groundborne vibration. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

Facts in Support of Finding
Construction activities known to generate excessive groundborne vibration, such as use of pile driving equipment and vibratory rollers, could be conducted by projects carried out under the proposed Project, potentially resulting in annoyance to nearby human receptors or damage to historic structures. Because construction vibration levels may exceed FTA vibration levels for preventing architectural building damage, impacts would be potentially significant.

Implementation of Policy 5.5, Action 5.5a, and Action 5.5b of the proposed General Plan Update would reduce construction groundborne vibration impacts of the proposed Project, and Mitigation Measure NOI-2 provides more detail on how this policy and these actions should be carried out to help reduce construction groundborne vibration impacts in the Plan Area. Together, implementation of this policy, these actions, and this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measures have been included in a MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.

Page 983 of 1273 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 11 NOI-2 Measures to Reduce Construction Vibration
To reduce potential construction vibration impacts, the City of Montebello shall require the following:

0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving, static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers, and lower horsepower earthmoving equipment shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure FTA vibration thresholds are not exceeded.

4.2.4 Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact TCR-1
Development carried out under the proposed Project has the potential to impact unidentified tribal cultural resources because the presence of, and potential effects on, such resources cannot be determined before excavation associated with such development occurs. Impacts on tribal cultural resources would be potentially significant but mitigable.

Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. (Section 15091(a)(1)). Implementation of mitigation measures CUL-2 through CUL-8, and TCR-1, would reduce impacts to archaeological and tribal cultural resources to less than significant levels by ensuring the avoidance of archeological and tribal cultural resources to the extent feasible, or by identifying, evaluating, and conducting data recovery of archaeological and tribal cultural resources that may be impacted by future projects in a timely manner.

Facts in Support of Finding
Effects on tribal cultural resources (TCRs) can only be known once a specific project has been proposed because the effects are highly dependent on both the individual project site conditions and the characteristics of the proposed activity. New TCRs may be identified or established during implementation of the proposed Project, which is expected to occur over many years. Thus, as specific projects that would be carried out under the proposed Project are proposed, the City will be required to consult with the tribes that are listed on its AB 52 consultation list to determine if any TCRs may be impacted by specific projects. Similarly, if the specific project requires a General Plan Amendment, the City must also consult under SB 18 to determine if any TCRs may be impacted by

Page 984 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 12 the specific project. Neither the proposed General Plan Update nor the proposed Downtown Montebello Specific Plan contain any goals or policies that pertain specifically to the protection of tribal cultural resources. Therefore, if TCRs are identified during AB 52 or SB 18 consultation for future projects, impacts to any such TCRs would be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Therefore, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 is required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measures have been included in a MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.

TCR-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources If archaeological resources of Native American origin are identified during implementation of projects carried out under the proposed Project, ground-disturbing activities within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find as a cultural resource and an appropriate local Native American representative is consulted. If the City, in consultation with traditionally and culturally affiliated Native American group(s), determines the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in consultation with traditionally and culturally affiliated Native American group(s). The mitigation plan shall include measures to ensure the find is treated in a manner that respectfully retains, to the degree feasible, the qualities that render the resource of significance to the local Native American group(s). Examples of appropriate mitigation for tribal cultural resources include, but are not limited to, avoidance, protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource, protecting traditional use of the resource, protecting the confidentiality of the resource, or heritage recovery.

4.3 Findings for Significant and Unavoidable Effects
Public Resources Code 21081and 21081.5, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, require that the City of Montebello balance the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental effects when determining to approve a project. And if specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable.” A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065[a][3]). Significant and unavoidable impacts associated with air quality (impacts related to construction and operational emissions), cultural resources (impacts on historical resources), and noise (impacts related to construction noise) were identified for the proposed Project. The following findings and statement of overriding considerations are intended to provide a basis for approval consistent with the anticipated recommendation for approval from the City of Montebello Planning Commission.

Page 985 of 1273 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 13

4.3.1 Air Quality
Impact AQ-1
Individual development projects carried out under the proposed Project would generate construction and operational-related emissions. Such emissions may conflict with or obstruct implementation of SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan. Implementation of policies in the proposed General Plan Update, compliance with existing regulations, and implementation of mitigation would reduce construction and operational emissions, but not always to a less than significant level. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Finding
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4 would reduce air quality impacts and therefore contribute to reductions in regional air quality pollution consistent with the goals of the AQMP. However, given the unknown specifics of each future project carried out under the proposed Project, there is the potential that even with these measures, operational impacts would remain significant. This potential environmental effect is therefore significant and unavoidable.

Facts in Support of Finding
Individual development projects carried out under the proposed Project would generate construction and operational emissions. While construction emissions would be temporary and it is not out of the ordinary to have such impacts associated with virtually any construction activity, both construction and operational emissions may conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Air Quality Management Plan.

Implementation of General Plan Update policies, compliance with existing regulations, and implementation of mitigation would reduce construction- and operational emissions, but not necessarily to a less than significant level. Additionally, population growth associated with the proposed Project would exceed SCAG population growth forecasts, and the proposed Project would therefore be inconsistent with the underlying assumptions of the emissions forecasts contained in the Air Quality Management Plan. There are no feasible mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce growth under the proposed Project and maintain the nature of the proposed Project.

Page 986 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 14 ▪ Electricity shall be supplied to the site from the existing power grid to support the electric construction equipment. If connection to the grid is determined to be infeasible for portions of the project, a non-diesel fueled generator shall be used. ▪ The construction contractor shall water the site two times per day during demolition activities. ▪ The project shall comply with the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure that limits diesel powered equipment and vehicle idling to no more than five minutes at a location, and the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation; compliance with these would minimize emissions of TACs during construction.

AQ-2 Architectural Coating
Prior to issuance of building permits, the City Engineer and the Chief Building Official shall confirm that building plans and specifications stipulate that all architectural coating phases shall implement low/zero VOC coating unless project specific modeling determines higher VOC content coatings result in VOC emissions below the 75 lbs./day.

AQ-3 Hearth
Prior to issuance of building permits, the City Engineer and the Chief Building Official shall confirm that the building plans stipulate that all multi-family residential developments shall not incorporate wood or natural gas fireplaces. Electric fireplaces are allowable under this mitigation measure.

AQ-4 Air Quality Assessment
Individual developments carried out under the proposed Project shall do the following:
▪ Discretionary Projects: Discretionary projects shall complete the analysis described in the NonDiscretionary Projects bullet below, consistent with CEQA requirements. Impacts shall be reduced below regulatory thresholds or to the furthest extent possible. ▪ Non-Discretionary Projects: The following types of non-discretionary projects shall require an air quality technical assessment and incorporate measures such that impacts are reduced to below regulatory thresholds or to the furthest extent possible  Projects where sensitive receptors are less than 1,000 feet from the project boundary  Construction with use of substantial (more than two pieces) heavy construction equipment use
 Projects with construction period lasting longer than 2 months of heavy equipment use Impact AQ-2
Individual development projects carried out under the proposed Project would generate construction and operational-related emissions. Such emissions may result in adverse impacts to regional air quality. Implementation of policies in the proposed General Plan Update, compliance with existing regulations, and implementation of mitigation would reduce construction and operational emissions, but not always to a less than significant level. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Page 987 of 1273 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 15 Finding
With incorporation of policies of the proposed General Plan Update, regulatory requirements, and Mitigation Measure AQ-3, the proposed Project’s growth emissions would still exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds. In addition, given the unknown specifics of each individual project, there is the potential that even with these measures, operational and construction emissions may still exceed applicable levels of significance. This potential environmental effect is therefore significant and unavoidable.

Facts in Support of Finding
With incorporation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3, emissions from construction activities could be reduced to less than significant levels for individual projects implemented under the proposed Project. As part of Mitigation Measure AQ-2, individual projects shall implement low/zero VOC coating unless project specific modeling shows higher VOC coating would emit emissions below 75 lbs./day. Adherence to applicable policies of the proposed General Plan Update, SCAQMD rules, and feasible mitigation would reduce potential construction-related impacts to the greatest extent possible. However, given the unknown specifics of each individual project, there is the potential that even with these measures, construction impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures
AQ-1 Tier 4 and Alternatively Fueled Equipment
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Chief Building Official in coordination with the City Engineer or designee shall confirm that the grading plan, building plans, and specifications stipulate that the following measures shall be implemented:
▪ All mobile off-road equipment (wheeled or tracked) used during construction activities shall meet the USEPA Tier 4 final standards. Tier 4 certification can be for the original equipment or equipment that is retrofitted to meet the Tier 4 Final standards. ▪ Alternative Fuel (natural gas, propane, electric, etc.) construction equipment shall be incorporated where available. These requirements shall be incorporated into the contract agreement with the construction contractor. A copy of the equipment’s certification or model year specifications shall be available upon request for all equipment on-site. ▪ Electricity shall be supplied to the site from the existing power grid to support the electric construction equipment. If connection to the grid is determined to be infeasible for portions of the project, a non-diesel fueled generator shall be used. ▪ The construction contractor shall water the site two times per day during demolition activities. ▪ The project shall comply with the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure that limits diesel powered equipment and vehicle idling to no more than five minutes at a location, and the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation; compliance with these would minimize emissions of TACs during construction.

Page 988 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 16 AQ-2 Architectural Coating
Prior to issuance of building permits, the City Engineer and the Chief Building Official shall confirm that building plans and specifications stipulate that all architectural coating phases shall implement low/zero VOC coating unless project specific modeling determines higher VOC content coatings result in VOC emissions below the 75 lbs./day.

Impact AQ-3
Individual development projects carried out under the proposed Project would generate construction- and operational-related emissions. Such emissions may result in adverse impacts to local air quality. Implementation of policies of the proposed General Plan Update, compliance with existing regulations, and implementation of mitigation would reduce construction and operational emissions, but not always to a less than significant level. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Finding
Implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR would reduce operational and construction emissions, but not always below applicable levels of significance. This potential environmental effect is therefore significant and unavoidable.

Facts in Support of Finding
With implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1 and AQ-4, which require Tier 4 or alternative fueled equipment, and emissions analysis of discretionary and non-discretionary projects, exhaust and fugitive dust emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 would be reduced from that of a standard construction fleet and standard dust management practice. Reducing exhaust PM10 and PM2.5 reduces DPM emissions from the operation of diesel construction equipment. Reducing DPM reduces cancer risk and non-carcinogenic risk to nearby sensitive receptors to less than significant levels. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3, which requires all new multi-family development to not incorporate wood or natural gas fireplaces, operational emissions of PM10, PM2.5 , NOx, and CO would also be reduced. In addition, under Mitigation Measure AQ-4, individual projects would be required to conduct an air quality technical assessment and provide projectspecific mitigation to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 construction impacts to a less than significant level.

As shown in Table 4.3-12 of the Final EIR (reproduced below as Table 1 of these Findings), with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions could be reduced to below regulatory thresholds and therefore would be less than significant. However, given the unknown specifics of each individual project, there is the potential that even with these measures, operational impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Page 989 of 1273 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 17 Table 1 Mitigated Localized Operational Emissions
Estimated Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Residential 3.8 65 <1 <1
SCAQMD Thresholds 95.6 1,480 4 1.6
Exceed Thresholds? No No No No
Mitigation Measures
AQ-1 Tier 4 and Alternatively Fueled Equipment
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Chief Building Official in coordination with the City Engineer or designee shall confirm that the grading plan, building plans, and specifications stipulate that the following measures shall be implemented:
▪ All mobile off-road equipment (wheeled or tracked) used during construction activities shall meet the USEPA Tier 4 final standards. Tier 4 certification can be for the original equipment or equipment that is retrofitted to meet the Tier 4 Final standards. ▪ Alternative Fuel (natural gas, propane, electric, etc.) construction equipment shall be incorporated where available. These requirements shall be incorporated into the contract agreement with the construction contractor. A copy of the equipment’s certification or model year specifications shall be available upon request for all equipment on-site. ▪ Electricity shall be supplied to the site from the existing power grid to support the electric construction equipment. If connection to the grid is determined to be infeasible for portions of the project, a non-diesel fueled generator shall be used. ▪ The construction contractor shall water the site two times per day during demolition activities. ▪ The project shall comply with the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure that limits diesel powered equipment and vehicle idling to no more than five minutes at a location, and the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation; compliance with these would minimize emissions of TACs during construction.

Page 990 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 18 ▪ Non-Discretionary Projects: The following types of non-discretionary projects shall require an air quality technical assessment and incorporate measures such that impacts are reduced to below regulatory thresholds or to the furthest extent possible  Projects where sensitive receptors are less than 1,000 feet from the project boundary  Construction with use of substantial (more than two pieces) heavy construction equipment use
 Projects with construction period lasting longer than 2 months of heavy equipment use

4.3.2 Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1
Development carried out under the proposed Project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources that have already been identified or may be identified in the Plan Area. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Finding
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce impacts to historical resources by identifying and evaluating significant historical resources and managing relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration in compliance with the Standards as applicable. However, even with implementation of this mitigation measure, historical resources could still be materially impaired by future development carried out under the proposed Project. Therefore, this potential environmental effect is therefore significant and unavoidable.

Facts in Support of Finding
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce impacts to historical resources by identifying and evaluating significant historical resources and managing relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration in compliance with the Standards as applicable. However, even with implementation of this mitigation measure, historical resources could still be materially impaired by future development carried out under the proposed Project. While HABS documentation would reduce these impacts to the greatest extent feasible in cases where compliance with the Standards or avoidance is not possible, legal precedent1 has established that such a measure cannot mitigate impacts to a less than significant level because the loss of historical fabric cannot be readily compensated for by commemorative mitigation. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures
CUL-1 Historical Resources
A historical resources evaluation (HRE) shall be prepared for any discretionary project carried out under the proposed Project involving the demolition or physical alteration of any building, structure, object, or other built environment feature that is 45 years of age or older. The evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Professional Qualifications Standards (PQS) in architectural history or history (National Park 1 League For Protection of Oakland's Architectural and Historic Resources, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. City of Oakland et al., Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., et al. No. A074348. First District, Division One. Feb 10, 1997.

Page 991 of 1273 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 19 Service 1983). The qualified architectural historian or historian shall conduct an intensive-level evaluation in accordance with the guidelines and best practices promulgated by the California Office of Historic Preservation to identify any potential historical resources within the proposed development site. All properties 45 years of age or older shall be evaluated within their historic context and documented in a report meeting California Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. All evaluated properties shall be documented on California Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. HREs shall be submitted to the City for review and concurrence. If the property is already listed in the NRHP or CRHR, the HRE described above shall not be required.

If a property is found to not qualify as a historical resource, no additional work relating to historical resources shall be required. If historical resources are identified within a proposed development site, efforts shall be made to the greatest extent feasible to ensure that impacts are mitigated. As applicable, efforts shall be made to the greatest extent feasible to ensure that the alteration of the resource is undertaken in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards). In accordance with CEQA, a project that has been determined to conform with the Standards generally would not cause a significant adverse direct or indirect impact to historical resources (14 CCR § 15126.4(b)(1)). Application of the Standards shall be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the PQS. In conjunction with any development application that may affect the historical resource, a report identifying and specifying the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities shall be prepared by a historian or architectural historian meeting the PQS in history or architectural history and provided to the City for review and concurrence. As applicable, the report shall demonstrate how the project complies with the Standards and be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of any permits.

If significant historical resources are identified on a development site and compliance with the Standards and or avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken. Mitigation measures may include documentation of the historical resource in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS)-like report. The report shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation and shall generally follow the HABS Level III requirements, including digital photographic recordation, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historical research.

The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the SOI PQS and submitted to the City of Montebello, Planning & Community Development Department, Planning Division prior to issuance of any permits for demolition or alteration of the historical resource.

4.3.3 Noise
Impact N-1
Construction of individual projects carried out under the proposed Project would temporarily increase noise levels, potentially affecting nearby noise-sensitive land uses. Development carried out under the proposed Project would also introduce new noise sources and contribute to increases in operational noise. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 and the continued regulation of noise, consistent with the City Code and implementation of policies from the proposed General Plan Update would minimize disturbance to adjacent land uses. Stationary operational and mobile noise would not exceed standards. However, construction noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with mitigation.

Page 992 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 20 Finding
Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, as well as implementation of policies and actions in the proposed General Plan Update, would reduce potential impacts from noise during construction and operation by reducing noise source impacts and creating sound barriers where required/necessary, but not to a less than significant level. This potential environmental effect is therefore significant and unavoidable.

Facts in Support of Finding
Implementation of Policy 5.5, Action 5.5a, and Action 5.5b would reduce construction noise impacts associated with future discretionary projects carried out under the proposed Project, and Mitigation Measure NOI-1 provides more detail on how this policy and these actions should be carried out to help reduce construction noise impacts. However, as exact details of future project-specific construction activities are unknown at this time, construction noise could still exceed the daytime significance threshold or potentially need to occur during the more sensitive nighttime hours for concrete pours or pumps that need to run overnight for water resources projects. Consequently, implementation of Policy 5.5, Action 5.5a, and Action 5.5b and Mitigation Measure NOI-1, while it would reduce construction noise impacts, would not ensure that construction noise impacts would be reduced to below the significance threshold of 80 dBA Leq during the daytime at residential uses and other sensitive receptors in all cases. Therefore, the proposed Project’s construction noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that the identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.

Mitigation Measures
NOI-1 Measures to Reduce Construction Noise
To minimize noise during construction, the City of Montebello shall require construction contractors to implement the following measures for construction activities conducted within the City.

Construction plans submitted to the City shall include construction noise analysis and identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City. The City of Montebello Building Division shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading and/or building permits.
▪ Mufflers. During excavation and grading construction phases, all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards. ▪ Stationary Equipment. All stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest sensitive receivers. ▪ Equipment Staging Areas. Equipment staging shall be located in areas that will create the greatest distance feasible between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receivers.
▪ Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to ambient noise levels.

Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be disabled and replaced with human spotters to ensure

Page 993 of 1273 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 21 safety when mobile construction equipment is moving in the reverse direction in compliance with applicable safety laws and regulations.
▪ Electrically Powered Tools and Facilities. Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools and to power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers or caretaker facilities, where feasible.
▪ Noise Disturbance Coordinator. The project applicant shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of any noise complaint and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator and the City shall be posted at the construction site. ▪ Temporary Noise Barriers. Erect temporary noise barriers, where feasible, when construction noise is predicted to exceed the acceptable standards (e.g., 80 dBA Leq at residential receivers, schools or other sensitive receptors during the daytime) or when the anticipated construction duration is greater than is typical (e.g., two years or greater) and there are sensitive receptors within 500 feet of the construction site. Temporary noise barriers shall be constructed with solid materials (e.g., wood) with a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier. If a sound blanket is used, barriers shall be constructed with solid material with a density of at least 1 pound per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and be lined on the construction side with acoustical blanket, curtain or equivalent absorptive material rated sound transmission class (STC) 32 or higher.

5. Project Alternatives
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines states the following:
“An EIR shall describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project.

Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.”
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, mobility, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

Where the City of Montebello has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures the project would still cause one or more significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided or lessened to below a level of significance, the City of Montebello must determine if there is a project alternative that is both environmentally superior and feasible. An alternative may be “infeasible” if it fails to achieve the most basic project objectives identified within the EIR.

Furthermore, “feasibility” under CEQA encompasses the desirability of the project “based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors” of a project (City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 417; see also Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.Ap.4th at p. 715).

Page 994 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 22 The Final EIR determined that the project would have significant and unavoidable impacts associated with air quality (impacts related to construction and operational emissions), cultural resources (impacts to historic resources), and noise (impacts related to construction noise). The alternatives analyzed in the Final EIR and described below are therefore discussed below in terms of their potential ability to avoid or reduce these impacts.

5.1 Alternative 1: No Project
The “No Project” Alternative involves continued implementation of the City’s current General Plan, which was adopted in 1973. The No Project Alternative assumes that the City’s existing General Plan policies would continue to facilitate development in accordance with existing land use designations.

The overall amount of growth anticipated to occur under the City’s current General Plan is less than what could be facilitated under the proposed Project. The proposed Project increases allowed density in areas including the Downtown Montebello Specific Plan Area and transportation corridors and as a result increases capacity for residential and commercial development. The proposed Project would allow for an increase in the amount of development overall in the Plan Area because it allows increased residential and commercial development in these key focus areas. Therefore, it also increases the Plan Area’s total potential population and amount of commercial development compared to the current General Plan. Under the current General Plan, the Plan Area’s population would not be expected to reach the SCAG forecast of 67,800 by 2045, while under the proposed Project future residential growth is predicted to increase the Plan Area’s total population to 113,338. SCAG forecasts for population, households, and employment in Montebello through the year 2045 are shown in Table 4.14-4 of Section 4.14, Population and Housing of the Final EIR.

While the proposed Project preserves the existing pattern of uses in most of the Plan Area, and provides for protection of established neighborhoods, it also identifies focus areas, including downtown Montebello, corridors and neighborhoods that may provide opportunities to transition over time with adjustments in land use, beautification, and place making. In contrast, the No Project Alternative would continue to facilitate development in the same pattern as currently seen in the Plan Area. Under the proposed Project, new development would generally result from re-use of properties, infill development on vacant lots, conversion of uses in response to market demand (e.g., select industrial to commercial), and more intense use of land in defined areas. Growth would be redirected to the Downtown and other focus areas, which are areas where viable infrastructure is already in place. While new development under the No Project Alternative would also result from re-use of properties, conversion of uses in response to market demand, and development on vacant lots, this alternative would not include as much land zoned for medium-density residential or mixeduse development as the focus areas included under the proposed Project, and new development would therefore be spread throughout the Plan Area rather than in defined areas. Therefore, rather than potentially creating more intense use of land in the geographically well-defined focus areas, a lower amount of new, market-driven development would occur, and development under Alternative 1 would likely be spread more widely across the Plan Area, without the adjustments in land use, beautification, and place making included in the proposed Project.

5.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Growth
The Reduced Growth Alternative (Alternative 2) is analyzed in Chapter 6, Alternatives of the EIR to address potential growth-related impacts associated with the proposed Project. The Reduced Growth Alternative is based in part on a market analysis completed by Pro Forma Advisors LLC. (Pro Forma) that analyzed the potential support for development in the Plan Area over the

Page 995 of 1273 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 23 approximately 20-year General Plan Update horizon. This analysis assumes development throughout the Plan Area would be near the “low range” projections included in the market analysis and shown in Table 2-5 of this EIR.

Total new development potential under this alternative compared to new development potential under the proposed Project is shown in Table 6-1 of the EIR (reproduced below as Table 2 of these Findings). Although this alternative would result in less overall new development than the proposed Project, new development is assumed to occur in the same general locations as under the proposed Project and be subject to the same goals, policies, and development standards as under the proposed Project.

Table 2 Total New Development Potential of Reduced Growth Alternative Compared to the Proposed Project
Development Type Proposed Project1 Reduced Growth Alternative2 Residential 16,893 units 1,900 units
Commercial/Office Space 368,955 sf 238,000 sf
Hotel/Motel 104 rooms 90 rooms
1 Source: Proposed Project Growth Projectionsfrom Table 2-6 of the EIR 2 Source: Pro Forma Market Analysis numbersrounded to the nearest thousand Implementation of the Reduced Growth Alternative would result in development within the Plan Area that would generally meet the project objectives established for the proposed Project, although in some cases to a lesser degree than the proposed Project. The amount of new development in the Plan Area over approximately the next 20 years under the proposed Project is based on a market assessment prepared as part of the proposed General Plan Update. This market assessment was also the basis for the goals, policies, and actions contained in proposed General Plan Update Chapter C2, Our Prosperous Community. The goal of this chapter is to address how Montebello can attract and retain high-wage and high value enterprises and diversify and increase the local tax base. The Reduced Growth Alternative would not achieve this goal, or the policies and actions designed to help achieve this goal, to as great a degree as the proposed Project because it would not attract or create as many jobs, create as much economic growth nor increase the local tax base to the same extent as the growth accommodated by the proposed Project. As discussed in Chapter 4.14, Population and Housing of the EIR, the proposed Project would help the City meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. The Reduced Growth Alternative would not meet the RHNA.

5.2.1 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives studied. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) states that, when the “No Project” alternative is determined to be environmentally superior, the EIR shall also identify the environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. When the two alternatives (No Project and Reduced Growth) are compared to each other and the proposed Project, the Reduced Growth Alternative would be environmentally superior because, apart from greater impacts to Land Use and Planning and Transportation, it would have reduced or similar environmental impacts to the proposed Project, while the No Project Alternative would result in greater impacts to Biological Resources,

Page 996 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 24 Cultural Resources, Energy, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems, with reduced impacts to Air Quality, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Population and Housing.

5.3 Alternatives’ Ability to Avoid Significant and Unavoidable Impacts of Plan
The proposed Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts are in the environmental impact areas of air quality (construction and operational emissions), cultural resources (historic resources) and noise (construction noise).

No Project Alternative
As with the proposed Project, impacts to Air Quality under the No Project alternative would be significant and unavoidable. As discussed in Impact AQ-1 through AQ-4 in Chapter 4.3, Air Quality of the EIR, individual developments projects carried out under the proposed Project would generate construction and operational related emissions that could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants, and result in adverse impacts to local air quality, all of which may create significant and unavoidable impacts. Similarly, the No Project Alternative would also generate construction and operational related emissions that could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management. Although the proposed Project does not propose individual development projects, individual projects would still be constructed and operated under both the proposed Project and the City’s current General Plan, and individual project emissions could create significant and unavoidable air quality impacts under either scenario. Nonetheless, the reduced amount of construction under the No Project Alternative would result in reduced construction emissions. Odor emissions would be less than significant with compliance with existing regulations under either the proposed Project or the No Project Alternative. The overall air quality impacts of the No Project Alternative would be slightly reduced compared to the proposed Project.

Impacts to Cultural Resources, as discussed in Impact CUL-1 in Chapter 4.5 Cultural Resources of the EIR, would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact CUL-1 describes how the proposed Project has the potential to result in a significant and unavoidable impact if development carried out under the proposed Project caused a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 to evaluate, protect, and record historic resources. If a loss of historic fabric would occur, legal precedent has established that such a measure cannot mitigate impacts to a less than significant level because the loss of historical fabric cannot be readily compensated for by commemorative mitigation. The No Project Alternative would potentially increase impacts to historic resources compared to the proposed Project. As discussed in Chapter 4.5 Cultural Resources of the EIR, the proposed Project does not call for substantial changes to established residential neighborhoods and includes specific policies aimed at preserving historic resources. The No Project Alternative would not include these policies and would, therefore, be more likely than the proposed Project to lead to or allow the loss of, or negative effects on, historic resources in such areas. This alternative would therefore have potentially greater impacts to historical resources, and cultural resources in general, than the proposed Project.

Impact CUL-2 describes how the proposed Project has the potential to result in a significant impact if development carried out under the proposed Project caused a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological resources that may be present in the Plan Area, including those that may qualify as historical resources. Mitigation measures CUL -2 through CUL-8, along with General

Page 997 of 1273 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 25 Plan Update policies described in Section 4.5, would reduce archaeological resources impacts to a less than significant level. Under the No Project Alternative development would still occur but would be carried out under the City’s current General Plan, with a lower amount of new, market-driven development likely spread more widely across the Plan Area than under the proposed Project.

Because it is not known where archaeological resources and human remains may exist, and both the proposed Project and the No Project Alternative would involve potential impacts to these resources, potential impacts to these resources would be similarly significant but mitigable under either scenario.

As discussed in Impact N-1 in Section 4.13, Noise of the EIR, the proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable construction noise impacts. The No Project Alternative would result in less development than the proposed Project. Therefore, less construction and associated construction noise and vibration would occur under this alternative, particularly in the identified development areas and housing opportunity sites for the proposed Project, and there would be less of an increase in operational noise sources. However, construction noise and increased operational noise under this alternative might be spread more widely across the Plan Area. Also, while this alternative would result in less development, the City’s current General Plan has fewer operational noise reduction policies and restrictions than the proposed Project. Furthermore, mitigation measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 requiring actions to reduce construction noise and vibration would not be included in this alternative. Therefore, noise impacts under the No Project Alternative would be greater than under the proposed Project.

Reduced Growth Alternative
As with the proposed Project, impacts to Air Quality under the Reduced Growth Alternative would be significant and unavoidable. As discussed in Impacts AQ-1 through AQ-4 in Chapter 4.3 Air Quality of the EIR, individual developments projects carried out under the proposed Project would generate construction and operational emissions that could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants, and result in adverse impacts to local air quality, all of which may create significant and unavoidable impacts. While the Reduced Growth Alternative’s individual project emissions have the potential to create all the same significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, there would less overall development in the Plan Area under this alternative and this alternative would have less construction and operational emissions than the proposed Project.

However, because the Reduced Growth Alternative would result in less development in the identified focus areas and more dispersed development, vehicle miles travelled (VMT) per capita would not be reduced to the same degree as under the proposed Project, thereby potentially increasing vehicular emissions. Overall, this alternative’s air quality impacts would be less in some respects and greater in others than those of the proposed Project, but similar overall.

Impacts to Cultural Resources, as discussed in Impact CUL-1 in Chapter 4.5, Cultural Resources of this EIR, would be significant and unavoidable. Impact CUL-1 describes how the proposed Project has the potential to result in a significant and unavoidable impact if development carried out under the proposed Project caused a significant adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 to evaluate, protect, and record historic resources. If a loss of historical fabric would occur, legal precedent has established that such a measure cannot mitigate impacts to a less than significant level because the loss of historical fabric cannot be readily compensated for by commemorative mitigation.

Page 998 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 26 Impact CUL-2 describes how the proposed Project has the potential to result in a significant impact if development carried out under the proposed Project caused a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological resources that may be present in the Plan Area, including those that may qualify as historical resources. Mitigation measures CUL -2 through CUL-8, along with General Plan Update policies described in Section 4.5, would reduce archaeological resources impacts to a less than significant level.

Under the Reduced Growth Alternative development would still occur in the focus areas identified by the proposed Project, but the total amount of development in these areas would be reduced.

Because it is not known where archaeological resources and human remains may exist, and both the proposed Project and the Reduced Growth Alternative would involve potential impacts to these resources, impact to these resources would be significant but mitigable under either scenario with implementation of mitigation measures CUL-2 through CUL-8. Similarly, potential impacts to historic resources may still occur under this alternative, and although the mitigation measures and policies identified for the proposed Project would still apply to this alternative, potential impacts to historical resources would be similarly significant and unavoidable under either this alternative or the proposed Project. Overall, impacts to cultural resources under this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project.

As discussed in Impact N-1 in Section 4.13, Noise of the EIR, the proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable construction noise impacts. The Reduced Growth Alternative would result in less development than the proposed Project. Therefore, less construction and associated construction noise and vibration would occur under this alternative, particularly in the identified development areas and housing opportunity sites for the proposed Project, and there would be less of an increase in operational noise. Additionally, noise reduction policies and restrictions included in the proposed General Plan Update would also be included in the Reduced Growth Alternative.

Furthermore, mitigation measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 requiring actions to reduce construction noise and vibration would also be included in this alternative. Therefore, the Reduced Growth Alternative would have reduced noise impacts compared to the proposed Project.

5.4 Alternatives' Ability to Meet Objectives/Guiding Principles of the Plan
No Project Alternative
While the proposed Project preserves the existing pattern of uses in most of the Plan Area, and provides for protection of established neighborhoods, it also identifies focus areas, including downtown Montebello, corridors and neighborhoods that may provide opportunities to transition over time with adjustments in land use, beautification, and place making. In contrast, the No Project Alternative would continue to facilitate development in the same pattern as currently seen in the Plan Area. Under the proposed Project, new development would generally result from re-use of properties, infill development on vacant lots, conversion of uses in response to market demand (e.g., select industrial to commercial), and more intense use of land in defined areas. Growth would be redirected to the Downtown and other focus areas, which are areas where viable infrastructure is already in place. While new development under the No Project Alternative would also result from re-use of properties, conversion of uses in response to market demand, and development on vacant lots, this alternative would not include as much land zoned for medium-density residential or mixed use development as the focus areas included under the proposed Project, and new development would therefore be spread throughout the Plan Area rather than in defined areas. Therefore, rather

Page 999 of 1273 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 27 than potentially creating more intense use of land in the geographically well-defined focus areas, a lower amount of new, market-driven development would occur, and development under this alternative would likely be spread more widely across the Plan Area, without the adjustments in land use, beautification, and place making included in the proposed Project. The No Project Alternative would therefore not meet the project objectives related to these factors.

Reduced Growth Alternative
Implementation of the Reduced Growth Alternative would result in development within the Plan Area that would generally meet the project objectives established for the proposed Project, although in some cases to a lesser degree than the proposed Project. The amount of new development in the Plan Area over the next 20 years under the proposed Project is based on a market assessment prepared as part of the proposed General Plan Update. This market assessment was also the basis for the goals, policies, and actions contained in proposed General Plan Update Chapter C2, Our Prosperous Community. The goal of this chapter is to address how Montebello can attract and retain high-wage and high value enterprises and diversify and increase the local tax base. The Reduced Growth Alternative would not achieve this goal, or the policies and actions designed to help achieve this goal, to as great a degree as the proposed Project because it would not attract or create as many jobs, create as much economic growth, nor increase the local tax base to the same extent as the growth accommodated by the proposed Project. As discussed in Chapter

4.14, Population and Housing, the proposed Project would help the City meet its RHNA allocation.

The Reduced Growth Alternative would not meet the RHNA.

Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, neither the No Project Alternative nor the Reduced Growth Alternative is more desirable than the proposed Project in terms of meeting the City’s guiding principles and objectives for the proposed Project as described in Section 3, Project Objectives of these Findings and in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the EIR.

6. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Where there are significant and unavoidable impacts from a project, pursuant to Section 15093 of the California Code of Regulations, the City of Montebello must “balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks, when determining whether to approve the project.” The record of those considerations shall include a written statement of overriding considerations that is supported by substantial evidence within the administrative record. A finding consistent with Section 15091(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other consideration, make infeasible any other mitigation measures or project alternatives that would avoid or lessen this impact to below a level of significance.

The City finds and determines that, as proposed, the majority of the significant impacts of the proposed Project will be reduced to acceptable levels by implementation of mitigation measures recommended in these findings. However, the City further finds that impacts to air quality (construction and operational emissions), cultural resources (historic resources), and noise (construction noise) from the proposed Project are significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation (Section 4.3, Air Quality; Section 4.5, Cultural Resources; and Section

4.13, Noise of the Final EIR). Collectively, reasonably foreseeable future development and growth in the Plan Area may increase criteria air pollutant emissions beyond local and state thresholds and

Page 1000 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 28 may result in adverse impacts to local and regional air quality and sensitive receptors; development carried out under the proposed Project may result in adverse impacts to historic resources; and development carried out under the proposed Project may result in construction noise resulting in adverse impacts to noise-sensitive receivers. The City further finds that there are no other feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that will further mitigate, avoid, or reduce to a less than significant level these environmental effects.

After due consideration, and in light of the environmental, social, economic, and other considerations identified in the findings, the proposed Project, and the record as a whole related to the proposed Project, the City chooses to approve the proposed Project because, in its independent judgement, the benefits of the proposed Project as outlined below substantially outweigh the proposed Project’s potentially significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.

6.1 Benefits of the Proposed Project
The City finds that the proposed Project, as approved, will have the following economic, social, technological and environmental benefits:
▪ The proposed Project updates outdated policies in a manner that meets current legal requirements for General Plans.
▪ The proposed Project provides a more user-friendly General Plan document that will make use of the General Plan easier for decision makers, staff, and the public. ▪ The proposed Project reflects current community goals and preferences as identified during the public outreach process.
▪ The proposed Project would emphasize infill and reuse development in the Plan Area with a focus on increasing opportunities for housing development in key areas of the City through increased density and mixed-use projects where appropriate. ▪ The proposed Project would support and encourage mobility and broader community goals of safety, health, economic development, and environmental sustainability. ▪ The proposed Project would protect the natural resources and scenic assets that define Montebello and promote and ensure equitable access to clean air and water, prevent urban heat islands, reduce stormwater runoff, and promote greener neighborhoods and nature-based recreation.
▪ The proposed Project would attract and retain jobs within growth industries; nurture small entrepreneurial businesses; redevelop underutilized properties along key corridors and districts; and build the City’s fiscal capacity.
▪ The proposed Project would conserve and enhance stable areas, promote contextual infill, and direct new growth to focus areas including Downtown Montebello and certain corridors and neighborhoods determined through the process of developing the proposed Project as being beneficial for new growth.
▪ The proposed Project would promote preventative health and well-being for all through inclusive approaches where healthy habits are encouraged. ▪ The proposed Project would promote a safer community by focusing on holistic, equitable, and preventative public safety measures, increasing awareness, and being prepared for natural and human-caused hazards.

Page 1001 of 1273 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 29 ▪ The proposed Project would create environments that incorporate physical activity into daily activity that support health, wellness, and social connections, and provide children and adults a range of high-quality recreational opportunities.
▪ The proposed Project would enhance Montebello’s creative community by nurturing and promoting arts and cultural activities, organizations, and events and giving them more visibility and prominence in the region.
▪ The proposed Project would meet the objectives of the State of California in promoting affordable housing.

6.2 Findings
For each and all of these reasons, the City of Montebello finds that the benefits of the proposed Project outweigh its significant and unavoidable environmental effect related to air quality, cultural resources, and noise. Therefore, these adverse significant and unavoidable effects are considered to be acceptable by the City of Montebello City Council, which is the decision-making body for the Plan, given the importance of the Plan to the City of Montebello.

7. Statement of Location and Custodian of Documents
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and Section 15091(e) of the California Code of Regulation requires that the City of Montebello, as the Lead Agency, specify the location and custodian of the documents of other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision has been based. The following location is where review of the record may be performed:

City of Montebello
Planning and Community Development Department, Planning Division 1600 West Beverly Boulevard
Montebello, California 90640
The City of Montebello has relied on all of the documents contained within the record of proceedings in reaching its decision on the proposed Project.

8. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). As referenced above in the Findings, an MMRP has been prepared for the proposed Project and is to be adopted concurrently with these findings and statement of overriding considerations pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1). The MMRP is provided as Appendix E to the Final EIR that will be used by the City of Montebello to track compliance with adopted mitigation measures during the project implementation phase. The MMRP is also shown below. For each mitigation measure recommended in the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR), specifications are made herein that identify the action required, the monitoring that must occur, and the agency or department responsible for oversight.

Page 1002 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 30 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Air Quality
AQ-1- Tier 4 and Alternatively Fueled
Equipment

1. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the
Chief Building Official in coordination with the
City Engineer or designee shall confirm that the
grading plan, building plans, and specifications
stipulate that the following measures shall be
implemented:

1. All mobile off-road equipment (wheeled or
tracked) used during construction activities
shall meet the USEPA Tier 4 final standards.

Tier 4 certification can be for the original
equipment or equipment that is retrofitted
to meet the Tier 4 Final standards.

2. Alternative Fuel (natural gas, propane,
electric, etc.) construction equipment shall
be incorporated where available. These
requirements shall be incorporated into the
contract agreement with the construction
contractor. A copy of the equipment’s
certification or model year specifications
shall be available upon request for all
equipment on-site.

3. Electricity shall be supplied to the site from
the existing power grid to support the
electric construction equipment. If
connection to the grid is determined to be
infeasible for portions of the project, a nondiesel fueled generator shall be used.

4. The construction contractor shall water the
site two times per day during demolition
activities.

5. The project shall comply with the CARB Air
Toxics Control Measure that limits diesel
powered equipment and vehicle idling to no
more than five minutes at a location, and
the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle
Regulation; compliance with these would
minimize emissions of TACs during
construction.

Confirm that the actions required under this
mitigation measure are implemented for
construction activities carried out under the
proposed Project
Prior to issuance of
grading permits
Once City of
Montebello
Chief
Building
Official in
coordination
with the City
Engineer or
designee

Page 1003 of 1273 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 31 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
AQ-2: Architectural Coating
Prior to issuance of building permits, the Chief
Building Official in coordination with the City
Engineer or designee shall confirm that building
plans and specifications stipulate that all
architectural coating phases shall implement
low/zero VOC coating unless project specific
modeling determines higher VOC content
coatings result in VOC emissions below the 75
lbs./day.

During plan check, confirm that the actions
required under this mitigation measure are
implemented for individual projects under
the proposed Project where unmitigated
VOC impacts exceed regulatory thresholds.

Prior to granting building
permits
Once City of
Montebello
Chief
Building
Official in
coordination
with the City
Engineer or
designee
AQ-3: Hearth
Prior to issuance of building permits, the Chief
Building Official in coordination with the City
Engineer or designee shall confirm that the
building plans stipulate that all multi-family
residential developments shall not incorporate
wood or natural gas fireplaces. Electric
fireplaces are allowable under this mitigation
measure.

During plan check, confirm that all multifamily residential projects do not include wood or natural gas fireplace on the project
plans.

Prior to granting building
permits
Once City of
Montebello
Chief
Building
Official in
coordination
with the City
Engineer or
designee
AQ-4: Air Quality Assessment
Individual developments carried out under the
proposed Project shall do the following:
▪ Discretionary Projects: Discretionary
projects shall complete the analysis
described in the Non-Discretionary Projects
bullet below, consistent with CEQA
requirements. Impacts shall be reduced
below regulatory thresholds or to the
furthest extent possible.
▪ Non-Discretionary Projects: The following
types of non-discretionary projects shall
require an air quality technical assessment
and incorporate measures such that
impacts are reduced to below regulatory
thresholds or to the furthest extent
possible:
 Projects where sensitive receptors are
less than 1,000 feet from the project
boundary
 Construction with use of substantial
(more than two pieces) heavy
construction equipment use
▪ Discretionary Projects: Confirm that
discretionary projects have completed
the analysis described in the NonDiscretionary Projects bullet below, consistent with CEQA requirements, and
that methods to reduce the
environmental impacts of each
discretionary project below regulatory
thresholds or to the furthest extent
possible are identified in the analysis.
▪ Non-Discretionary Projects: Confirm
that non-discretionary projects subject
to this mitigation measure have
completed an air quality technical
assessment and incorporated measures
such that impacts are reduced to below
regulatory thresholds or to the furthest
extent possible.

Prior to project approval Once City of
Montebello
Chief
Building
Official in
coordination
with the City
Engineer or
designee

Page 1004 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 32 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
 Projects with construction period lasting
longer than 2 months of heavy
equipment use
Biological Resources
BIO-1 Project-specific Biological Resources Assessment
For projects that require vegetation removal,
ground disturbance of unpaved areas, parking
or staging of equipment or material on unpaved
areas, access routes on unpaved areas, or
rehabilitation or construction staging within 300
feet of unpaved areas (except for landscaped
developed areas) that contain or have the
potential to support special-status species,
open space, sensitive natural communities, or
suitable habitat to support special-status
species, the following shall apply:

If the biologist determines that special-status
plant species may occur, focused surveys for
special-status plants shall be completed in
accordance with Protocols for Surveying and
Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native
Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural
Communities (CDFW, March 20, 2018, or its
successor) and Guidelines for Conducting and
Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally
Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants (USFWS,
September 23, 1996; or its successor). If it is
determined that the project site has suitable
habitat for special-status wildlife, focused
surveys shall be conducted to determine
presence/absence including species-specific
surveys in accordance with CDFW or USFWS

1. Confirm that, for projects subject
to this mitigation measure, that a
biological resources
reconnaissance survey has been
prepared by a qualified biologist,
consistent with the requirements
of this mitigation measure.

3. If it is determined that biological
resources may be impacted by a
project, confirm that any
necessary mitigation measures
identified in the biological
resources assessment are carried
out, consistent with the
requirements of this mitigation
measure.

4. If ESA and/or CESA listed species
or wildlife movement corridors
are identified by the biological
resources assessment confirm
that consultation with the
appropriate agencies, as required
under this mitigation measure,
takes place.

1. Prior to issuance of
development permits

2. Prior to issuance of
development permits

3. Prior to granting
grading permits and, if
necessary, during
construction

4. Prior to issuing a
development permit

1. Once

2. Once

3. Once prior
to granting
grading
permits and
periodic-ally
during
construction

4. Once
City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department

Page 1005 of 1273 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 33 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
protocols for sensitive, state or federally listed
species, respectively, that may occur. If the
biologist determines that sensitive habitats
and/or regulated aquatic resources may be
present, additional focused studies to further
assess and delineate the habitat (such as a
formal jurisdictional determination for wetlands
and waters) shall be conducted.

A report shall be prepared that identifies 1)
approximate population size and distribution of
any sensitive plant or animal species, 2) any
sensitive habitats or sensitive natural
communities (such as wetlands or riparian
areas), and 3) any potential impacts of the
project on wildlife corridors. Off-site areas that
may be directly or indirectly affected by the
individual project shall also be surveyed. The
report shall include site location, literature
sources, methodology, timing of surveys,
vegetation map, site photographs, and
descriptions of on-site biological resources (e.g.,
observed and detected species, as well as an
analysis of those species with the potential to
occur on-site). The biological resources
assessment report and surveys shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist, and any
special status species surveys shall be
conducted according to standard methods of
surveying for the species as appropriate.

Page 1006 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 34 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
vegetation removal). In the case of ESA and/or
CESA listed species, consultation with USFWS
and/or CDFW shall occur prior to issuance of a
development permit from the City or
performing any ground disturbance activities, to
determine measures to address impacts such as
avoidance, minimization, restoration, or
compensation. In the case of regulated aquatic
resources, the USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB will
be consulted regarding their respective
jurisdictions and any necessary permits
obtained prior to issuance of a development
permit from the City.

BIO-2 Pre-Construction Bird Surveys and Nest Avoidance
For construction activities initiated during the
bird nesting season (February 1 through August
31) involving removal of trees, vegetation or
other nesting bird habitat, including abandoned
structures and other man-made features, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than three days prior to
initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation
removal activities. The nesting bird preconstruction survey shall be conducted on foot and shall include a 300-foot buffer around the
construction site. The survey shall be conducted
by a biologist familiar with the identification of
avian species known to occur in and around the
Plan Area (i.e., qualified biologist). If nests are
found, an avoidance buffer shall be determined
by a qualified biologist dependent upon the
species, the location of the nest, the proposed
work activity, and existing disturbances
associated with land uses within and outside of
the site. The avoidance buffer shall be
demarcated by the biologist with bright orange
construction fencing, flagging, construction
lathe, or other means to demarcate the
boundary. All construction personnel shall be
notified as to the existence of the buffer zone
and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the
nesting season. No ground disturbing activities
shall occur within the buffer until the biologist
has confirmed that breeding/ nesting is
completed, and the young have fledged the
nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur

1. Confirm that a pre-construction
nesting bird survey has been
prepared by a qualified biologist,
consistent with the requirements
of this mitigation measure

2. If the nests are found, confirm
that the requirements of this
mitigation measure are enacted
on the construction site

3. Confirm that a report
summarizing the pre-construction
survey(s) prepared by a qualified
biologist has been submitted to
the City

4. Confirm that project site plans
include a statement
acknowledging compliance with
the federal MBTA and CFGC

1. Prior to construction
activities carried out
from February 1
through August 31

2. Whenever nests are
found

3. Prior to
commencement of
construction activities

4. Prior to granting
building and grading
permits

1. Once

2. Once per
find

3. Once

4. Once
City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department

Page 1007 of 1273 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 35 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
only at the discretion of the qualified biologist
on the basis that the encroachment will not be
detrimental to an active nest. A report
summarizing the pre-construction survey(s)
shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and
shall be submitted to the City prior to the
commencement of construction activities.

Site plans shall include a statement
acknowledging compliance with the federal
MBTA and CFGC that includes avoidance of
active bird nests and identification of Best
Management Practices to avoid impacts to
active nests, including checking for nests prior
to construction activities during February 1 to
August 31 and what to do if an active nest is
found so that the nest is not inadvertently
impacted during grading or construction
activities.

Cultural Resources
CUL-1 Historical Resources
A historical resources evaluation (HRE) shall be
prepared for any discretionary project carried
out under the proposed Project involving the
demolition or physical alteration of any
building, structure, object, or other built
environment feature that is 45 years of age or
older. The evaluation shall be prepared by a
qualified architectural historian or historian
who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI)
Professional Qualifications Standards (PQS) in
architectural history or history (National Park
Service 1983). The qualified architectural
historian or historian shall conduct an intensivelevel evaluation in accordance with the guidelines and best practices promulgated by
the California Office of Historic Preservation to
identify any potential historical resources within
the proposed development site. All properties
45 years of age or older shall be evaluated
within their historic context and documented in
a report meeting California Office of Historic
Preservation guidelines. All evaluated
properties shall be documented on California
Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523
Forms. HREs shall be submitted to the City for

1. Confirm that a historic resources
evaluation has been prepared by
a qualified architectural historian
or historian who meets the
Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications
Standards (PQS) in architectural
history or history, consistent with
the requirements of this
mitigation measure.

2. If historical resources are
identified within the project area
of a proposed development,
confirm that efforts are made, to
the extent feasible, to ensure that
impacts are mitigated, consistent
with the requirements of this
mitigation measure.

3. If historical resources are
identified within a proposed
development site, confirm that
efforts have been made to the
greatest extent feasible to ensure

1. Prior to construction
and grading activities

2. Prior to construction
and grading activities

3. Prior to construction
and grading activities

1. Once

2. Once

3. Once
City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department

Page 1008 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 36 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
review and concurrence. If the property is
already listed in the NRHP or CRHR, the HRE
described above shall not be required.

Application of the Standards shall be overseen
by a qualified architectural historian or historic
architect meeting the PQS. In conjunction with
any development application that may affect
the historical resource, a report identifying and
specifying the treatment of character-defining
features and construction activities shall be
prepared by a historian or architectural
historian meeting the PQS in history or
architectural history and provided to the City
for review and concurrence. As applicable, the
report shall demonstrate how the project
complies with the Standards and be submitted
to the City for review and approval prior to the
issuance of any permits.

The report shall comply with the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and
Engineering Documentation and shall generally
that impacts are mitigated, and
that the relocation, rehabilitation,
or alteration of the resource is
consistent with the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatments of Historic Properties
(Standards) and the requirements
of this mitigation measure.

4. If significant historical resources
are identified on a development
site and compliance with the
Standards and or avoidance is not
possible, confirm that
appropriate site-specific
mitigation measures are
established and undertaken,
consistent with the requirements
of this mitigation measure.

4. Prior to construction
and grading activities

4. Once

Page 1009 of 1273 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 37 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
follow the HABS Level III requirements,
including digital photographic recordation,
detailed historic narrative report, and
compilation of historical research. The
documentation shall be completed by a
qualified architectural historian or historian
who meets the SOI PQS and submitted to the
City of Montebello, Planning & Community
Development Department, Planning Division
prior to issuance of any permits for demolition
or alteration of the historical resource.

CUL-2 Phase 1 Archaeological Resources Study
For any discretionary project carried out the
proposed Project, a Phase I Archaeological
Resources Study (Phase I) shall be prepared if
the project will involve ground disturbance
(unless the project site is within soils that can
be reliably demonstrated as being non-native or
artificial fill). If a project would solely involve
the refurbishment of an existing building and no
ground disturbance would occur, this measure
would not be required. The study shall be
performed by a qualified professional meeting
the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI’s)
Professional Qualification Standards (PQS) for
archaeology (National Park Service 1983).

Methods shall include a pedestrian survey of
the project site and sufficient background
research and field sampling to determine
whether archaeological resources may be
present. Archival research shall include a
records search of the South Central Coastal
Information Center no more than two years old
and a Sacred Lands File search with the Native
American Heritage Commission. The Phase I
technical report documenting the study shall
include recommendations that must be
implemented prior to and/or during
construction to avoid or reduce impacts on
archaeological resources. The Phase I shall be
submitted to the City of Montebello, Planning &
Community Development Department, Building
and Safety Division for review and approval
prior to the issuance of any grading or
construction permits. Recommendations in the
Phase I shall be made Conditions of Approval

1. If any project carried out under
the General Plan Update will
involve any ground disturbance
(unless the project site is within
soils that can be reliably
demonstrated as being nonnative or artificial fill) confirm that a Phase I cultural resources
study consistent with the
requirements of this mitigation
measure has been performed by
a qualified professional meeting
the Secretary of the Interior’s
(SOI’s) Professional Qualification
Standards (PQS) for archaeology
(National Park Service 1983), and
review and approve this study.

2. Make all recommendations of the
Phase I technical report
Conditions of Approval of the
project.

3. Confirm that all Conditions of
Approval are carried out
throughout all ground
disturbance activities.

1. Prior to issuance of
construction and
grading permits

2. Prior to issuance of
construction and
grading permits

3. During ground
disturbance activities

1. Once

2. Once

3. Periodically
City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department,
Building and
Safety
Division

Page 1010 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 38 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
and shall be implemented throughout all
ground disturbance activities.

CUL-3 Extended Phase 1 Testing
For any projects proposed within 100 feet of a
known archaeological site and/or in areas
identified as sensitive by a Phase I [Mitigation
Measure CUL-2], the project applicant shall
retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct an
Extended Phase I (XPI) study to determine the
presence/absence and extent of archaeological
resources on the project site. XPI testing should
comprise a series of shovel test pits and/or
hand augured units and/or mechanical
trenching to establish the boundaries of
archaeological site(s) on the project site. If the
boundaries of the archaeological site are
already well understood from previous
archaeological work, an XPI will not be required.

If the archaeological resource(s) of concern are
Native American in origin, the qualified
archaeologist shall confer with local California
Native American tribe(s).

1. Confirm that an XPI study has
been done by a qualified
archaeologist retained by the
project applicant if required
under this mitigation measure,
and review and approve the XPI.

2. Confirm that all
recommendations of the XPI are
carried out throughout all ground
disturbance activities.

1. Prior to issuance of
construction and
grading permits

2. During ground
disturbance activities

1. Once

2. Periodically
City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department

Page 1011 of 1273 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 39 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
CUL-4 Archaeological Site Avoidance
Any identified archaeological sites (determined
after implementing mitigation measures CUL-2
and/or CUL-3) shall be avoided by projectrelated construction activities, where feasible. A barrier (temporary fencing) and flagging shall be
placed between the work location and any
resources within 60 feet of a work location to
minimize the potential for inadvertent impacts.

Confirm that the avoidance measures
described in this mitigation measure, when
applicable, are being carried out during
project-related construction activities.

During construction and
grading activities
Periodically City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department,
Building and
Safety
Division
CUL-5 Phase II Site Evaluation
If the results of any Phase I and/or XPI
(mitigation measures CUL-2 and/or CUL-3)
indicate the presence of archaeological
resources that cannot be avoided by the project
(Mitigation Measure CUL-4) and that have not
been adequately evaluated for the National
Register of Historic Places or California Register
of Historical Resources (CRHR) listing at the
project site, the qualified archaeologist shall
conduct a Phase II investigation (Phase II) to
determine if intact deposits remain and if they
may be eligible for the CRHR or qualify as
unique archaeological resources. If the
archaeological resource(s) of concern are Native
American in origin, the qualified archaeologist
shall confer with local California Native
American tribe(s).

1. If the results of any Phase I and/or XPI
(mitigation measures CUL-2 and/or CUL-3)
indicate the presence of archaeological
resources that cannot be avoided by the
project (Mitigation Measure CUL-4) and that
have not been adequately evaluated for the
NRHP or CRHR listing at the project site,
confirm that a Phase II cultural resources
study consistent with the requirements of
this mitigation measure has been performed
by a qualified professional meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI’s)
Professional Qualification Standards (PQS)
for archaeology (National Park Service
1983), and review and approve this study.

2. Make all recommendations of the Phase II
technical report Conditions of Approval of
the project.

3. Confirm that all Conditions of Approval
are carried out throughout all ground
disturbance activities.

1. Prior to issuance of
construction and grading
permits

2. Prior to issuance of
construction and grading
permits

3. During ground
disturbance activities

1. Once

2. Once

3. Periodically

1. City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department

2. City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department

3. City of
Montebello
Planning
Department,
Building and
Safety
Division

Page 1012 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 40 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
analyzed in a laboratory according to standard
archaeological procedures. The age of the
materials shall be determined using
radiocarbon dating and/or other appropriate
procedures; lithic artifacts, faunal remains, and
other cultural materials shall be identified and
analyzed according to current professional
standards. The significance of the sites shall be
evaluated according to the criteria of the CRHR.

The results of the investigations shall be
presented in a technical report following the
standards of the California Office of Historic
Preservation publication “Archaeological
Resource Management Reports: Recommended
Content and Format (1990 or latest edition).”
The report shall be submitted to the City of
Montebello for review and approval prior to the
issuance of any grading or construction permits.

Recommendations in the Phase II shall be
implemented for all ground disturbance
activities.

CUL-6 Phase III Data Recovery
Should the results of the Phase II site evaluation
(Mitigation Measure CUL-5) yield resources that
meet CRHR significance standards and if the
resource cannot be avoided by project
construction in accordance with CUL-4, the
project applicant shall ensure that all feasible
recommendations for mitigation of
archaeological impacts are incorporated into
the final design and approved by the City of
Montebello prior to construction, through the
development of a Phase III Data Recovery
report (Phase III) program. Any necessary Phase
III data recovery excavation, conducted to
exhaust the data potential of significant
archaeological sites, shall be carried out by a
qualified archaeologist meeting the SOI PQS for
archaeology according to a research design
reviewed and approved by the City of
Montebello prepared in advance of fieldwork
and using appropriate archaeological field and
laboratory methods consistent with the
California Office of Historic Preservation
Planning Bulletin 5 (1991), Guidelines for
Archaeological Research Design, or the latest

1. Confirm that any reports found to be
necessary under the requirements of
this mitigation measure have been
submitted to, and reviewed and
approved by, the City of Montebello
prior to issuance of any grading or
construction permit.

2. If the reports required under this
mitigation measure identify
archaeological resources of concern
that are also Native American in origin,
confirm that the qualified
archaeologist required under this
mitigation measure has conferred with
local California Native American
tribe(s).

3. Confirm that all feasible
recommendations of the reports
required under this mitigation measure
have been incorporated into the final
design of the project and approved by

1. Prior to issuance of
construction and
grading permits

2. Prior to issuance of
construction and
grading permits

3. Prior to issuance of
construction and
grading permits

1. Once

2. Once

3. Once
City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department

Page 1013 of 1273 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 41 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
edition thereof. If the archaeological resource(s)
of concern are Native American in origin, the
qualified archaeologist shall confer with local
California Native American tribe(s). If
applicable, a Native American monitor shall be
present.

As applicable, the final Phase III Data Recovery
reports shall be submitted to the City of
Montebello, Planning & Community
Development Department, Building and Safety
Division prior to issuance of any grading or
construction permit. Recommendations
contained therein shall be implemented
throughout all ground disturbance activities.
the City of Montebello

4. Confirm that all feasible
recommendations of the reports
required under this mitigation measure
(including, if applicable, presence
during construction of a Native
American monitor) are carried out as
described in this mitigation measure.

4. During all ground
disturbance activities

4. Periodic
ally
CUL-7 Cultural Resources Monitoring
If recommended by Phase I, XPI, Phase II, or
Phase III studies [mitigation measures CUL-2,
CUL-3, CUL-5, and/or CUL-6], the project
applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist
to monitor project-related, ground-disturbing
activities, subject to review and approval by the
City of Montebello Planning & Community
Development Department, Building and Safety
Division. If archaeological resources are
encountered during ground-disturbing
activities, mitigation measures CUL-4 through
CUL-6 shall be implemented, as appropriate.

1. Confirm that, if required by this
mitigation measure, the project
applicant has retained a qualified
archaeologist to monitor projectrelated, ground-disturbing activities and approve the use of this monitor.

2. If archaeological resources are
encountered during ground-disturbing
activities, confirm that mitigation
measures CUL-4 through CUL-6 are
implemented, as appropriate.

1. Prior to projectrelated, grounddisturbing activities

2. During construction
and grading activities

1. Once

2. Periodic
ally
City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department,
Building and
Safety
Division
CUL-8 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resource If archaeological resources are encountered
during ground-disturbing activities, work within
60 feet shall be halted and the project
archaeologist meeting the SOI’s PQS for
archaeology shall immediately evaluate the
find. If necessary, the evaluation may require
preparation of a treatment plan and
archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility. If the
discovery proves to be significant under CEQA
and cannot be avoided by the project,
additional work may be warranted, such as data
recovery excavation, to mitigate any significant
impacts to historical resources. Any reports
required to document and/or evaluate
unanticipated discoveries shall be submitted to
the City of Montebello Planning & Community

1. Review and approve any reports
submitted to the City under the
requirements of this mitigation
measure.

2. Confirm that recommendations
contained in any reports submitted to
the City under the requirements of this
mitigation measure are implemented.

1. Prior to issuance of
construction and
grading permits

2. Throughout the
remainder of ground
disturbance activities

1. Once

2. Periodic
ally
City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department,
Building and
Safety
Division

Page 1014 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 42 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Development Department, Building and Safety
Division for review and approval.

Recommendations contained therein shall be
implemented throughout the remainder of
ground disturbance activities.

Noise
NOI-1 Measures to Reduce Construction Noise
To minimize noise during construction, the City
of Montebello shall require construction
contractors to implement the following
measures for construction activities conducted
within the City. Construction plans submitted to
the City shall include construction noise analysis
and identify these measures on demolition,
grading, and construction plans submitted to
the City. The City of Montebello Building
Division shall verify that grading, demolition,
and/or construction plans submitted to the City
include these notations prior to issuance of
demolition, grading and/or building permits.
▪ Mufflers. During excavation and grading
construction phases, all construction
equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be
operated with closed engine doors and shall
be equipped with properly operating and
maintained mufflers consistent with
manufacturers’ standards.
▪ Stationary Equipment. All stationary
construction equipment shall be placed so
that emitted noise is directed away from
the nearest sensitive receivers.
▪ Equipment Staging Areas. Equipment
staging shall be located in areas that will
create the greatest distance feasible
between construction-related noise sources
and noise-sensitive receivers.
▪ Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction
equipment shall have smart back-up alarms
that automatically adjust the sound level of
the alarm in response to ambient noise
levels. Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be
disabled and replaced with human spotters
to ensure safety when mobile construction
equipment is moving in the reverse
Confirm that construction plans submitted to
the City include construction noise analysis
and that the construction noise reduction
measures identified in this mitigation
measure are included on demolition,
grading, and construction plans submitted
to, and reviewed and approved by, the City
of Montebello.

Prior to issuance of
demolition, grading,
and/or building permits
Once City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department

Page 1015 of 1273 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 43 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
direction in compliance with applicable
safety laws and regulations.
▪ Electrically Powered Tools and Facilities.

Electrical power shall be used to run air
compressors and similar power tools and to
power any temporary structures, such as
construction trailers or caretaker facilities,
where feasible.
▪ Noise Disturbance Coordinator. The project
applicant shall designate a “noise
disturbance coordinator” responsible for
responding to any local complaints about
construction noise. The disturbance
coordinator shall determine the cause of
any noise complaint and shall require that
reasonable measures be implemented to
correct the problem. A telephone number
for the disturbance coordinator and the City
shall be posted at the construction site.
▪ Temporary Noise Barriers. Erect temporary
noise barriers, where feasible, when
construction noise is predicted to exceed
the acceptable standards (e.g., 80 dBA Leq
at residential receivers, schools or other
sensitive receptors during the daytime) or
when the anticipated construction duration
is greater than is typical (e.g., two years or
greater) and there are sensitive receptors
within 500 feet of the construction site.

Temporary noise barriers shall be
constructed with solid materials (e.g.,
wood) with a density of at least 1.5 pounds
per square foot with no gaps from the
ground to the top of the barrier. If a sound
blanket is used, barriers shall be
constructed with solid material with a
density of at least 1 pound per square foot
with no gaps from the ground to the top of
the barrier and be lined on the construction
side with acoustical blanket, curtain or
equivalent absorptive material rated sound
transmission class (STC) 32 or higher.

Page 1016 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 44 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
NOI-2 Measures to Reduce Construction Vibration
To reduce potential construction vibration
impacts, the City of Montebello shall require
the following:

The vibration levels shall not exceed FTA
architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12
in/sec PPV for fragile or historical resources, 0.2
in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and
masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for
engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration
levels would exceed this threshold, alternative
uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile
driving, static rollers as opposed to vibratory
rollers, and lower horsepower earthmoving
equipment shall be used. If necessary,
construction vibration monitoring shall be
conducted to ensure FTA vibration thresholds
are not exceeded.

1. For projects to which this mitigation
measure applies, review and approve
any required groundborne noise and
vibration analysis.

2. For projects to which this mitigation
measure applies, confirm that any
actions required by the noise and
vibration analysis are implemented for
project construction activities.

1. Prior to construction

2. During construction

1. Once

2. Periodic
ally
City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department

Page 1017 of 1273 ends

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 45 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources If archaeological resources of Native American
origin are identified during implementation of
projects carried out under the proposed
Project, ground-disturbing activities within 50
feet of the find shall be temporarily suspended
or redirected until an archaeologist has
evaluated the nature and significance of the
find as a cultural resource and an appropriate
local Native American representative is
consulted. If the City, in consultation with
traditionally and culturally affiliated Native
American group(s), determines the resource is a
tribal cultural resource and thus significant
under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared
and implemented in consultation with
traditionally and culturally affiliated Native
American group(s). The mitigation plan shall
include measures to ensure the find is treated
in a manner that respectfully retains, to the
degree feasible, the qualities that render the
resource of significance to the local Native
American group(s). Examples of appropriate
mitigation for tribal cultural resources include,
but are not limited to, avoidance, protecting the
cultural character and integrity of the resource,
protecting traditional use of the resource,
protecting the confidentiality of the resource, or
heritage recovery.

1. Upon the discovery of any
archaeological resources of Native
American origin, confirm construction
is temporarily suspended within 50
feet of the find until an archaeologist
has evaluated the nature and
significance of the find as a cultural
resource and an appropriate local
Native American representative is
consulted.

2. If applicable, confirm that the
mitigation plan required under this
mitigation measure has been
completed

3. If applicable, confirm that any
avoidance measures described in the
mitigation plan, are implemented

1. Upon the discovery
of any archaeological
resources of Native
American origin

2. Prior to resumption
of construction
within 50 feet of the
find

3. Throughout
construction and
grading activities
after the discovery of
any tribal cultural
resource

1. Once for
each
occurrence

2. Once

3. Periodically
City of
Montebello
Planning &
Community
Development
Department

Page 1018 of 1273 ends

City of Montebello
City of Montebello General Plan Update and Downtown Montebello Specific Plan 46 This page intentionally left blank.

Page 1019 of 1273 ends

ITEM # 11

CITY OF MONTEBELLO

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Raul Alvarez, City Manager

BY: Kimberly Guillen, Senior Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF CURRENT COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS TO VARIOUS

BOARDS AND AGENCIES
DATE: April 10, 2024
RECOMMENDATION(S):

It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Review and take action to fill assignments to various Boards and Agencies; and

2. Take such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with these assignments.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On January 10, 2024, the City Council reviewed and appointed Councilmembers to represent the City on various Boards, Agencies, Ad Hoc, and Task Force Committees.

On March 13, 2024, in closed session the City Council was informed of potential claims of misconduct allegations involving Councilmember Jimenez and the potential exposure of litigation to the City. An administrative investigation is ongoing to evaluate appropriate action which will be addressed at a future date. Pending the results of the investigation, the City Council recommended that Councilmember Jimenez be removed from all external committees and assignments. Councilmember Jimenez currently holds the following seats that require reassignment:

Agency Delegate Alternate
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Jimenez Torres

Page 1020 of 1273 ends

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2024

Page 2 of 2 ends

Capital Projects Committee - Alameda Corridor
East Authority
Torres Jimenez
Gateway Cities Council of Governments Tamayo Jimenez
Independent Cities Association Melendez Jimenez
Southeastern Area Animal Control Peralta Jimenez
ENVIRONMENTAL:

N/A
ANALYSIS:

N/A
SUMMARY:

Staff recommends that the City Council review the list of assignments to the various Boards and Agencies and appoint Councilmembers to the various agencies. The attached lists show the current City Council appointments and are presented for the Council’s review.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Attachment A - City Council Assignments to Regional Boards - 2023 NEXT STEPS:

N/A

Page 1021 of 1273 ends

2024

ORGANIZATION COUNCIL

REPRESENTATIVE

ALTERNATE

REPRESENTATIVE STIPEND MEETING INFORMATION LOCATION CONTACT EMAIL/PHONE County of Los Angeles
Sanitation Districts
Peralta* Melendez $125.00 Meets 2nd and 4th Wednesday
1:30 p.m.; *Delegate must be
Mayor; anyone can be
alternate.

Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
County
1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA
90601
Kim Christensen 562-908-4288 ext. 1101;
[email protected]
Los Angeles County City
Selection Committee
Peralta* Melendez* $0 Meets 2-4 times a year
as needed; *Delegate must be
Mayor, and Alternate must be
MPT.

Various locations in Los Angeles County Lee Millen [email protected] San Gabriel Valley Council of
Governments (SGVCOG)
Jimenez Torres $75.00 Every 3rd Thursday of the
month at 4pm, with a few
exceptions of Special Meetings
Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal
Water District
1333 S. Mayflower Ave., Ste. 360
Monrovia, CA 91016 (in person)
Katie Ward /
Stefanie
Hernandez
[email protected] ;
[email protected]; Office 626-457-
1800
Capital Projects Committee -
Alameda Corridor East
Authority (ACE)
Torres Jimenez $0 Meets every 1st Monday
11:00 a.m.

SGVCOG
1333 S. Mayflower Avenue,Suite 360,
Monrovia 91016
Yanin Rivera/
Kevin Lai
(626) 457-1800; [email protected];
[email protected]
Gateway Cities Council of
Governments
Tamayo Jimenez $125.00 Meet 1st Wednesday of the
month
6:00 p.m.

Gateway Cities Office
16401 Paramount Blvd, Paramount, CA
Genny Cisneros [email protected] /
(562) 663-6850
Independent Cities
Association
Melendez Jimenez $0 Meets 2nd Thursday of the
month
7:00 p.m.

Location varies each month - [email protected]
Montebello Chamber of
Commerce
Tamayo Torres $0 4th Wednesday of the month
at 8 a.m.

Montebello Chamber of Commerce
817 West Whittier Blvd.

Montebello, CA 90640
Adriana Dugan [email protected]
League of California Cities Torres Peralta $0 Meets four times a year, 4th Thursday of the month; 6-8
p.m. Schedule found at
www.lacities.org
Location Varies Kristine
Guerrero,
League Staff;
Jennifer Quan,
[email protected]; 626-716-0076;
[email protected] (626) 786-5142
Los Angeles County Vector
Control District
(LACVCD)
Avik Cordeiro
(Resident
Reappointed
11/10/2021-11/2025
for a period of 4 yrs.)
- $100.00 Meets 2nd Thursday of the
month
7:00 p.m.

L.A. County Vector Control District
Headquarters
12545 Florence Avenue
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Truc Dever [email protected]
Southeast Area Animal
Control (SEAACA)
Peralta Jimenez $225.00 Meet 3rd Thursday
2:00 p.m.

Seaaca Office
9777 Seaaca Street
Downey, CA 90241
Cathy Kyle,
Manager,
HR/Finance
[email protected] / (562) 803-
3301 Ext. 221
Southern California
Association of Governments
(SCAG)
Peralta Melendez $0 - unless
Regional
Councilmemb
er (CM) or
Policy CM
General Assembly Business
meeting meets once a year in
May (May 2-3, 2024 in Palm
Dessert)
SCAG Main Office
Wilshire Grand Center
900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Maggie
Aguilar/Cecilia
Pulido
Maggie Aguilar, Clerk of the Board, (213)
630-1420, [email protected]
Cecilia Pulido, Deputy Clerk of the Board,
(213) 630-1480, [email protected]
City Council Regional Board Assignments
City Council Action: January 10, 2024
Updated

ATTACHMENT A

Page 1022 of 1273 ends

ITEM # 12

CITY OF MONTEBELLO

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Raul Alvarez, City Manager

BY: David Sosnowski, Director of Recreation and Community Services SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 24-26 REVISING AND UPDATING FEES

FOR THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO'S MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
DATE: April 10, 2024
RECOMMENDATION(S):

It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 24-26 revising fees for the City of Montebello's Municipal Golf Course; and

2. Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

FISCAL IMPACT:

All revenue and expenditures for the Golf Course are charged, recorded and tracked to Fund 610 (Golf Fund). The Montebello Golf Course operates as an enterprise fund, where all the revenue generated through its operations is utilized to offset the associated expenses. The sources of funding for the Golf Fund include revenue from green fees, advanced booking fees, golf cart rentals and tournament play. The establishment of the proposed updated fees is intended to meet the Golf Fund’s obligation of operating as an enterprise fund with no negative impact to the General Fund (i.e., no General Fund subsidy).

In November of 2022, the City of Montebello engaged the services of a consultant, National Golf Foundation ("NGF") to provide professional services related to the redevelopment and reopening of the City’s Golf Course. The various projections provided are based on a conservative estimate of 92,000 total annual rounds of golf during the first full fiscal year of operation (Fiscal Year 2024-2025), with revenue estimates assuming maximum course rates have been applied to each round. The total amount of rounds accounts for both 9-hole and short course play.

Page 1023 of 1273 ends

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2024

Page 2 of 6 ends

This projection is in line with NGF’s estimates for stabilized rounds within the first 3 years of operation. It is to be noted that 70,000 of the rounds being projected are for the 9-hole course, which would be consistent with the annual rounds seen at the old Montebello Golf Course prior to closure and renovation. It is projected that just under 50% of golf rounds will be played with a rented cart and staff have forecast cart rental revenues at the average rate of $9 per rental, representing the mid-range between the 9-hole and replay cart rental rates.

Additionally, revenue projections for the short course are conservative as the performance is generally expected to exceed the projected rounds, However, considering the new amenity, staff recommend the estimated rounds that are used in the chart below.

Revenue for the short course was derived at an average rate of $17/round as this course has many configurations and options as well as various rates for different times of use and player demographics (i.e. resident, senior, junior, weekend, evening, etc.). Due to the anticipated popularity of the night golf option, revenues will likely exceed the projections below for the short course as night and weekend rates are proposed to be higher than the average rate used to calculate revenue.

With the anticipated completion of the permanent Club House and adjacent outdoor areas, the renovated and reimagined Montebello Golf Course will provide an ideal space for local, charity and corporate tournaments which will further increase the projected annual revenue. In the scenario below, tournaments are not accounted for as the demand will be high, but actual numbers of tournaments booked are unknown at this time.

Additionally, staff have based revenue projections on weekday rates and not the higher weekend/holiday rates that are being proposed in the fee schedule. Utilizing all of these conservative assumptions, total revenue for the Golf Course is expected to be $2,647,000 annually.

Transaction Projected
Rounds
Rate Total
Revenue
Resident 9 -Hole 7,500 $26.00 $195,000
Non-Resident 9 Hole 17,500 $32.00 $560,000
Senior 9-Hole 22,000 $26.00 $572,000
Junior 9-Hole 1,000 $8.00 $8,000
Student 9- Hole 1,000 $16.00 $16,000
Replay Rounds 9-Hole 21,000 $24.00 $504,000
Cart Rentals 38,000 $9 Average $342,000
Short Course 18,000 $17 Average $306,000
Short Course Replay 4,000 $11 Average $44,000
Senior/Resident Card 2,000 $50 $100,000

Page 1024 of 1273 ends

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2024

Page 3 of 6 ends

Total Revenue $2,647,000
The Golf Course Fund’s primary expenditures are the maintenance and operation of the course under the City Council approved Troon contract, minimal on-site staff support, the annual lease payments for the new golf cart fleet and utilities (i.e., water and electricity).

The table below provides a breakdown of projected costs for the Golf Fund.

Expenditure Description Expected
Annual
Cost
Troon Contract Maintenance, Operation and Management $1,946,478 Staff Support On-site staff support and oversight of
contracted services
$90,000
Utilities Cost for reclaimed water and electricity for the site
$500,000
Golf Cart Lease Annual Lease for new cart fleet $104,754 Total Expenditures $2,641,232
In the scenario provided above for revenue and expenditures, the Golf Course Fund is expected to cover its cost on an annual basis (i.e., revenue exceeds expenditures). There are several variables that could reduce expenditures in the utility category including weather patterns, the reduction of the total acreage of the new course and the subsequent reduced water demand. In this scenario, staff have used a conservative estimate of $500,000 annually for utilities based on previous years’ use and consideration that the maintenance of the remnant golf property along Garfield Avenue is still maintained and irrigated with water use being billed to the City. Additionally, the new LED lighting to the short course is considered under the utilities projection.

Actual expenses and revenue within the Golf Course Fund will be reviewed on an annual basis, and future recommendations for green fee adjustments will be aligned to cover the overall expenses necessary to achieve 100% direct cost recovery (i.e., revenue matches or exceeds expenditures). It is imperative that the new Golf Course operate with an annual surplus, so as not to need subsidization from the General Fund. Key to maintaining an annual surplus is setting and maintaining fees (green fees, cart rentals, etc.) at rates that are competitive and keep up with projected annual expenditures, including the impacts from rising costs.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The City purchased the Golf Course in 1941 for use as a municipal golf course and it has been utilized as such since then. In 1998-99 the course underwent a major remodel adding 3 lakes, new greens, tees, bunkers and continuous concrete cart paths. A new irrigation system was added during the 1999 renovation.

Page 1025 of 1273 ends

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2024

Page 4 of 6 ends

For a number of years the Golf Course operated at a deficit, requiring annual subsidies from the General Fund -- at one time exceeding $1.0 million annually. The ongoing subsidization of the Golf Course was significant enough to warrant mention in the 2018 State Auditor report. Staff began looking at ways to eliminate this subsidy and create a golf course that could function without requiring General Fund assistance. These efforts led to a project that would completely transform the Golf Course and introduce a new concept that -- if managed properly -- would end the subsidy.

Since October of 2022, the Golf Course has been closed for renovation as a part of a total reimagination of the course known as the Montebello Municipal Golf Course Renovation Project ("GCR Project"). The GCR Project includes the renovation of a portion of the existing Golf Course property located immediately south of the Topgolf entertainment complex and northwest of the Quiet Cannon event center.

At the January 10, 2024 City Council Meeting, a 5-year contract was awarded to Troon Golf for the maintenance, management and operation of the Golf Course. Troon Golf will be responsible for pro shop operations, which encompass golf course grounds maintenance and agronomy, managing the tee sheet, collecting green fees, handling retail sales, golf cart rentals, programming, and providing lessons.

The Golf Course's budget operates from an enterprise fund, where all the revenue generated through its operations is utilized to offset the associated expenses. As previously mentioned, the source of funding for the golf course enterprise fund includes revenues from green fees, advanced booking fees, golf cart rentals, and tournament play. At the time of the closing of the Golf Course for the GCR Project, revenue generated had not kept up with the increasing costs related to personnel, utilities, maintenance and operations, and continued deferred maintenance of Golf Course assets over the past decade. In addition, the fees charged were not maintained at a level sufficient to offset expenditures, nor provide funding for major maintenance projects. The Montebello Golf Course green fees were last updated in December of 2010. The lagging fees did not keep up with current trends, contributing to annual Golf Fund deficits which were subsidized by the General Fund. Putting into place professional management of the renovated golf course, coupled with the fee analysis and recommendations made by National Golf Foundation will help the Golf Course operate efficiently and ensure annual revenue covers annual operating expenses.

In November 2022, the City retained NGF to establish the guidelines for a green fee pricing plan and strategy that should help to maximize play and revenue, while also ensuring affordable access for City residents, seniors, juniors, students, etc. Another key component of the consulting analysis was estimating rounds played, as well as revenue and expenses for the Montebello Golf Course for the first five years of operation after reopening based on NGF's nationwide and locally available data that provides benchmarking and analysis of the state of golf and its growing popularity.

NGF utilized in-depth market analysis including review of market green and cart fees, municipal golf benchmarking for the greater Los Angeles market and developed green/cart fee recommendations to accompany operational expense projections.

Page 1026 of 1273 ends

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2024

Page 5 of 6 ends

To predict future revenue from green fees, NGF and staff utilized historical data from the Montebello Golf Course's online tee sheet database to project annual rounds of golf. This standard was supported by NGF's extensive market research highlighting the growing popularity of golf in Los Angeles County and the trend of younger golfers interested in 9- hole options within the demographic makeup of the City of Montebello and the immediate surrounding area. Staff has made an informed and conservative assumption of a complete return of continued use of Golf Course rounds compared to the previous full year operation, amounting to 70,000 rounds played annually on the regulation 9-hole course and 22,000 total rounds played on the Par-3 short course.

In the operating budget for the Golf Course Fund, the two most substantial expenses are contractual costs for maintenance and operation of the course under the Troon Golf contract and utility costs for irrigation which are paid directly by the City. For Fiscal Year 2024-25, the expenditure budget is projected at $2.6 million. Staff will develop the Golf Fund (Fund 610) budget as part of the regular FY 2024-25 budget process.

ENVIRONMENTAL:

N/A
ANALYSIS:

The recommended greens fees, as outlined in Attachment A, propose several changes, including increases for all base green and cart rental fees with significant discounts for residents, youth, students and seniors, the introduction of an annual senior and resident players card, and establishment of fees for the new Par-3 walking course. Golf Course fees were last updated in December of 2010.

The proposed rates with notes and discounts can be found on Attachment B. Staff recommend establishing fees with minimum and maximum rates per category to allow for dynamic pricing. NGF recommends that the City utilize dynamic pricing for the new Montebello Golf Course. The dynamic pricing model is a pricing strategy that uses controlled and automated pricing changes that respond in real time to supply and demand. Dynamic pricing only allows for fees to be discounted and never raised above the standard rate found on Attachment B to market available golf play during non-peak hours. Rates would be adjusted based on demand, availability, and other variables, such as weather and course conditions. On Attachment A, minimum fees are established by capping dynamic pricing discounts to 30% of the adopted and published rates.

Green fee pricing is determined by thorough analysis of specific metrics, what competitors are doing, and daily utilization rates. More sophisticated applications of dynamic pricing consider online traffic analytics, website page views, online booking rates, and utilization rates across different play categories. The Montebello Golf Course will be utilizing Golf Now's online tee sheet as the primary tee-time booking engine that has the capability of using sophisticated analytics backed up by Troon Golf's nationwide database and market research to aid the City to control dynamic pricing shifts within the approved fee schedule.

Page 1027 of 1273 ends

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2024

Page 6 of 6 ends

The revenue projections provided in the Fiscal Impact section are based on the rates listed on Attachment B. These rates would be the maximum allowable fee per category and will be the posted rates available at the Pro Shop, City website, the new Golf Course's official website, and on the online tee sheet hosted by Golf Now.

The highlights of the new rate structure include 20-25% discounts on green fees for residents and seniors on 9-hole and 18-hole (9-hole replay) rates on weekdays. The new rate structure establishes a standard flat cart rental rate across all categories of $10 per 9-hole round or $18 per 18-hole round. Youth golfers will also benefit from a 50-75% discount on rates depending on the age of the participant and/or proof of current enrollment in high school or college.

To promote the new 6-hole walking, par-3 course during the daytime, staff are recommending a simple, affordable rate structure starting at a $14 weekday rate for a 6- hole round with an approximately 20% discount for residents and seniors, and a 50-75% discount for students/junior players, depending on age and enrollment in school. Under the proposed rate structure, the par-3 course rates are increased on evenings and weekends to $18 on weekday evenings and $23 per round on weekends.

Additionally, staff recommends a seven-day window for residents who purchase the newly proposed "Resident and Senior Players Card" to secure tee times at no additional cost above established rates while prioritizing resident tee time access.

SUMMARY:

Staff recommends adoption of updated fees relating to the Montebello Golf Course effective upon the first day of operation of the course in May of 2024. The last update of fees for golf play at the course occurred in December of 2010. The updated fees would help ensure revenue covers the costs of operating the reimagined and reconstructed golf course.

All revenue and expenditures for the Golf Course are charged and tracked to fund 610 (Golf Fund) which is operated as an enterprise fund where all the revenue generated through its operations is utilized to offset the associated expenses. The sources of funding for the Golf Course enterprise fund include revenue from green fees, advanced booking fees, golf cart rentals, and tournament play. The establishment of the proposed fees is intended to meet the Golf Fund's obligation to operate as an enterprise fund with no impact to the General Fund.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Attachment A - Resolution No. 24-26

2. Attachment B - Golf Course Fees

3. Attachment C - National Golf Foundation Study
NEXT STEPS:

N/A

Page 1028 of 1273 ends

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 24-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MONTEBELLO, CALIFORNIA, INCREASING EXISTING FEES AND

CHARGES AT THE MONTEBELLO MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE

RECITALS
WHEREAS, under the police power granted by Article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution, cities may impose fees and rates for certain municipal services; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the authority granted by the State Constitution, Government Code section 66016 provides that a city may establish or increase fees or service charges for certain public services or access and use of City’s property by resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Montebello has determined that in order to continue providing effective service for the public welfare, the City must establish and increase fees and charges for certain municipal services which accurately reflect the City’s true cost in providing such services; and
WHEREAS, many of the City’s existing fees and charges for its Municipal Golf Course facilities no longer reflect the City’s true cost in providing and maintaining the Municipal Golf Course services and facilities, as a result of increased costs borne by the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the fees and charges proposed in this Resolution are reasonable, fair and equitable in nature and are proportionately representative of the costs incurred by the City for the described services; and WHEREAS, the discounted fees and charges described in this Resolution reflect the support that such users provide the City via payment of other taxes and/or reflect the City’s efforts to provide additional recreational opportunities to youth and seniors; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to allow for the greatest flexibility in marketing and promoting the Golf Course and desires to allow for City staff and designated contractors to allow for dynamic pricing where fees may be discounted and never raised above the established rates found within this Resolution with a maximum discount of 30% allowable to market available golf play during non-peak hours; and WHEREAS, based on the information contained in this Resolution and all other information presented to the City Council on this matter, the City Council desires to establish new and updated fees and charges under the police power granted to cities by

Page 1029 of 1273 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-26

Page 2 of 4 ends

Article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution and pursuant to the provisions of Government Code section 66016.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO HEREBY RESOLVES, FINDS, AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The following fees and charges for the Montebello Golf Course of the City of Montebello are hereby adopted effective April 10, 2024.

REGULATION COURSE GREEN FEES RATES
WEEKDAY - 9 HOLES $32.00
WEEKDAY - 9 HOLES REPLAY $24.00
WEEKDAY - 9 HOLES RESIDENTS & SENIORS 65+ (20% OFF) $26.00 WEEKDAY - 9 HOLES RESIDENTS & SENIORS 65+ REPLAY (20%
OFF) $19.00
WEEKDAY - 9 HOLES STUDENTS AGES 16 TO 22 (50% OFF) $16.00 WEEKDAY - 9 HOLES REPLAY STUDENT AGES 16 TO 22 (50%
OFF) $12.00
WEEKDAY - 9 HOLES JUNIORS 15 & UNDER (75% OFF) $8.00
WEEKDAY - 9 HOLES JUNIORS 15 & UNDER REPLAY (75% OFF) $6.00

WEEKEND & HOLIDAYS GREEN FEES
WEEKEND & HOLIDAYS - 9 HOLES $36.00
WEEKEND & HOLIDAYS - 9 HOLES REPLAY $27.00

CART FEES PER PERSON
9 - HOLES $10.00
9 - HOLES REPLAY $8.00
PAR 3 COURSE GREEN FEES
WEEKDAY - 6 HOLES $14.00
WEEKDAY - 6 HOLES REPLAY $10.00
WEEKDAY - 6 HOLES RESIDENTS & SENIORS 65+ (~20% OFF) $11.00 WEEKDAY - 6 HOLES RESIDENTS & SENIORS 65+ REPLAY (20%
OFF) $8.00
WEEKDAY - 6 HOLES STUDENT AGES 16 TO 22 (50% OFF) $7.00 WEEKDAY - 6 HOLES REPLAY STUDENT AGES 16 TO 22 (50%
OFF) $5.00
WEEKDAY - 6 HOLES JUNIORS 15 & UNDER REPLAY (60% OFF) $4.00 WEEKEND & HOLIDAYS - 6 HOLES $16.00
WEEKEND & HOLIDAYS - 6 HOLES REPLAY $12.00
PAR 3 COURSE GREEN FEES EVENING
WEEKDAY - 9 HOLES $18.00
WEEKDAY - 9 HOLES REPLAY $12.00
WEEKEND & HOLIDAYS - 9 HOLES $23.00
WEEKEND & HOLIDAYS - 9 HOLES REPLAY $17.00

TOURNAMENTS FEES

Page 1030 of 1273 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-26

Page 3 of 4 ends

REGULATION COURSE WEEKDAY 9 / 18 HOLES WITH CART
$60 /
$90
REGULATION COURSE WEEKEND & HOLIDAYS 9 / 18 HOLES

WITH CART
$90 /
$120
PAR 3 COURSE WEEKDAYS 6 / 12 HOLES
$35 /
$50
PAR 3 COURSE WEEKENDS 6 / 12 HOLES
$40 /
$60
PAR 3 COURSE EVENING 9 / 18 HOLES
$50 /
$70
NONPROFITS 20% OFF TOURNAMENTS
SENIOR & RESIDENT PLAYERS CARD $50.00
SECTION 2. The above fees and charges shall be posted at the Golf Pro Shop.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby adopts the recitals set forth above as if fully set forth herein.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council and the City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Resolution. This Resolution shall rescind and replace Resolution No. 10-67.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of April 2024.
_____________________________
Scarlet Peralta, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_____________________________ ________________________________ Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman, City Attorney

Page 1031 of 1273 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-26

Page 4 of 4 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:

CITY OF MONTEBELLO )
I, Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk of the City of Montebello, County of Los Angeles, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 24-26 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Montebello, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 10th day of April 2024 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

The undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Montebello, does hereby attest and certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true, full and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a meeting of said City which was duly convened and held on the date stated thereon, and that said document has not been amended, modified, repealed or rescinded since its date of adoption and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof.

DATE:

Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk

Page 1032 of 1273 ends

REGULATION COURSE GREEN FEES RATES NOTES
WEEKDAY - 9 HOLES $32.00
WEEKDAY - 9 HOLES REPLAY $24.00
WEEKDAY - 9 HOLES RESIDENTS & SENIORS 65+ (20% OFF) $26.00 WEEKDAY ONLY MUST HAVE PLAYERS CARD WEEKDAY - 9 HOLES RESIDENTS & SENIORS 65+ REPLAY (20% OFF) $19.00 WEEKDAY ONLY MUST HAVE PLAYERS CARD WEEKDAY - 9 HOLES STUDENTS AGE 16 TO 22 (50% OFF) $16.00 WEEKDAY ONLY MUST HAVE STUDENT ID WEEKDAY - 9 HOLES REPLAY STUDENT AGE 16 TO 22 (50% OFF) $12.00 WEEKDAY ONLY MUST HAVE STUDENT ID WEEKDAY - 9 HOLES JUNIORS 15 & UNDER (75% OFF) $8.00 WEEKDAY ONLY LIMITED TIMES WEEKDAY - 9 HOLES JUNIORS 15 & UNDER REPLAY (75% OFF) $6.00 WEEKDAY ONLY LIMITED TIMES

WEEKEND & HOLIDAYS GREEN FEES
WEEKEND & HOLIDAYS - 9 HOLES $36.00 NO DISCOUNTS ON WEEKENDS WEEKEND & HOLIDAYS - 9 HOLES REPLAY $27.00 NO DISCOUNTS ON WEEKENDS

CART FEES PER PERSON
9 - HOLES $10.00
9 - HOLES REPLAY $8.00
PAR 3 COURSE GREEN FEES
WEEKDAY - 6 HOLES $14.00
WEEKDAY - 6 HOLES REPLAY $10.00
WEEKDAY - 6 HOLES RESIDENTS & SENIORS 65+ (~20% OFF) $11.00 WEEKDAY ONLY MUST HAVE PLAYERS CARD WEEKDAY - 6 HOLES RESIDENTS & SENIORS 65+ REPLAY (20% OFF) $8.00 WEEKDAY ONLY MUST HAVE PLAYERS CARD WEEKDAY - 6 HOLES STUDENT AGE 16 TO 22 (50% OFF) $7.00 WEEKDAY ONLY MUST HAVE STUDENT ID WEEKDAY - 6 HOLES REPLAY STUDENT AGE 16 TO 22 (50% OFF) $5.00 WEEKDAY ONLY MUST HAVE STUDENT ID WEEKDAY - 6 HOLES JUNIORS 15 & UNDER REPLAY (60% OFF) $4.00 WEEKDAY ONLY LIMITED TIMES WEEKEND & HOLIDAYS - 6 HOLES $16.00 NO DISCOUNTS ON WEEKENDS & HOLIDAYS WEEKEND & HOLIDAYS - 6 HOLES REPLAY $12.00 NO DISCOUNTS ON WEEKENDS & HOLIDAYS PAR 3 COURSE GREEN FEES EVENING
WEEKDAY - 9 HOLES $18.00 NO DISCOUNTS ON EVENINGS
WEEKDAY - 9 HOLES REPLAY $12.00 NO DISCOUNTS ON EVENINGS WEEKEND & HOLIDAYS - 9 HOLES $23.00 NO DISCOUNTS ON WEEKENDS & HOLIDAYS WEEKEND & HOLIDAYS - 9 HOLES REPLAY $17.00 NO DISCOUNTS ON WEEKENDS & HOLIDAYS

TOURNAMENTS FEES
REGULATION COURSE WEEKDAY 9 / 18 HOLES WITH CART $60 / $90 REGULATION COURSE WEEKEND & HOLIDAYS 9 / 18 HOLES WITH CART $90 / $120 PAR 3 COURSE WEEKDAYS 6 / 12 HOLES $35 / $50
PAR 3 COURSE WEEKENDS 6 / 12 HOLES $40 / $60
PAR 3 COURSE EVENING 9 / 18 HOLES $50 / $70
NONPROFITS 20% OFF TOURNAMENTS COURSE MANAGER/CITY STAFF APPROVAL SENIOR & RESIDENT PLAYERS CARD $50.00 ANNUALLY

ATTACHMENT B

MONTEBELLO GOLF COURSE FEES

Page 1033 of 1273 ends

Montebello Golf Course – Pricing
Analysis and 5-Year Financial
Projections
Prepared For:

City of Montebello
1600 W. Beverly Rd.

Montebello, CA 90640
Prepared By:
501 N. Highway A1a
Jupiter, FL 33477
(561) 744-6006
March 2023

ATTACHMENT C

Page 1034 of 1273 ends

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello Golf Course, Montebello, CA – 2 Table of Contents
STUDY PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND................................................................................. 4 Limitations........................................................................................................................... 5 Background......................................................................................................................... 6 Current Redevelopment Project Overview .......................................................................... 8 Site Conceptual Plan.....................................................................................................................8 Nine-Hole Golf Course ..................................................................................................................9 Six-Hole & Ten-Hole Short Course ...............................................................................................9 NATIONAL GOLF INDUSTRY OVERVIEW .............................................................................11 National Golf Industry Overview.........................................................................................11 Key Trends in Demand................................................................................................................11 Golf Course Supply .....................................................................................................................13 Other Measures of Health ...........................................................................................................13 National Overview Summary – Potential Implications for MGC..................................................16 LOCAL/REGIONAL GOLF MARKET ANALYSIS....................................................................17 Local Market Golf Supply and Demand Overview ..............................................................17 Defining the Primary Market Area for MGC.................................................................................17 Demographic Profile ....................................................................................................................17 Golf Demand ...............................................................................................................................18 Golf Facility Supply......................................................................................................................19 Local Competitive Golf Market ...........................................................................................19 Competitive Market Fees and Significant Findings .....................................................................21 Los Angeles County Market ........................................................................................................23 Local Municipal Golf Performance Benchmarking ......................................................................23 MONTEBELLO GOLF COURSE – FEE RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................26 Methodology ......................................................................................................................26 Recommended Fee Structure ............................................................................................26 Consideration of Dynamic Pricing ...............................................................................................28 Other General Recommendations / Considerations ...................................................................28 MONTEBELLO GOLF COURSE – FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS.........................30 Basic Assumptions.............................................................................................................30 Activity, Revenue and Expense Assumptions.....................................................................31 Activity Levels and Revenues .....................................................................................................31 Cost of Sales and Operating Expenses ......................................................................................32 Estimated Future Performance (Year 1 – Year 5) ..............................................................33 Cash Flow Results – Montebello Golf Course (Year 1 – Year 5)................................................34 Conditions that could Result in Outperformance / Exceeding NGF Projections .........................34 Limiting Conditions ......................................................................................................................35

Page 1035 of 1273 ends

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello Golf Course, Montebello, CA – 3 APPENDICES...........................................................................................................................37 Appendix A – National Rounds Played Report ...................................................................38 Appendix B – Demographics, Local Market Golf Supply and Demand ...............................44 Appendix C – Fee Comparison – Local Market ..................................................................47 Appendix D – Performance Benchmarking - Regional Municipal Golf Courses ..................51

Page 1036 of 1273 ends

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello Golf Course, Montebello, CA – 4 Study Purpose and Background
The City of Montebello (“City”), California retained National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. (“NGF Consulting” or “NGF”) in late 2022 to provide consulting services related to the redevelopment and reopening of the City’s Montebello Golf Course (alternately, “Montebello GC” or “MGC”). Ed Getherall, NGF’s Director of Consulting Services, managed the consulting engagement with assistance from Research and Consulting Administrator, Jodi Reilly.

The City’s former regulation-length 18-hole golf course is in the process of being completely renovated and “reimagined”, and the resulting product will comprise a 9-hole regulation golf course, clubhouse, putting course, and lighted 6-hole Par-3 course that is expandable to 10 holes after the 9-hole course is closed for play in the evening. Adjacent to the traditional golf facility will be a fullsize Topgolf facility, which is planned for a formal groundbreaking in March 2023.

From the City’s perspective, it is important for the new golf facility to be financially self-sustaining operationally. The City retained NGF to establish the guidelines for a green fee pricing plan and strategy that should help to maximize play and revenues, while also ensuring affordable access to City residents, seniors, juniors, etc. Another key component of the consulting analysis will be estimating rounds played, revenues and expenses for the new Montebello Golf Course for the first five years of operation after reopening. NGF’s scope of services comprised:
➢ Review of available golf course development conceptual plan ➢ Market analysis, including review of market green and cart fees ➢ Municipal golf benchmarking analysis (greater Los Angeles) ➢ Green / cart fee recommendations
➢ Financial projections
NGF is also assisting City staff with the preparation of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the purpose of identifying a qualified third-party golf course management company to oversee the golf facility. The document will include, but not be limited to, key elements such as: length of term/extension and exit clauses; service standard expectations; compliance/oversight mechanisms; compensation terms (e.g., base fee plus incentive-based); required qualifications and expertise of staff; evaluation criteria, etc.

NGF is also prepared serve in an overall advisory capacity throughout the bid process. Other NGF continuing services may include:
➢ Identification of potential competent bidders through NGF databases, membership rolls and other sources, and distribution of the RFP/solicitation to the assembled database. ➢ Assistance in evaluating bid submissions received by the City and help in making appropriate comparisons and evaluations between the proposal submissions, focusing on key terms, qualifications, etc.

Page 1037 of 1273 ends

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello Golf Course, Montebello, CA – 5

LIMITATIONS
This report is intended to provide a market-based framework for the initial fee structure and general guidelines at the reopened Montebello Golf Course. The City and its operating partner will ultimately decide on the fee structure to be implemented, and it is expected that there will be a learning curve in the initial ±12 months of operation in terms of arriving at fee levels that that are congruent with demand across different categories, including time of day and day of week.

NGF’s report is based on conditions at the time of the analysis (e.g., economic and market conditions), and significant changes in those conditions may affect the relevance of the assessment.

Because future events and circumstances that cannot be predicted as of the date of this study may affect the estimates/projections contained therein, no warranty or representation is made by NGF Consulting that any of the projected values or results contained in this study will be achieved.

To the extent possible, the NGF has attempted to verify and confirm all estimates and assumptions used in this analysis. However, some assumptions may not materialize as a result of known or unknown risks and/or unanticipated events. Consequently, actual results achieved by any new golf facility during the period covered by NGF projections may vary from our estimates, and these variations may be material. As such, the National Golf Foundation accepts no liability in relation to the estimates provided herein.

Every reasonable effort has been exerted in order that the data contained in the written report reflects the most accurate and timely information possible. However, no responsibility will be assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by the City or any other data source used in preparing the report.

Page 1038 of 1273 ends

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello Golf Course, Montebello, CA – 6

BACKGROUND
The City of Montebello (“beautiful mountain” in Spanish and Italian) was founded in 1899 and incorporated in 1920. Located east of downtown Los Angeles, the city has a population of about 63,000 and hosts a mix of businesses and industries. Montebello Golf Course, adjacent to the I-60 Freeway and located east of downtown Los Angeles on Via San Clemente, was a classic, parklandstyle municipal golf course with a rich history dating back to 1928.

Built as a private country club and designed by Golf Course Architect Max Behr, MGC was acquired by the City of Montebello through a series of transactions in the early 1940s. In 1998-99, the 18- hoke, 120-acre championship layout underwent a remodel by architects David A. Rainville, ASGCA, and Gary Bye that included all new greens, tees, bunkers and cart paths, as well as the addition of 3 lakes. The former Montebello Country Club was at one time considered one of the best municipal golf courses in Southern California, though in recent years the course conditioning had deteriorated significantly.

The golf course site includes two hotels, Home2 Suites and Hilton Garden Inn, as well as the Quiet Cannon Conference and Events Center, which houses a ground floor café that formerly served the golf course. In early 2023, concurrent with the redevelopment of part of the former golf course site, the City issued an RFP for a longer-term Master Plan for the remainder of the site. Expected mixeduse development may include residential, hotel, commercial, etc. NGF notes that some or all these elements have potential to be demand drivers for both the golf courses and Topgolf.”

Page 1039 of 1273 ends

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello Golf Course, Montebello, CA – 7 Google Earth Image
Google Earth image showing the 60 Freeway to the north and surrounding land uses, including dense residential.

At the time of its closing for redevelopment, the golf facility was operated under separate private contracts for the golf pro shop, food & beverage service and golf course maintenance (the latter, until late 2020, was the purview of City public employees). Despite what NGF was told were very uneven maintenance conditions, the golf course benefitted from strong customer loyalty and the Covid-19 related demand surge in golf to host just under 72,000 paid rounds and generate nearly $2.5 million in revenue in FY 2021-22, before concession revenues. After all expenses, including depreciation of $233,300, interest expense of $71,575, and administrative charges of $355,500, the facility generated an operating loss of about ($662,000), not including Quiet Cannon rent/concession payments of $470,718. We note that operating expenses include a water utility cost of $670,000+.

Page 1040 of 1273 ends

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello Golf Course, Montebello, CA – 8

CURRENT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT OVERVIEW
On September 14, 2022, the Montebello City Council unanimously voted in favor of funding the Montebello Golf Course Improvement Project which will enhance the design, architecture, and functionality of the current golf course. The project will re-invent over 72 acres of the existing public golf course and expand hours of operation. The year-long renovations are projected to be complete by late 2023 or early 2024.

In addition to the redevelopment of the golf course, the site will be home to a three-level Topgolf facility with 102 climate-controlled outdoor hitting bays equipped with Toptracer ball-tracking technology. The venue will also include a full-service restaurant/bar. Projected opening is in the first quarter of 2024. The ground floor of Topgolf may ultimately be available for MGC golfers to use as warm up during part of the morning.

Site Conceptual Plan
The image below shows the initial conceptual plan for the Montebello GC site, as prepared by Rick Smith and Mike Angus. Below the image is edited descriptive language from the architects of the two golf courses.

Page 1041 of 1273 ends

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello Golf Course, Montebello, CA – 9 Nine-Hole Golf Course
The new nine-hole golf course is designed for players of all abilities, with multiple tees at various yardages. Bunker placement is dictated for challenge of the avid, better golfer and not a beginner.

Green sizes will be larger for multiple pin options and best quality greens turf conditions possible.

The new routing of the golf course and sequence of golf holes was designed for playability, enjoyment and safety. The golf course will be enjoyable and easy to walk. During the round, golfers will have the option to return to the Golf Clubhouse after Hole #4. During the round, golfers will have access to the existing on-course restroom after Hole #4 and again after Hole #7.

Option of playing a four-hole loop (Holes 1, 2, 3, 4) is provided. Beginners to the game of golf or people on a wait list for Topgolf might be interested in playing a four-hole loop.

The new nine-hole golf course consists of approximately 54.6 acres of irrigated turf area. Three existing lakes are to remain and incorporated into the new golf course. One of the existing lakes will be expanded as an entry feature adjacent to the new entry drive, as well as an integral part of the Short Course (more below). One of the existing lakes will be used as a feature and in view from the clubhouse, as well as an integral part of the short course.

All areas of the course will be reshaped and include all new tees and bunkers. New golf course drainage will be installed and connected to the existing and new in-ground storm drainage system.

All new efficient irrigation system will be installed. Golf cart paths will be continuous cart paths. All existing trees will be carefully reviewed and determined if appropriate to remain or be removed for playability and better turf conditions. Additional trees will be installed as needed. All new turf will be planted consisting of Bermuda grass for tees, fairways and rough, and Bentgrass for all green surfaces.

Six-Hole & Ten-Hole Short Course
The new six-hole golf course is designed for fun and players of all abilities. In addition to a relaxed, casual atmosphere, the new six-hole course will help avid, more skilled golfers practice and improve their short game. There are six holes that range from 50-90 yards in length.

In the late afternoon when the Regulation 9-Hole course closes, the six-hole short course will convert to a ten-hole short course. Four additional short holes, also ranging from 50-90 yards, will be available for play. A ten-hole short course will allow for a more substantial golf experience and create any energy and vibrant atmosphere adjacent to the new clubhouse. The ten-hole short course will be lighted for play to continue well into the night.

This unique golf experience is inclusive for golfers of all abilities, as well as non-golfers. Being located near Topgolf, people on a wait list for Topgolf might be interested in playing this short course. We estimate the six-hole course can be played in under 90 minutes. No cart paths on this course, a great walkable experience to enjoy. For maximum playability and revenue, the ten-hole course will have overhead lighting and on-course music.

The location of the six-hole course works well with the clubhouse. We recommend considering a small “Starter” type patio / gathering area adjacent to Hole 1 tee, providing golf operations control and a great atmosphere for post round enjoyment.

Small synthetic turf tees are designed into the golf course. Because of the amount of play, and short wedge shots on each hole. Real turf tees will not grow and be a maintenance issue. Also, the synthetic tees “guide” people where to play from and will increase efficiency in time of play. In addition, the synthetic tees will be more consistent playing surface and be more casual and less intimidating for the beginner or non-golfer.

Page 1042 of 1273 ends

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello Golf Course, Montebello, CA – 10 The new six-hole golf course consists of approximately 6.3 acres of irrigated turf area. The existing lake is proposed to expand to 1.2 acres. The lake expansion will add to the golf experience, provide a challenge, be memorable and be an added value to the new entry drive experience.

All areas of the course will be reshaped and include synthetic tees, new bunkers and new greens.

New golf course drainage will be installed and connected to the existing and new in-ground storm drainage system. An all-new efficient irrigation system will be installed. All existing trees will be carefully reviewed and determined if appropriate to remain or be removed for playability and better turf conditions. Additional trees will be installed as needed. All new turf will be planted consisting of Bermuda grass for tees, fairways and rough, and Bentgrass for all green surfaces.

Page 1043 of 1273 ends

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 11 National Golf Industry Overview
To assess appropriate pricing and potential market opportunities for the new Montebello Golf Course, NGF Consulting has analyzed the local and regional market, local demand/supply, and area golf facility competition. The local market analysis follows a discussion of national golf industry trends and their implications for current and prospective golf operators.

NATIONAL GOLF INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
Prior to the pandemic year of 2020, the golf industry was healthy and was continuing a macro trend toward stabilization in terms of participation and demand, though golf course closures continued to greatly outpace openings. Ultimately, total spending on golf and club memberships will always be vulnerable to outside forces such as the economy, but the game remains popular and is fortunate to have a deep well of interested prospects. The chief challenge is getting more non-golfers who express interest in playing (‘latent demand’) to give golf a try, and converting more beginners into committed participants.

Since spring 2020, golf has received a strong boost in interest and demand resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic. This was due to many factors, not the least of which is the fact that golf is an outdoor activity that is conducive to social distancing. There are indications that part of this pandemic “dividend” may be slipping away. Golf Datatech’s National Rounds Played Report showed an overall decline in year-over-year rounds played of 3.7% (See Appendix A).

Key Trends in Demand
Participation - Golf participation is one of the core measures of golf’s vitality. The national golfer number (people age 6+ that had played at least one round of golf the prior 12 months) showed net attrition between 2012 and 2017 but has generally been on the rise over the last half decade plus, increasing from 23.8 million people in 2017 to 25.1 million in 2021. When both on-course and offcourse participation are considered, 37.5 million Americans age 6+ played golf in 2021.

Traditional, on-course participation was up again in 2022, with a net increase of 500,000 golfers to

25.6 million in total. While there’s been a net gain of 1.3 million on-course golfers over the past three years, 2022 marked the fifth straight year overall of green grass participation increases. That hadn’t happened in two decades.

Gains away from the golf course are more significant, with a 13% year-over-year jump compared to the 2% rise in on-course participation. As anticipated, total off-course engagement (27.9 million) has for the first time eclipsed those who play on the course. Overall, golf’s U.S. consumer base is now a record 41.1 million, with three distinct participant groups (see graphic).

Page 1044 of 1273 ends

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 12 Rounds Played 2020-2023 – According to Golf Datatech, rounds played in 2020 finished up by

13.9% (about 60 million rounds) over 2019, with California up by 5.6%, despite Covid-related shutdowns for much of March and April. For 2021, national rounds were up by another 5.5%, while California saw an increase of 13.6%. As noted above, national rounds played for 2022 were down by 3.7% year-over-year, while Pacific region rounds decreased by 5.8% and California by 4.2%.

Much of the decline can be attributed to a decline in playable hours due to weather. Looking at the results more locally, the Los Angeles submarket experienced a decrease of 5%, while Orange County was up by 4.6%. For 2023 through April, national rounds are up by 3.1% year-over-year, while California rounds fell by 14.4% and the Los Angeles submarket by 10.6%, attributable to record winter rainfall and continual storms. (See Appendix A).

Baby Boomer Effect and Generation G (the “Golf Generation”) – As Baby Boomers age and retire over the next 15 years or so, we expect to see a measurable increase in total rounds played in the U.S. Boomers - born between 1946 and 1964 - are currently 58 to 77 years old. About 6 million of them are golfers; that’s approximately 1/4 of all golfers, and they currently play about 1/3 of all rounds. While not technically a generation, the 46-65 age cohort is the most vital group for the golf industry, accounting for the most golfers, rounds and spend in the industry – more than $9 billion in total annually. Generation G includes younger Boomers and older members of Gen X.

Page 1045 of 1273 ends

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 13 Golf Course Supply
The number of course closures has outweighed new openings for 14 consecutive years during the ongoing balancing of supply and demand. According to NGF data, since the market correction in golf course supply began in 2006, there has been a 10% cumulative reduction of U.S. golf courses in terms of 18-hole equivalents (18HEQ). In 2019 there were 279.5 permanent closures, about 40% higher than the level experienced in the prior two years. (For perspective, golf supply grew by 44% from 1986-2005). The rate of permanent closures slowed over the last two years, despite the pandemic, with 193 18HEQ shutting their doors in 2020 and 130.5 in 2021, down 53% from its peak two years ago, prior to the pandemic. In 2022, there were 105.5 18HEQ closures – the fewest in more than a decade.

The demand for land to develop residential and commercial real estate is influencing the supply correction in golf. Closures tend to be more value-oriented, public facilities in the best-supplied areas: Florida, Texas, Ohio, California, and New York had the most closures in 2019 and all rank among the top six states with the most golf courses.

Other Measures of Health
Other metrics to consider when measuring the health and trajectory of golf include:

Investment in Facilities: Investment in major renovation projects has replaced new construction as the largest source of U.S. golf course development activity. A recent NGF study with more than 1,200 responding facilities indicated total investment of more than $9 billion over the prior 5 years.

In terms of new construction, NGF is currently tracking 61 new courses (or additions) that are under construction, and another 51 that are in planning across the U.S. The former represents an increase of 74% compared to the three-year pre-pandemic average.

Increasing Diversity: A closer look at on-course participants (golfers) in 2022 shows a continuing trend towards diversification – spurred in some respect by the heightened interest and engagement being generated by off-course forms of golf. Overall, the number of non-White golfers has increased by about 1 million since 2017, while the number of women golfers grew by more than 400,000 over that time:

Page 1046 of 1273 ends

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 14 Females are up 4% to 6.4M – Has risen three straight years, with net gains of 800K (+14% since 2019). Women now comprise 25% of all on course golfers – a new high mark in representativeness.

Non-White golfers are up 9% to 5.6M – Up 32% since 2018 (+1.4M) This segment now represents 22% of all on-course golfers – also a new high mark in representativeness.

Beginners: The number of beginners rose to 3.3 million in 2022, surpassing the record of 3.2 million set in 2021 and representing an annual increase of about 1 million since 2014. The last two years have set records and exceeded the year 2000, when Tiger Woods was in his prime and drawing newcomers to the game in unprecedented numbers. Nearly 37% of beginning golfers are women, and the percentage of non-Caucasian beginners is significantly higher than the percentage of non-Caucasians in the total golf population. Overall, the industry has had eight straight years with more than 2 million beginners. However, one of the key issues the industry has faced is that many of these beginners are lost out the “back door”. NGF believes that short courses – especially those combined with some technology/gaming amenities – will play a significant role in increasing engagement and retention among beginning golfers, as well as young adults in general.

Juniors: According to NGF’s Graffis Report: “In addition to the largest-ever recorded increase in beginners (+23%), 2020 saw the most significant gain for youth golfers (+24%) since 1997.” 3.4 million Juniors played golf on a course in 2022, an increase of nearly 10% over prior year. The population of junior golfers is more diverse than the overall participation base: females comprise 34% of junior golfers, compared to 24% of all golfers, while non-Caucasians are 28% of junior golfers and 20% of all golfers.

Young Adults: the category of young adults (18 to 34-year-olds) is among the sport’s biggest customer age segments, with 6.1 million on-course participants and another 4.8 million off-course participants. Ongoing NGF survey research indicates that interest in playing among non-golfing young adults is high, with more than 5 million saying they are “very interested” in taking up the game. The fun and entertainment aspects of golf – especially when consumable in relatively short time windows - are particularly salient to this cohort, which NGF views as a positive for the new Montebello Golf Course.

Off-Course Participation: Driven primarily by the popularity and growth of Topgolf, a nontraditional form of golf entertainment, there were an estimated 23 million off-course participants (only those activities that involve hitting a ball with a golf club) in 2019, up by 2 million from 2017.

In 2020, the number grew to 24.3 million, nearly half of whom did not play on a golf course.

Increasing Diversity: As participation levels have increased the past several years, the overall golfer base has gotten more diverse. Some of the most notable U.S. participation gains have been among females and people of color. But the biggest participation increases over the past three years – since the start of the pandemic – have come in the junior ranks.

Page 1047 of 1273 ends

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 15 The net gain of almost 1 million juniors (ages 6-17) is the most significant of any on-course participation segment. At just over 3.4 million in total, the youth golfer pool is now at its highest level since 2006, just prior to the Great Recession.

Juniors account for about 13% of the on-course golfer population. Away from the course, that representation is even greater: more than one quarter of off-course golf participants are under the age of 18. As impactful as the various junior golf organizations continue to be in the industry, when it comes to introductions – and swinging a golf club in a fun, non-intimidating environment – it’s hard to downplay the important role places like Topgolf are clearly having in spurring interest and encouraging more on-course trials among the youth ranks.

And while female on-course representation has matched an all-time high, at one-quarter of all golfers, it’s even higher in the junior ranks. More than 36% of junior participants are girls.

Latent Demand: Overall interest in playing golf remains very high. NGF survey research indicates that the number of non-golfers who say they are “very interested” in taking up golf – which had doubled between 2014 and 2018 (CAGR of ±15%), has continued to steadily rise to about 17 million in 2022. The biggest cohort when it comes to latent demand is juniors. Whether it’s golf programs in schools, high energy golf entertainment venues, likeable young pros or golf being perceived as “cool” again, it’s notable that another 5 million+ kids – non-golfers – say they’re very interested in playing on a course. (MGC’s “short course” will be an ideal venue for beginning juniors).

Page 1048 of 1273 ends

Montebello City CouncilApril 10, 2024

Montebello City Council
April 10, 2024