Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The SMC is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or airport. Therefore, there will be no impacts.
4.13.3 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is required to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant:
NOI-1 The City will place the following noise-reducing best management practices on the Project construction plans:
• Construction Equipment Controls: require the contractor to utilize electric powered equipment as much as possible, heavy equipment should have proper mufflers installed, and locating any generators or compressors as far from the sensitive receptors as possible.
• Limit Operations Adjacent to Receivers: Limit the number of large pieces of equipment (i.e., bulldozers or concrete mixers) operating adjacent to receivers to one at any given time.
• Neighbor Notification. Provide notification to residential occupants nearest to the Project site at least 24 hours prior to initiation of construction activities that could result in substantial noise levels at outdoor or indoor living areas. This notification should include the anticipated hours and duration of construction and a description of noise reduction measures being implemented at the Project site. The notification should include a telephone number for local residents to call to submit complaints associated with construction noise. The notification should be posted along Huntington Drive and be visible from adjacent properties.
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.14.1 Environmental Setting
The City of San Marino was incorporated in 1913. Census data in 2019 identified the population as 13,048, which is a 0.4 percent decrease from the population identified in 2010. The 2019 Census data did not have data on the number of housing units in the city but identified that 86 percent of the housing was owner occupied.
4.14.2 Impact Analysis
CEQA THRESHOLDS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING:
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
X
Discussion
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact. The proposed Project is to improve the SMC which serves the recreational needs for the citizens of the city. The Project would not provide housing or make other infrastructure improvements. Therefore, the proposed Project would not induce population growth. No impact would occur under this threshold and no mitigation is required. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. As stated no housing would be removed; thus, no housing would need to be constructed. No existing residents would be displaced as the Project site is an existing facility and would remain as a community center. No impacts would occur.
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
4.14.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
4.15.1 Environmental Setting
Fire, police, and recreational services are provided by the City of San Marino. The San Marino Unified School District provides the school services within the City.
The goals and objectives outlined in the various elements of the City’s General Plan and Circulation Element identifies the symbiotic relationship between the City and the San Marino Unified School District and stresses collaborative efforts to best serve the citizens of the City.
4.15.2 Impact Analysis
CEQA THRESHOLDS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Recreation/Parks? X
Other public facilities? X
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire Protection
Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection at the Projectsite is provided by the San Marino Fire Department (SMFD). The closest fire station is approximately 0.5 mile east of the Project site, at 2200 Huntington Drive. The proposed Project will not expand the size of the building.
Most importantly, the Projectscope will include an updated Fire Alarm system and a new Fire Sprinkler system. The Project would not increase the City’s population indirectly or directly, nor would it substantially expand the community center; therefore, it would not increase demand on SMFD services. The Project will undergo review by the City’s Fire Department as
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
part of building plan check to ensure that the improvements are consistent with the City’s fire codes. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Police Protection
Less Than Significant Impact. Police protection is provided by the San Marino Police Department (SMPD). The closest police station to the Project is located approximately 0.5 mile east of the Project site, at 2200 Huntington Drive. The proposed Project will not expand the size of the building. The Project would not increase the City’s population indirectly or directly, nor would it substantially expand the community center; therefore, it would not increase demand on SMFD services. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Schools
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The Project would not increase the City’s population indirectly or directly, nor would it directly or indirectly affect any local schools’ need to expand facilities to serve students or the adjacent library’s need to serve patrons.
The SMC parcel contains only one parking space. Parking for the SMC exists on the south side of the building, in the parking lot of the Henry E. Huntington Middle School, through a cooperative agreement with the SMUSD for use of 48 spaces for both the SMC and the Crowell Library. The shared parking arrangement with the SMUSD appears to be a traditional feature of the SMC and the Library as historical articles in the Los Angeles Times indicate that the San Marino Women’s Club used the “school parking area” for club parking and for community events. A formal shared parking agreement between the City and the SMUSD was initiated in 2006 after the City purchased the building, and the agreement was renewed in 2019 for a 10-year term (Appendix A).
Because the SMC has historically had no dedicated parking on its parcel, nor is there room for parking within its parcel, a parking study (within Appendix E) was conducted to ensure the Project would not impact the school’s existing parking and shared parking agreement to the extent that the school would be forced to construct another parking lot for its use.
A study of potential parking impacts on the school was conducted for the Project (Appendix E).
The study identified that the 48 spaces allotted in the school parking lot was generally sufficient for the Project’s historic and future use. Given the review of the shared parking demand analysis and comparisons with the parking supply, the parking study (Appendix E) concluded that surpluses of 9 and 33 parking spaces are forecast to occur during peak weekday and weekend conditions, respectively, assuming that the 17 on-street spaces along Huntington Drive and West Drive along the library frontages are available for shared use.
The parking study evaluated the school’s monthly calendar of events compared to the existing and proposed events at the SMC, as well as the school’s daily pick up and drop off times and routes. The study identified that there may be parking conflicts during times of peak use between the SMC, library and the school when large events, such as on-going school athletic events and the morning and afternoon school drop off are scheduled at the same time. When this occurs, off-street parking is generally not available and patrons must find other parking, which typically
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
is found along the adjacent residential streets. The parking study identified that there is no need to alter the parking arrangement or parking facilities for the Huntington Middle School but did identify strategies to reduce potential parking conflicts during peak events so that the school can maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives. These strategies are represented as Mitigation Measures PS-1 through PS-5, located at the end of this section. Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure impacts would be less than significant with respect to maintaining parking and traffic flow between the school and the SMC.
Recreational/Parks
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not involve the creation of new residences or otherwise induce population growth that would generate a need for new or physically altered park facilities. The SMC is located in an urbanized area surrounded by institutional and residential uses. The site is not located within a park. In addition, the Project would occur within an existing community center with limited potential for adverse physical effects. All improvements would be confined to previously disturbed areas. This Initial Study identifies the potential impacts of the Project improvements to the SMC. However, the Project in of itself does not result in substantial adverse physical impacts …. in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives. The Project seeks to upgrade an existing community center that will provide a benefit to the city’s recreation. The SMC, which is currently used as a recreational source, only may temporarily be unavailable for use during construction. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact.
Other public facilities
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not increase the City’s population indirectly or directly, nor would it substantially expand the community center; therefore, it would not increase the number of users at libraries or other government facilities. As described in Sections
4.5 and 4.11, there are potentially significant impacts because the Project will provide a physically altered governmental facilities, which is considered a historic structure. However, the Project’s construction and operation does not cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for recreational services. Impacts would be less than significant for this criterion.
4.15.3 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are required to ensure potential impacts are less than significant:
PS-1 Shared Event Calendar. The City and the Huntington Middle School should maintain an events calendar that is accessible and shared between the City (for library and SMC events) and the Huntington Middle School which would include the date, time and duration of the event, including the expected attendance figure for each event. Special SMC events/meetings where 40 attendees or more are expected would require further coordination with the Huntington Middle School and Crowell Public Library to ensure that any overlap of activities is minimized to the extent possible. To the extent feasible, the City and the Library shall avoid scheduling classes/meetings/events held at the SMC and
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
the Crowell Public Library that begin or end such that it overlaps with the morning dropoff and afternoon pick-up peak time periods at the Huntington Middle School.
PS-2 Managed Parking Collaboration. The City and the Huntington Middle School should collaborate to implement managed parking for some spaces within the on-site parking facility (i.e., both valet parking spaces and tandem parking spaces) which would increase the effective parking supply as valet-attended parking could occur within drive aisles located throughout the on-site parking areas or other nearby lots (i.e., District Office parking lot).
PS-3 Additional Parking Study for Huntington Drive. The City will study the installation of additional parking spaces along the south side of Huntington Drive along the SMC frontage, similar to the spaces that are currently in front of the Crowell Public Library, and implement as feasible.
PS-4 Encourage Alternative Transportation. The SMC, Crowell Public Library and Huntington Middle School should encourage all of its users and employees to utilize alternative modes of transportation including but not limited to: bicycle, transit, ride-share, and other ride service opportunities to events where appropriate.
PS-5 Conduct Future Parking Study. The City will conduct a parking utilization monitoring study one year from issuance of the Project’s Certificate of Occupancy. The parking utilization monitoring study must demonstrate that on-site parking is adequate to meet Project demand during both weekday and weekend conditions. If the study shows that Project parking demand exceeds the supply of parking within the Project, the City shall propose measures to reduce spillover parking impacts, subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. The parking reduction strategies may include, but are not limited to: 1) preparation of a Valet Parking Plan, 2) provision of transit passes and/or ride-share subsidies for employees, and/or 3) subsidized off-site parking options in order to minimize on-site employee parking demand, if necessary.
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
4.16 RECREATION
4.16.1 Regulatory Setting
The proposed Project is consistent with and supports the visions and goals laid out in the San Marino General Plan, which are identified as follows:
Recreation Services
Protect existing and provide for more recreational space for residents Provide quality recreation, leisure, and social programs and facilities that meet the expectations of the residents.
Fill a gap in recreational activities that are desired by residents but not available in the private marketplace.
Develop a program schedule that provides activities for toddlers/preschoolers, youth, teen, adult, and older adults as appropriate.
Provide events throughout the year, such as holiday activities, sporting activities, and cultural arts events to enhance the sense of community.
Provide efficiently-used, well-maintained space for staff, volunteers, and participants in the recreation program.
Inventory the facilities annually to ensure the appearance, safety, and accommodations meet the needs of the program and participants.
Identify facilities that are needed by the community because existing facilities are inadequate, unavailable, offer poor conditions, or do not exist.
Manage long-term facilities needs using the information of facility use, identification of needs, and community input.
4.16.2 Environmental Setting
The San Marino Recreation Department provides a variety of recreation, leisure, and social programs and activities.
The City’s primary recreational facility is the approximately 26.5 acre Lacy Park. Amenities include tennis courts, a sports field, a play area with structures, a rose garden, picnic tables, restrooms, the Thurnher House, which is former lodging for the Public Works Director, the Boy Scout House, and parking.
The City’s General Plan also recognizes the importance of the partnership between the City of San Marino and the San Marino Unified School District regarding recreational facilities. The only swimming pool
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
available for public use is located at San Marino High School. The pool is operated and maintained by the school district but is used for both high school instruction/competitive swimming, and for the community’s swim program for all ages. The school district also owns a field on Del Mar Avenue, known as “Del Mar Field.” This is used extensively by the school district and community organizations for athletic programs.
The SMC building was originally constructed in 1952 by the San Marino Woman’s Club to hold community events and club meetings. In 2005, the City purchased the SMC from the San Marino Women’s Club to use as a community center and meeting space for senior and youth recreation programs, and community events and other activities.
4.16.3 Impact Analysis
CEQA THRESHOLDS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
XVI. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
X
Discussion
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project does not propose any residential use or other land use that may generate a population that would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks, or other recreational facilities, including the SMC. The purpose of the Project is to modernize and improve the existing SMC to enhance the City’s existing use of the facility.
Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the increased use or substantial physical deterioration of an existing neighborhood or regional parks, thus, impacts there will be no impacts. The improvements to the SMC will ensure that the facility has the most modern equipment to provide recreational services for the long-term. The facility will be unavailable to the community during construction, which is a temporary impact. Therefore, there will be a less than significant impact.
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The Project is the improvement of an existing community center. The Project does not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. This Initial Study addresses the environmental impacts of the Project.
4.16.4 Mitigation Measures
There are no mitigation measures.
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
4.17 TRANSPORTATION
A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was prepared for the proposed Project in June 2021 (Appendix E).
4.17.1 Regulatory Setting
Senate Bill 743
SB 743, passed in 2013, updated the way transportation impacts are measured in California for new development projects, to allow Californians more options to drive less. The change was made as part of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB 32]) to assist with achieving climate commitments.
In January 2019, the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued guidance relative to evaluating a project’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) to reduce GHG emissions. The CEQA Guidelines were also subsequently revised to require that lead agencies utilize VMT-related metric(s) that evaluate the significance of transportation-related impacts under CEQA for development projects, land use plans, and transportation infrastructure projects, beginning on July 1, 2020. Until that time, jurisdictions utilized a Level of Service (LOS) to analyze traffic impacts. The OPR guidelines require that projects be evaluated using VMT metrics but also allows jurisdictions to continue to use the LOS method as a secondary methodology for non-CEQA purposes.
Level of Service Evaluation Method
The Caltrans Highway Capacity Manual 6 (HCM 6) methodology provides a quantitative delay in seconds per vehicle (sec/veh) at intersections and assigns a qualitative letter grade that represents the operations of the intersection as a Level of Service (LOS). These grades range from LOS A (minimal delay) to LOS F (excessive congestion). LOS E represents at-capacity operations. Descriptions of the LOS letter grades for signalized and unsignalized intersections are provided in Table 4.17-1 (Iteris, Inc., March 30, 2021). Cities across California continue this grading method to help guide its planning efforts relative to reducing impacts on traffic flow.
Table 4.17-1: Level of Service Descriptors
LOS Description
Intersection Control Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
Signalized
Intersections
Unsignalized
Intersections
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or shortcycle length. ≤ 10 ≤ 10
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cyclelengths.
>10 and <
20 >10 and <
15 C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cyclelengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. >20 and <
35 >15 and <
25 D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression,long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
>35 and <
55 >25 and <
35
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
E
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths,and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
>55 and <
80 >35 and <
50 F
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.
> 80 > 50
Vehicle Miles Traveled Evaluation Method
The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) produced a Vehicle Miles Traveled Evaluation Tool (“VMT Evaluation Tool”), which was developed by Fehr & Peers as part of the VMT Implementation Study effort. A number of the cities in the San Gabriel Valley, including the City of San Marino, utilize this tool for its VMT analysis.
Regional Transportation Plan
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a council of governments representing the six-county region of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. Every four years SCAG updates the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the six-county region. On April 7, 2016, the SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS). The SCS outlines a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement).
City of San Marino
The City of San Marino’s Circulation Element (Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc., August 1995) for its General Plan was established to provide for a safe, convenient and efficient transportation system for the city. To meet this objective, the Circulation Element was designed to accommodate the anticipated transportation needs based on the estimated intensities of various land uses within the region. The City’s Circulation Element and the Final General Plan (2003) sets forth actions and policies pertaining to accident and traffic safety, transit and public transportation, ensuring easy and convenient access to the regional facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities, among other things. Relevant adopted policies include:
Circulation Element:
Functional Classifications of Roadways
• Policy 11. Maintain and enhance the character of Huntington Drive as a Parkway and as the main commercial/civic center of San Marino, thereby strengthening support for these commercial areas, through landscaping and pedestrian amenities in keeping with the residential character of the community.
Neighborhood Traffic Control Plans
• Policy 13: Develop and implement neighborhood traffic control plans which will reduce the speed and volume of traffic on residential streets to acceptable levels. • Policy 17: Improve safety at school drop-off areas and employ appropriate traffic control measures in the vicinity of schools to maximize safety for school children walking or bicycling to/from school.
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
Public Transportation
• Policy 18: The City shall work with public transit agencies to ensure that transit lines are routed on streets in accordance with the policies of [the] Circulation Element. • Policy 22. The City shall continue to provide para-transit (Dial-A-Ride) services to residents, to the extent that resources allow.
Non-Motorized Transportation
• Policy 23: The City shall develop a bicycle plan which provides opportunities for safe, recreational bike usage and provides continuity between land uses in San Marino. • Policy 24: The City shall evaluate the sidewalk system throughout the City, in all neighborhoods, and where approval for sidewalk installation is provided by residents. • Policy 25: In areas of the City, where commercial or public facilities are located, the City shall implement measures to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle environment, to attempt to slow passing vehicular traffic, and to ensure handicapped accessibility in accordance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
• Policy 26: Install pedestrian-activated signals, where appropriate, and crosswalks to provide safe, adequate pedestrian accessibility for shopping areas and residences.
Transportation Demand Management
• Policy 36: The City shall encourage its residents and employees to utilize alternative modes of transportation such as buses, light rail transit, carpools, Dial-A-Ride vehicles, bicycles and walking and shall take measures to ensure that these alternate modes are available in the City. • Policy 37: The City shall encourage Transportation Demand Management programs as a mechanism to reduce parking demands in the City.
In addition to the City’s General Plan and Circulation Element, the City of San Marino developed a Huntington Drive Safe Streets Corridor Plan that is focused on providing a vision for the future of the Huntington Drive corridor, from San Gabriel Avenue (east of the Project site) to Garfield Avenue (west of the Project site).
4.17.2 Environmental Setting
The Project site is located at 1800 Huntington Drive, along the south side of Huntington Drive, approximately 400 feet west of the intersection with West Drive. Huntington Drive, oriented in a northeast-southwest direction, is a six-lane divided roadway, representing the major east-west corridor through the city. Huntington Drive is designated as a Parkway in the City of San Marino’s Circulation Element (Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc., August 1995). The travel lanes are separated by a 60- to 65- foot median parkway, and the posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour. Huntington Drive in the Project vicinity directly serves mostly commercial and institutional uses, though there are some residences with frontage (driveway access) on the roadway (Iteris, Inc., March 30, 2021).
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
The Project site’s main access is through three driveways on Huntington Drive, one of which will be removed with the Project. Alternative access is provided via West Drive, through the Library and School District parking lot.
In 2021, the City of San Marino conducted a Citywide Traffic Study ([Study], Iteris, Inc., March 30, 2021) that studied multiple intersections as part of the City’s efforts to develop implementable safety and/or traffic calming improvements within the city. Intersections studied around the Project area included West Drive/Huntington Drive (east of the Project site) and Virginia Road/Huntington Drive (west of the Project site).
The Citywide Traffic Study identified that LOS “D” is generally acceptable. The Study found that the intersection West Drive/Huntington Drive operates at a LOS “D” in both peak AM and peak PM hours, and the intersection of Virginia Road/Huntington Drive operates at a LOS “D” in the AM and “C” in the PM peak hours. Therefore, the intersections currently operate at acceptable levels.
4.17.3 Impact Analysis
CEQA THRESHOLDS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
XVII. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC:
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
§ 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. A Citywide Traffic Study (Iteris, Inc., March 30, 2021) was prepared that utilized traffic data and community feedback to develop implementable safety and/or traffic calming improvements within the city. The Traffic Impact Study prepared for the Project (Appendix E) analyzed four intersections in the Project vicinity utilizing data from the Citywide Traffic Study. The Traffic Study determined that the Project is expected to generate 19 new vehicle trips (13 inbound trips and 6 outbound trips) during the weekday AM peak hour. During the
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
weekday PM peak hour, the proposed Project is expected to generate 25 new vehicle trips (12 inbound trips and 13 outbound trips). Over a 24-hour period, the proposed Project is forecast to generate approximately 312 new daily trip ends (156 inbound trips and 156 outbound trips) during a typical weekday. Based on application of the City’s LOS standards identified in the Citywide Traffic Study, the proposed Project is not required to identify or construct intersection improvements at any of the study intersections.
The proposed Project is a modification of an existing building along a street that has a sidewalk for pedestrian use. A transit stop is located east of the Project at West Drive/Huntington Drive and at Virginia Road/Huntington Drive. No changes to the pedestrian or transit facilities are proposed. The Project is therefore in alignment with the City’s Circulation Element, the Final General Plan, the 2014 Draft San Marino Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, the San Marino Safe Routes to School Program, and the City of San Marino Huntington Drive Safe Streets Corridor Plan goals to promote pedestrian and bicycle safety and provide appropriate and supportive active transportation infrastructure. Further, development of the proposed Project will not prevent the City from completing any proposed transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. It is therefore determined that the proposed Project will result in a less than significant impact on active transportation and public transit in the vicinity of the Project site. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact. Consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, the City of San Marino has adopted significance criteria for transportation impacts based on vehicle miles traveled for land use development projects. The proposed San Marino Center Improvement project meets the criteria to be screened out of VMT analysis as it will serve the local population and is considered a community institution, thereby shortening travel distances and reducing VMT (refer to Appendix D). Thus, the proposed Project can be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact based on State guidance because it would reduce VMT by shortening trip lengths, similar to local-serving retail developments and local-serving projects. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? No Impact. Project improvements occur solely off highway and no road improvements are planned. Traffic may be temporarily slowed or diverted around the work site during utility installation, but all State traffic controls would be in place for the time of any construction that must occur in the street.
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant. The proposed Project is required to comply with the City’s development review process including review by the City Fire Department for compliance with all applicable fire code requirements for construction and access to the site. The access and circulation features within the site would accommodate emergency ingress and egress by fire trucks, police units, and ambulance/paramedic vehicles. Emergency vehicles would enter the Project site using the driveway entrance on Huntington Drive, or alternatively West Drive. The internal circulation includes ample area that can accommodate fire trucks. The roadway paving and design as well as the final design plans for the Project site’s ingress and egress will be reviewed by the City Engineer for appropriate width and lanes. All access lanes will meet City requirements pursuant to the Uniform Building and Fire Code to ensure adequate emergency access throughout the Project site.
Therefore, impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.17.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
A Cultural Resources Assessment for the proposed Project was prepared by BCR Consulting in May 2021 (Appendix C). The assessment addressed the ethnographic and archaeology of the Native American occupation in San Marino, as summarized in this section.
Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Land File Search In January 2021, BCR Consulting requested that the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) conduct a search of its Sacred Lands File to determine if cultural resources significant to Native Americans have been recorded in the Project footprint and/or buffer area. The NAHC responded stating that the search of its Sacred Lands File revealed positive results and to contact the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation.
City of San Marino AB 52 Tribal Consultation
The City of San Marino conducted tribal consultation in accordance with AB52 prior to adoption of the environmental documentation by sending letters on June 1, 2021 to the following tribes:
• Mr. Sam Dunlap, Cultural Resources Director, Gabrieleno/Tongva Nation • Chief Anthony Morales, San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • Chairman Andrew Salas, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
4.18.1 Environmental Setting
The Gabrielino are believed to have first encountered Europeans when Spanish explorers reached California's southern coast during the 15th and 16th centuries (Appendix C). The land of the City of San Marino, which was part of the San Gabriel Mission, was initially occupied by Gabrielino (Tongva) Indians, who had a village located on what is now the Huntington School.
During the AB 52 consultation the City and a Kizh representative discussed the Kizh historical landscapes, ceremonial places, subsurface artifacts, and other Kizh tribal cultural resources. Significant, confidential information was shared, including Kizh oral history, elder testimony, testimony by Kizh Certified Archaeologist, John Torres, data on Native American discoveries in proximity to the Project, historical information on Kizh cultural and historical uses of the area at and surrounding the Project site, historical maps, and relevant historical literature.
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
4.18.2 Impact Analysis
CEQA THRESHOLDS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES:
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k), or
X
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
X
Discussion
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. According to PRC Chapter 2.5, Section 21074, tribal cultural resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and items with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources as defined in Section 5020.1.
There are no resources that have been identified as eligible for listing to the California Register of Historic Places within or near the Project site. However, based on AB 52 tribal consultation, the Kizh representative requested mitigation measures to be included in the Project. As such, Mitigation Measure TRC-1, TRC-2, and TRC-3 are included to reduce potential impacts to potential Native American resources. Mitigation measures are located at the end of this section.
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.
In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project site is previously disturbed land currently under commercial land use. Although ground-disturbing activities would occur on previously disturbed land, there is the potential to uncover unanticipated tribal cultural resources. There are no resources that have been identified as significant within or near the Project site. However, based on AB 52 tribal consultation, the Kizh provided information pertaining to tribal history. identified that various tribal cultural resources generally exist in the region, and requested mitigation measures to be included in the Project. As such, Mitigation Measure TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR-3 are included to reduce potential impacts to potential Tribal Cultural Resources.
4.18.3 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant:
TCR-1 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities A. The project applicant, lead agency or construction contractor shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “grounddisturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations. “Ground- disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.
B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.
C. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground- disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered tribal cultural resources (TCRs), including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., , as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.
D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.
E. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist.
The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.
TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects A. Native American human remains are defined in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.
B. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then all construction activities shall immediately cease. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and all ground-disturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed.
C. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
D. Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the Kizh monitor determines in his/her sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the project manager express consent of that determination (along with any other mitigation measures the Kizh monitor and/or archaeologist deems necessary). (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f).)
E. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (non-TCR) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
F. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
TCR-3: Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains:
A. As the Most Likely Descendant (“MLD”), the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.
B. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created.
C. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials.
D. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains.
If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed.
E. In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the project applicant/developer and/or landowner, before ground-disturbing activities may resume on the project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects.
F. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.
G. The Tribe will work closely with the project’s qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data recovery-related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC.
The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.19.1 Environmental Setting
Water is supplied to the City of San Marino by California-American Water Company (CAWC) and the Sunny Slope Water Company. Wastewater is managed and treated by the City of San Marino Public Works Department. Electricity is provided by Southern California Edison (SCE), and natural gas is provided by The Gas Company (TGC). Solid waste is hauled by Athens Services to various landfills.
4.19.2 Impact Analysis
CEQA THRESHOLDS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
X
Discussion
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project is to improve the existing community center to upgrade the façade and interior of the building to maximize use.
The center is served by all existing utilities. Minor modifications of the utilizes planned as part of the Project include replacing the overhead electrical service with an underground electrical service, including a minor electrical upgrade to today’s standards, and a new landscaping water service and meter to replace the existing irrigation lines. Additional water lines will be run to service the new fire sprinkler system. These upgrades are minor modifications and do not represent a significant increase over service capacity that is currently provided. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is to upgrade an existing community center.
The water demand after the proposed Project will be similar to the current demand. The CAWC has sufficient water supplies available to service the Project. Therefore, there will be a less than significant impact.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is to upgrade an existing community center.
The wastewater generated after the proposed Project will be similar to current volumes. The City has sufficient capacity available to service the Project. Therefore, there will be a less than significant impact.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is to upgrade an existing community center.
The solid waste demand after the proposed Project will be similar to the current demand.
The City’s General Plan identifies the following objectives and policies regarding waste disposal and recycling:
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
Objective NR.10 Continue to improve waste diversion and recycling programs.
Policies:
• Review programs that allow for mixing waste either in a single recycling bin or with other refuse, and adopt the most appropriate, cost-effective latest technologies. • Work with contractors to give the City more control over the waste diversion program, including reporting.
• Implement appropriate green waste recycling by the City’s public works department.
The City’s solid waste hauler contracts with a waste hauler that can dispose of waste at various sites in Los Angeles County. Waste collected from San Marino residences is taken directly to the Athens Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in the City of Industry where it is separated for recyclables and disposed of or recycled.
Construction debris, such as wood from the shake roof which will be completely replaced, and various materials will be generated from Project construction, but the amount is anticipated to be minor and within the limits that can be handled by the waste system and or recycled. The waste hauler also typically works with contractors to encourage them to separate inert construction materials, which can be recycled, from non-recyclable materials. Given that the waste hauler has an active recycling program and can utilize multiple landfills within Los Angeles County, there will be a less than significant impact.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste generation, transport, and disposal are intended to decrease solid waste generation through mandatory reductions in solid waste quantities (e.g., through recycling and composting of green waste) and the safe and efficient transport of solid waste.
The Project would be required to comply with all applicable solid waste statutes and regulations; as such, impacts related to solid waste statutes and regulations would be less than significant.
4.19.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
4.20 WILDFIRE
4.20.1 Environmental Setting
The City’s General Plan identifies that the City has a very low risk and a very low incidence of structural and brush fires. There are typically only a few significant structural fires a year.
The City General Plan indicates that the only area of high wildfire sensitivity is the Kewen Canyon estate area located approximately 3 miles east of the SMC. The steep terrain, growth of vegetation, tree canopy, and dry weather in the Kewen Canyon/Kewen Drive area contribute to the potentially hazardous conditions. The City Fire Department regularly patrols the area and works with property owners in the area to clear brush around homes as well as conduct emergency preparedness activities.
The SMC is in the urbanized area of San Marino, where there is no risk of wildfire.
4.20.2 Impact Analysis
CEQA THRESHOLDS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
XX. WILDFIRE:
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, Would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X
Discussion
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
Less Than Significant. The proposed Project is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone as identified CalFire or the City of San Marino. The nearest potential wildfire area is located approximately 3 miles east in the Kewen Canyon/Kewen Drive area. The Project is however located off of Huntington Drive, which would be an evacuation route for residents of that area.
The San Marino Police Department, California Highway Patrol, and other cooperating law enforcement agencies have primary responsibility for evacuations. These agencies work together to assess fire behavior and spread, which ultimately influence evacuation decisions. Evacuation routes are generally identified by fire protection and law enforcement personnel, are determined based on the location and extent of the incident and include as many predesignated transportation routes as possible. The proposed Project would be served by an existing circulation system that provides access to the Project site and facilitates vehicular circulation throughout the project area in accordance with Riverside County and State standards. Depending on the nature of the emergency requiring evacuation, it is anticipated that the majority of the Project area users would exit the Project area via the existing roadway circulation system. Project implementation would not impair access to these roadways should an evacuation be required. It is not anticipated that the Project would impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts will be less than significant. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact. The proposed Project is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone according to CalFire and the City. The Project is located in an urban area with no slopes and flat topography. The Project will not exacerbate wildlife risks, therefore, the Project will not exacerbate a wildfire risk and therefore expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. There are no impacts. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. The proposed Project is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone according to CalFire and the City. The Project is located in an urban area with no slopes and flat topography; and therefore, does not require the installation or maintenance of associated wildfire prevention infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary impacts to the environment. Project improvements include the installation of a fire sprinkler system to quickly eliminate a fire within the building. Therefore, there are no impacts. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
No Impact. The proposed Project is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone according to CalFire and the City. The Project is located in an urban area with no slopes and flat topography. The proposed construction and operational activities would not expose people or structures to risks involving post-fire slope instability or drainage changes. No impacts would occur.
4.20.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
Discussion
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially SignificantImpact. As stated in this Initial Study, although the proposed Project would not affect the quality of the environment with respect to the habitat of a plant or animal community, the mitigation identified in the Initial Study would reduce such impacts through the provision of adherence to the MTBA and its protection of nesting birds and the on-site trees through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and Mitigation Measure BIO-2. With mitigation, impacts related to this issue are considered to be less than significant.
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
Pursuant to AB52, the City and the Kizh developed Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3 to reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the potential impacts to California pre-history can be mitigated to less than significant.
Additionally, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 provides a process to address potential buried, unanticipated cultural, archaeological and/or paleontological resources are discovered.
With respect to important examples of the major periods of California history or pre-history as discussed in Section 4.5, the San Marino Community Center is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic places, is listed on the California Register of Historic Places, and is considered as a City landmark under the standards of the City’s code. As such, CEQA requires that any proposed project activities should be consistent with “plans for rehabilitation to ensure that the undertaking maintains consistency with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties” (36 CFR, Part 68) in order to be less than significant. PRC Section 5020.1(q) defines a “substantial adverse change” to mean the demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of an historical resource would be impaired.
The Project, in its current design, does not meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The current Project design would alter the building in a manner that the significance of the resource would be impaired; and therefore, there would be a Potentially Significant Impact in that it would eliminate an important example of a major period of San Marino history.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of San Marino is currently built out. Most projects are commercial and residential remodeling projects. Any overlap of Project construction and construction with other projects in the City would be less than significant because of the small nature of the work and the short timing. Relative to operations, the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the Project (as discussed in Section 4.17), identified that assuming a 1 percent City growth rate by the time the Project is fully operational (assumed to be 2023), the Project would not cause a cumulative impact. Therefore, the impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed Project may result in direct and indirect impacts such as exposure to hazards associated with hazardous waste and public services. However, adherence to standard requirements and identified mitigation measures (Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3 and PS-1 through PS-5) would reduce these impacts to less than significant.
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
5 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures were identified to reduce impacts to less than significant:
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1: If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. The biologist conducting the clearance survey should document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities should stay outside of a no-disturbance buffer. The size of the no-disturbance buffer will be determined by the wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of noise and/or surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the nest and the construction activity, type and duration of construction activity, ambient noise, species habituation, and topographical barriers. These factors will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis when developing buffer distances. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest will be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel will be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor should be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within the buffer area can resume.
BIO-2: Prior to construction, a certified arborist shall be retained to flag trees that will be avoided and observe excavation activities that are planned within the root zone of the protected trees and assist the contractor in conducting excavation in a manner that will not impact the tree roots.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1: Provision for Unanticipated Cultural/Archaeological Buried Resources: In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease, and a qualified cultural/archaeologist specialist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the Project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the Project. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall be followed, and the treatment of discovered Native American remains shall comply with State codes and regulations of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Any significant archaeological resources found shall be preserved as determined necessary by the Project
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
archaeologist and offered to a qualified repository for curation. Any resulting reports will be submitted to the South Central Coastal Information Center.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS WASTE
HAZ-1: Unanticipated Encounters With Hazardous Waste: Following the abatement of hazardous materials by contractors licensed to remove said materials, should materials similar to those identified in “Comprehensive Hazardous Materials Survey Report” (Vista, November 2021), or if other forms of suspect hazardous materials are discovered during the remaining work activities, maintenance personnel and/or contractors must immediately cease work activities which may initiate an exposure episode, and notify the City Public Works Department manager. All such materials should be assumed to be hazardous and handled accordingly until properly tested and assessed.
HAZ-2: Construction Safety and Evacuation Plan: Prior to the start of Project construction, the City shall designate construction equipment and materials safety and staging areas for the City employees and contractors to follow during construction. The staging area plan shall be prepared collaboratively with and/or approved by the San Marino Unified School District and Huntington School personnel. Additional items to be addressed in the plan shall include but not be limited to safety barrier locations, identifying a clear walking path for students, posting hazard signs, and identifying a construction communication protocol between City and School staff.
Additionally, the plan shall address the evacuation protocol for the school, and procedures that the City and contractor must adhere to in the event of a school evacuation during SMC construction.
HAZ-3: Shared Evacuation Plan – Operations. The City shall work with the San Marino Unified School District and Huntington School to create an evacuation plan that addresses procedures if an emergency occurs that effects both facilities, as well as emergency communication protocols when an emergency would impact the parking lot for both facilities.
NOISE
NOI-1 The City will place the following noise-reducing best management practices on the Project construction plans:
• Construction Equipment Controls: require the contractor to utilize electric powered equipment as much as possible, heavy equipment should have proper mufflers installed, and locating any generators or compressors as far from the sensitive receptors as possible.
• Limit Operations Adjacent to Receivers: Limit the number of large pieces of equipment (i.e., bulldozers or concrete mixers) operating adjacent to receivers to one at any given time.
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
• Neighbor Notification. Provide notification to residential occupants nearest to the Project site at least 24 hours prior to initiation of construction activities that could result in substantial noise levels at outdoor or indoor living areas. This notification should include the anticipated hours and duration of construction and a description of noise reduction measures being implemented at the Project site. The notification should include a telephone number for local residents to call to submit complaints associated with construction noise. The notification should be posted along Huntington Drive and be visible from adjacent properties.
PUBLIC SERVICES
PS-1 Shared Event Calendar. The City and the Huntington Middle School should maintain an events calendar that is accessible and shared between the City (for library and SMC events) and the Huntington Middle School which would include the date, time and duration of the event, including the expected attendance figure for each event. Special SMC events/meetings where 40 attendees or more are expected would require further coordination with the Huntington Middle School and Crowell Public Library to ensure that any overlap of activities is minimized to the extent possible. To the extent feasible, the City and the Library shall avoid scheduling classes/meetings/events held at the SMC and the Crowell Public Library that begin or end such that it overlaps with the morning dropoff and afternoon pick-up peak time periods at the Huntington Middle School.
PS-2 Managed Parking Collaboration. The City and the Huntington Middle School should collaborate to implement managed parking for some spaces within the on-site parking facility (i.e., both valet parking spaces and tandem parking spaces) which would increase the effective parking supply as valet-attended parking could occur within drive aisles located throughout the on-site parking areas or other nearby lots (i.e., District Office parking lot).
PS-3 Additional Parking Study for Huntington Drive. The City will study the installation of additional parking spaces along the south side of Huntington Drive along the SMC frontage, similar to the spaces that are currently in front of the Crowell Public Library, and implement as feasible.
PS-4 Encourage Alternative Transportation. The SMC, Crowell Public Library and Huntington Middle School should encourage all of its users and employees to utilize alternative modes of transportation including but not limited to: bicycle, transit, ride-share, and other ride service opportunities to events where appropriate.
PS-5 Conduct Future Parking Study. The City will conduct a parking utilization monitoring study one year from issuance of the Project’s Certificate of Occupancy. The parking utilization monitoring study must demonstrate that on-site parking is adequate to meet Project demand during both weekday and weekend conditions. If the study shows that Project parking demand exceeds the supply of parking within the Project, the City shall propose measures to reduce spillover parking impacts, subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. The parking reduction strategies may include, but are not limited to: 1) preparation of a Valet Parking Plan, 2) provision of transit passes
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
and/or ride-share subsidies for employees, and/or 3) subsidized off-site parking options in order to minimize on-site employee parking demand, if necessary.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
TCR-1 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities D. The project applicant, lead agency or construction contractor shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “grounddisturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations. “Ground- disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.
E. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.
F. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground- disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered tribal cultural resources (TCRs), including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., , as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.
D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.
E. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist.
The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.
TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects G. Native American human remains are defined in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
H. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then all construction activities shall immediately cease. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and all ground-disturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed.
I. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
J. Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the Kizh monitor determines in his/her sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the project manager express consent of that determination (along with any other mitigation measures the Kizh monitor and/or archaeologist deems necessary). (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f).)
K. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (non-TCR) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
L. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.
TCR-3: Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains:
H. As the Most Likely Descendant (“MLD”), the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.
I. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created.
J. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials.
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
K. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains.
If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed.
L. In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the project applicant/developer and/or landowner, before ground-disturbing activities may resume on the project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects.
M. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.
N. The Tribe will work closely with the project’s qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data recovery-related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC.
The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
6 REFERENCES
Architectural Resources Group, Inc., October 6, 2020 (ARG 2020). City of San Marino Citywide Historic Resources Survey Report.
CalFire, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-engineering/wildland-hazards-buildingcodes/fire-hazard-severity-zones/-maps, as accessed 6/18/21.
Castillo, Edward D. 1978. “The Impact of Euro-American Exploration and Settlement,” In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 99-127. William C.
Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Electric Railway Historical Association, “Sierra Madre Line” as accessed http://www.erha.org/pensm.htm on 6/19/2021.
City of San Marino Municipal Code.
City of San Marino, October 8, 2003. Final Draft General Plan.
City of San Marino (February 5, 2018). Huntington Drive Safe Streets Corridor Plan.
City of San Marino, February 13, 2019 (CSM, Feb 2019). Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
City of San Marino, May 2019. City of San Marino Sewer System Management Plan.
Federal Rail Administration (FRA) Guidelines (Report Number 293630‐1), December 1998. gkk Works (December 21, 2017). Program Needs Assessment Report Amendment 2017 for the San Marino Unified School District. Amendment to Original Document prepared by Carmichael-Kem Architects.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc., August 1995. City of San Marino Circulation Element.
San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, January 22, 2008 (SGBWQA, January 2008). San Gabriel Basin Groundwater Quality Management and Remediation Plan §406 Plan.
San Marino Tribune, January 7, 2016. A Tradition of Volunteerism: San Marino Woman’s Club.
State Water Resources Control Board Geotracker, as accessed 6/6/21:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=1800+Huntington+D rive%2C+San+Marino#
State of California, Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF, as accessed May 22, 2021.
State Water Resources Control Board Geotracker, as accessed 6/6/21:
Initial Study
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California January 2022
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=1800+Huntington+Driv e%2C+San+Marino#
United States Dept of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, as accessed May 22, 2021 (USDA May 2021)
Vista Environmental Consulting (Vista), November 29, 2021. Comprehensive Hazardous Materials Survey Report.
January 2022
Appendix A
Parking Agreement – City of San Marino and SMUSD
January 2022
Appendix B
Air Quality / Greenhouse Gas Analysis
January 2022
Appendix B-1
Energy Analysis
January 2022
Appendix C
Cultural Resources Report
January 2022
Appendix C-1
Recommendations Memo, Chattel Historic Preservation Consultants
January 2022
Appendix D
Noise Analysis
January 2022
Appendix E
Traffic Impact Analysis
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
January 2022
Appendix C
Cultural Resources Report
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
San Marino Center Renovation Project
City of San Marino, Los Angeles County, California
Prepared for:
Julie Gilbert
Project Manager
ELMT Consulting
[email protected]
909-496-5960
Prepared by:
David Brunzell, M.A., RPA
and Kara Brunzell, M.A.
BCR Consulting LLC
505 West Eighth Street
Claremont, California 91711
Project No. EMT2101
Database Information:
Type of Study: Intensive Survey
Study Area: 1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino
Keywords: San Marino Woman’s Club
USGS Quadrangle: 7.5-minute El Monte, California 1981
September 2, 2021
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
BCR Consulting LLC is under contract to ELMT Consulting to conduct a Cultural Resources Assessment of 1800 West Huntington Boulevard (the subject property) located in the City of San Marino (City), Los Angeles County, California. The City of San Marino is proposing to change the architectural style of the building façade from its current style to a “Spanish Mediterranean” style that is similar to the current adjacent Crowell Library (project). This study is being conducted to determine whether the project could potentially cause a significant impact to any historical resources, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A cultural resources records search, additional research, intensive field survey, sacred land file search, and paleontological overview were conducted for the study.
The records search and additional research revealed that three previous cultural resource studies have taken place resulting in the recording of six cultural resources within a half-mile radius of the subject property. The subject property was subject to one previous cultural resource assessment that resulted in one cultural resource (the San Marino Woman’s Club) identified within its boundaries. This previous study recommended that the San Marino Woman’s Club was eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) under Criterion A, which also means it is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) under Criterion 1, for association with an event important to the history of the San Marino community. The study also recommended that the property retained sufficient integrity to convey its historic eligibility. The California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with this recommendation on August 5, 2011.
It is recognized as listed in the California Register in the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD). During the fieldwork, BCR Consulting identified the San Marino Woman’s Club and confirmed that its condition is good and that it continues to retain sufficient integrity to convey California Register eligibility. No other cultural resources were identified within the subject property boundaries.
Based on these results, BCR Consulting has discovered that the San Marino Woman’s Club is listed in the California Register under Criterion 1, and recommends that this resource retains integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To avoid a substantial adverse impact to a historic property, any proposed project activities should be consistent with “plans for rehabilitation to ensure that the undertaking maintains consistency with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties” (36 CFR part 68; see https://www.nps. gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation.htm). The Standards are intended to pertain to rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility while ensuring that the historic character of a property be retained and preserved. Preservation is generally understood to include the avoidance of removal of historic materials and alterations to its visible characteristics. Project design should be carried out in consultation with a professional that meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Architecture (see http://www.nps. gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_9.htm).
The project, as currently designed, does not meet the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Therefore, the Project will materially alter a historic resource and cause a potentially significant impact in accordance with 14 CCR Section 15064.5 (b).
A summary of the recommendations for options are as follows and are detailed further in the Conclusions and Recommendations Section.
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
1. Redesign the project to reduce its impacts to less than significant as described in 14 CCR Section 15064.5 (b)(3) and 14 CCR Section 15126.4 (b)(1) by designing it to conform the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, in consultation with a professional architect who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Architecture. OR
2. Prepare Historical American Building Survey (HABS)-type documentation for local curation. This would reduce project impacts but would not reduce the negative impact to less than significant as identified in 14 CCR Section 15126.4 (b)(2).
Other recommendations are made to reduce impacts to less than significant as follows:
Accidental Discoveries. If previously undocumented cultural resources are identified during earthmoving activities associated with development of the project site, a qualified archaeologist should be contacted to assess the nature and significance of the find, diverting construction excavation if necessary.
Human Remains. If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ..................................................................................................ii INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................... 1 EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS .......................................................................................... 1 INTERIOR ALTERATIONS............................................................................................ 1 BUILDING GROUNDS ALTERATIONS ........................................................................ 3 REGULATORY CONTEXT..................................................................................................... 3 FEDERAL ...................................................................................................................... 3 STATE ........................................................................................................................... 4 CITY OF SAN MARINO................................................................................................. 6 NATURAL SETTING .............................................................................................................. 7 CULTURAL SETTING............................................................................................................ 7 PREHISTORIC CONTEXT............................................................................................ 7 ETHNOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 7 HISTORY....................................................................................................................... 8 METHODS .............................................................................................................................. 9 RESEARCH ................................................................................................................... 9 FIELD SURVEY...........................................................................................................10 PERSONNEL...............................................................................................................10 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................10 RESEARCH .................................................................................................................10 FIELD SURVEY...........................................................................................................13 CALIFORNIA REGISTER EVALUATION....................................................................14 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO HISTORICAL RESOURCES ................................15 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................18 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................21
FIGURES
1. Regional and Subject Property Location..................................................................... 2 TABLES
A. Cultural Resource Reports within One Half-Mile of Subject Property .......................11 B. Cultural Resources within One Half-Mile of Subject Property ...................................11
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
APPENDICES
A: DPR 523 FORMS/CALIFORNIA SHPO CONCURRENCE
B: PALEONTOLOGICAL OVERVIEW
C: SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH
D: RESUMES OF PROJECT PERSONNEL
E: PROPOSED PROJECT EXHIBIT
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
BCR Consulting LLC (BCR Consulting) is under contract to ELMT Consulting to conduct a Cultural Resources Assessment of 1800 West Huntington Boulevard (the subject property) located in the City of San Marino (City), Los Angeles County, California. The project site is located within Section 2 of Township 1 South, Range 12 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian. It is depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) El Monte, California (1981)
7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 1). The current study is being conducted to determine whether a development project could potentially cause a significant impact to any historical resources, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A cultural resources records search, additional research, intensive field survey, sacred land file search, and paleontological overview were conducted for the study.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Exterior Alterations
Exterior alterations include the following (see Appendix E for project renderings):
• Replace the decorative wrought iron posts along the front patio with stucco columns; • Replace the wood shingled roof with the terra cotta tile; • Replace doors and windows to include grid patterns similar to the library windows; type of windows will be newer energy efficient;
• Add wood accents where appropriate and complementary such as around windows and the entry door consistent with features of architectural style of neighboring library; • Add an open patio area at the back of the building that will have a stucco wall and a wood trellis ceiling similar to the open space areas at the library; • Modify concrete walkway and front patio to enhance design elements and ADA compliance;
• Remove canopies over patio and windows that were added to the building after its original construction; new paint and stucco repair that will match the color of the library; and,
• Various upgrades for ADA compliance.
Exterior features that will remain intact or will not be impacted by the proposed alterations include the following:
• The cornerstone of the building inscribed with “San Marino Women’s Club” near the building entry (plans require that this will be protected in place), and; • Landscaping, including the two large oak trees adjacent to the front entry, grassy areas and urban landscaping around the west and south of the building.
Interior Alterations
The features to be renovated and/or replaced include the following. • Add two offices (for a total of three offices);
• Install a folding wall in the main room;
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
• Upgrade the kitchen, bathrooms, ceiling tiles, and electrical and mechanical systems to current code standards;
• Remove and replace light and plumbing fixtures with current-style fixtures • Various upgrades for ADA compliance;
• Update paint and carpet; and
• Conduct other deferred maintenance items.
Interior features that are not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed alterations include the following:
• Entryway flooring containing the San Marino Women’s Club insignia (plans require to protect in place)
• Fireside room fireplace and cabinetry; and
• Stage.
Building Grounds Alterations
Some changes will occur outside of the building envelope. Site preparation for new ADA parking and loading, sidewalk repair, parking lot paving, and landscaping alterations as necessary will only require surficial disturbance. Other alterations will require excavation that will generally vary between 2 to 3 feet wide by 1 to 3 feet deep, depending on the activity.
The activities that require excavation include but are not limited to the following:
• Install new domestic water service and sewer lines to be installed in the same area as the existing lines;
• Install new landscape irrigation meter, with pipe replacements, as necessary, in the same location;
• Install new, separate water service for the fire sprinkler system; • Install new footings for new patio walls and pilasters, trash enclosure, building columns; and,
• Repair existing building footings and slab where applicable. • Replace overhead electrical service with new underground electrical service;
REGULATORY CONTEXT
Federal and state regulations recognize the public’s interest in historical resources and the public benefit of preserving such resources. These regulations include federal historical resource registration programs designed to assist in the identification and evaluation of resources and to determine whether these resources should be considered historical resources. Properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) are subject to federal laws that require consideration of potential impacts of proposed projects on historical resources. These properties should also receive special consideration in the planning processes, or merit consideration as candidates for individual protection.
Federal
Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations at 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800 (36 CFR 800) is
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
required for an undertaking that receives federal funding. 36 CFR 800 implements Section 106, which must “take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register.” It defines the steps required to identify historic properties (i.e. resources eligible for or listed in the National Register).
National Register of Historic Places. The criteria for significance for the National Register are defined by the U.S. Department of the Interior under the National Park Service and published in the National Register Bulletin, listed below. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:
A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. That are associated with the lives of significant persons in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register (National Park Service 1997).
State
CEQA (PRC Chapter 2.6, Section 21083.2 and CCR Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15064.5) calls for the evaluation and recordation of historic resources. The criteria for determining the significance of impacts to cultural resources are based on Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and Guidelines for the Nomination of Properties to the California Register. Properties eligible for listing in the California Register and subject to review under CEQA are those meeting the criteria for listing in the California Register, National Register, or designation under a local ordinance.
California Register of Historical Resources. For a property to be eligible for inclusion on the California Register, one or more of the following criteria (CCR 4852 [b]). must be met:
1. It is associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; and/or
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources” (CCR 4852 [d][2]).
Fifty years is normally considered sufficient time for a potential historical resource, and in order that the evaluation remain valid for a minimum of five years after the date of this report, all resources older than 45 years will be evaluated.
The California Register also requires that a resource possess integrity (CCR 4852 [c]).
Integrity is the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described above and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance.
Historical resources that have been rehabilitated or restored may be evaluated for listing.
Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. It must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is proposed for eligibility. Alterations over time to a resource or historic changes in its use may themselves have historical, cultural, or architectural significance.
Assembly Bill 52. California Assembly Bill 52 was approved on September 25, 2014. As stated in Section 11 of AB 52, the act applies only to projects that have a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015.
AB 52 establishes “tribal cultural resources” (TCRs) as a new category of resources under CEQA. As defined under Public Resources Code Section 21074, TCRs are “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe” that are either: (1) included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register; included in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); or (2) determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to the criteria for inclusion in the California Register set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c), if supported by substantial evidence and taking into account the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. A “historical resource” as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21084.1, a “unique archaeological resource” as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g), or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(h) may also be TCRs.
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
AB 52 further establishes a new consultation process with California Native American tribes for proposed projects in geographic areas that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with that tribe. Per Public Resources Code Section 21073, “California Native American tribe” includes federally and non-federally recognized tribes on the NAHC contact list. Subject to certain prerequisites, AB 52 requires, among other things, that a lead agency consult with the geographically affiliated tribe before the release of an environmental review document for a proposed project regarding project alternatives, recommended mitigation measures, or potential significant effects, if the tribe so requests in writing. If the tribe and the lead agency agree upon mitigation measures during their consultation, these mitigation measures must be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document (Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21084.2, and 21084.3).
City of San Marino
The City of San Marino has established its own historic preservation ordinance codified in article 18 of its municipal code. Its purpose is to provide for “the identification, designation, protection, enhancement, and ongoing use of historical resources that represent the City's cultural, architectural, social, economic, and political heritage.” Its designation and integrity criteria are based on the state and national criteria. Section 23.18.03: Designation of Historic Landmarks stipulates:
A. Automatic Designation: Any property within the City that is listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Places [sic] is automatically designated as a historic landmark for purposes of this article.
B. Prior Designations: Any historic landmark previously designated as such by the City on or before the effective date of this article shall continue to be a historic landmark as previously designated for purposes of this article and shall be subject to all provisions herein.
C. New Designations: The Council may designate any structure, property, or properties as a historic landmark or historic resource subject to criteria in this article.
D. Amendment Or Rescission: The Council may amend or rescind the designation of any historic landmark, for the purposes of this article, subject to the same procedures required for their designation, including without limitation, hearing and recommendation of the Director.
1. Criteria for Amendment: Once a historic landmark has been designated, the designation shall not be amended unless the City Council determines the findings required under section 23.18.04 of this article can still be made.
2. Criteria For Rescission: Once a historic landmark has been designated, the designation shall not be rescinded unless the City Council finds that: a) the evidence supporting the designation was erroneous; or b) the findings required under section 23.18.04 of this article can no longer be made. (Ord. 0-18-1336, 4-11-2018)
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
NATURAL SETTING
The local geologic region coincides with the physiographic area known as the Los Angeles Basin. It is characterized as a transverse-oriented lowland basin and coastal plain approximately 50 miles long and 20 miles wide. The basin originated as a deep marine trough during the Pliocene (7-2 million years ago) that eventually filled with shallow water fossil bearing sediments. By the beginning of the Pleistocene (after 2 million years ago) uplifting created the series of plains and mesas along the coast that now characterize the area (Lambert 1994, Mendenhall 1905, Woodford et al. 1954). Local rainfall ranges from 5 to 15 inches annually (Jaeger and Smith 1971:36-37). Local vegetation communities are naturally dominated by coastal sage scrub and riparian vegetation, although urbanization prevents its proliferation in much of the project region (Williams et al. 2008:117, 122). See Bean and Saubel (1972) for use of these biotic communities by prehistoric and historic inhabitants.
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Context
The local prehistoric cultural setting has been organized into many chronological frameworks (see Warren and Crabtree 1986; Bettinger and Taylor 1974; Lanning 1963; Hunt 1960; Wallace 1958, 1962, 1978; Campbell and Campbell 1935), although there is no definitive sequence for the region. The difficulties in establishing cultural chronologies for southern California are a function of its enormous size and the small amount of archaeological excavations. Moreover, throughout prehistory many groups have occupied the area and their territories often overlap spatially and chronologically resulting in mixed artifact deposits. Due to dry climate and capricious geological processes, these artifacts rarely become integrated in-situ. Lacking a milieu hospitable to the preservation of cultural midden, local chronologies have relied upon temporally diagnostic artifacts, such as projectile points, or upon the presence/absence of other temporal indicators, such as groundstone. Such methods are instructive, but can be limited by prehistoric occupants’ Concurrent use of different artifact styles, or by artifact re-use or re-sharpening, as well as researchers’ mistaken diagnosis, and other factors (see Flenniken 1985; Flenniken and Raymond 1986; Flenniken and Wilke 1989).
Recognizing the shortcomings of comparative temporal indicators, this study recommends review of Warren and Crabree (1986), who have drawn upon this method to produce a relatively comprehensive chronology.
Ethnography
The Gabrielino probably first encountered Europeans when Spanish explorers reached California's southern coast during the 15th and 16th centuries (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1925). The first documented encounter, however, occurred in 1769 when Gaspar de Portola's expedition crossed Gabrielino territory (Bean and Smith 1978). Other brief encounters took place over the years, and are documented in McCawley 1996 (citing numerous sources). The Gabrielino name has been attributed by association with the Spanish mission of San Gabriel, and refers to a subset of people sharing speech and customs with other Cupan speakers (such as the Juaneño/Luiseño/Ajachemem) from the greater Takic branch of the Uto-Aztecan language family (Bean and Smith 1978). Gabrielino villages occupied the watersheds of various rivers (locally including the Santa Ana) and intermittent streams. Chiefs were usually descended through the male line and often administered several villages. Gabrielino society was somewhat stratified and is thought to have contained three hierarchically ordered social classes which dictated ownership rights and social status and obligations (Bean and Smith
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
1978:540-546). Plants utilized for food were heavily relied upon and included acorn-producing oaks, as well as seed-producing grasses and sage. Animal protein was commonly derived from rabbits and deer in inland regions, while coastal populations supplemented their diets with fish, shellfish, and marine mammals (Boscana 1933, Heizer 1968, Johnston 1962, McCawley 1996). Dog, coyote, bear, tree squirrel, pigeon, dove, mud hen, eagle, buzzard, raven, lizards, frogs, and turtles were specifically not utilized as a food source (Kroeber 1925).
History
Historic-era California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish or Mission Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican or Rancho Period (1821 to 1848), and the American Period (1848 to present).
Spanish Period. The first European to pass through the area is thought to be a Spaniard called Father Francisco Garces. Having become familiar with the area, Garces acted as a guide to Juan Bautista de Anza, who had been commissioned to lead a group across the desert from a Spanish outpost in Arizona to set up quarters at the Mission San Gabriel in 1771 near what today is Pasadena (Beck and Haase 1974). Garces was followed by Alta California Governor Pedro Fages, who briefly explored the region in 1772. Searching for San Diego Presidio deserters, Fages had traveled through Riverside to San Bernardino, crossed over the mountains into the Mojave Desert, and then journeyed westward to the San Joaquin Valley (Beck and Haase 1974).
Mexican Period. In 1821, Mexico overthrew Spanish rule and the missions began to decline.
By 1833, the Mexican government passed the Secularization Act, and the missions, reorganized as parish churches, lost their vast land holdings, and released their neophytes (Beattie and Beattie 1974).
American Period. The American Period, 1848–Present, began with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In 1850, California was accepted into the Union of the United States primarily due to the population increase created by the Gold Rush of 1849. The cattle industry reached its greatest prosperity during the first years of the American Period. Mexican Period land grants had created large pastoral estates in California, and demand for beef during the Gold Rush led to a cattle boom that lasted from 1849–1855. However, beginning about 1855, the demand for beef began to decline due to imports of sheep from New Mexico and cattle from the Mississippi and Missouri Valleys. When the beef market collapsed, many California ranchers lost their ranchos through foreclosure. A series of disastrous floods in 1861–1862, followed by a significant drought further diminished the economic impact of local ranching. This decline combined with ubiquitous agricultural and real estate developments of the late 19th century, set the stage for diversified economic pursuits that continue to this day (Beattie and Beattie 1974; Cleland 1941).
San Marino. The references for this section are provided in Appendix A. The land of the City of San Marino, which was part of the San Gabriel Mission, was initially occupied by Gabrielino (Tongva) Indians, who had a village located on what is now the Huntington Middle School. In 1852, Tennessee native Benjamin Davis Wilson acquired a vast tract of land that included the area that later became San Marino as well as several neighboring towns. Wilson went on to serve as the second elected mayor of Los Angeles, on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, and was elected to three terms in the California State Senate. In 1873, Benjamin Wilson gave 500 acres of his land to his son in law James Debarth Shorb. Shorb then named
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
the ranch on his land “San Marino” which was inspired by his grandfather’s plantation in Maryland which in turn got its name from the Republic of San Marino, Italy.
Both Wilson and Shorb had capitalized on the rich agricultural resources and railroad industries that were present at the time in California. They had become very wealthy after growing a large number of fruits and crops. Wilson gained a majority of his profit from selling wine grapes. Shorb became well-known for introducing a very intricate irrigation system that included 300,000 feet of iron pipe and old tiles that were used to regulate the flow of water to crops. He sold this irrigation system to neighboring farmers for a profit. In 1903, the San Marino land was purchased from James Shorb by Henry E. Huntington, a businessman who was the owner of the Pacific Electric Railway Company in Southern California. Henry Huntington played a major role in shaping the economy of Southern California. The prominent Patton family in San Marino was related to the Wilsons. George S. Patton Jr. was a general in the U.S. Army who gained recognition during World War II. His father, George Patton Sr. was also in the military and married the daughter of Benjamin Wilson. Thus, their family became the heirs to the Lake Vineyard estate which was connected to Huntington’s ranch.
Huntington and Patton Sr. joined with another landowner to incorporate San Marino in 1913.
They also spearheaded a campaign to prevent their properties from being developed by the city. Their advocacy for restrictive zoning has prevented the development of strip malls and mansions in San Marino. The first school in San Marino was established in 1917 in the vicinity of the subject property; its first high school did not open until 1955. With a population boom in the 1980s and the creation of the San Marino Schools Foundation, the schools were remodeled. During this time, San Marino’s neighborhoods were 99.7 percent white, however, many overseas buyers were attracted to San Marino because of its association with wealth and the reputation of its public schools. By 1986, San Marino High School’s student body was thirty-six percent Asian, a big increase from the year before. Demographic change led to incidents of racist actions and racial tensions, and prompted the city to establish an Ethnic Harmony Commission. Today, San Marino is roughly sixty percent Asian and thirty percent white.
METHODS
Research
Records Search. Prior to fieldwork, SCCIC staff completed a records search electronically through the SCCIC archive located in Fullerton, California. This included a review of all prerecorded built environment cultural resources, as well as a review of known cultural resource reports generated from projects located within one mile of the subject property. A review was also conducted of the National Register, the California Register California Register, and documents and inventories from the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) including the lists of California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, Listing of National Register Properties, and the Inventory of Historic Structures. BCR Consulting also performed research to find out whether any of the resources identified in the records search radius are known to be eligible for listing in the National Register, or the California Register (i.e. a historical resource or significant under CEQA). This information is based on a review of available site records and the Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) maintained by the California OHP.
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
Additional Research. Additional research was carried out through records provided by the City, Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office, City resources online, and various internet resources. Research methodology focused on the review of a variety of primary and secondary source materials relating to the history and development of the local neighborhood and the City of San Marino. Sources included, but were not limited to, historic maps, aerial photographs, historic photographs, tax records, building records and permits, and written histories of the area.
Sacred Lands File Search. BCR Consulting requested a Sacred Lands File Search with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). This is intended to indicate whether lands that have been considered sacred have been filed with the NAHC. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.
Field Survey
David Brunzell conducted the intensive pedestrian field survey of the subject property on January 19, 2021. The building on the subject property was examined, described in detail, and photographed during the field survey. Building descriptions are provided in the Results section of the report. The subject property is also thoroughly documented on California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms (see Appendix A). All visible soil exposures were also carefully inspected for evidence of cultural resources.
Personnel
BCR Consulting Principal David Brunzell, M.A., RPA acted as Project Manager for the study.
Mr. Brunzell authored the technical report with contributions from Principal Architectural Historian Kara Brunzell, M.A. Staff from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) performed the cultural resources records search electronically through the SCCIC archive in Fullerton, California. Ms. Brunzell completed the additional research, and the DPR 523 forms. Mr. Brunzell completed the field survey.
RESULTS
Research
Records Search. The records search and additional research revealed that three previous cultural resource studies have taken place resulting in the recording of six cultural resources within a half-mile radius of the subject property. The subject property was subject to one previous cultural resource assessment that resulted in one cultural resource (the San Marino Woman’s Club) identified within its boundaries. This previous study recommended that the San Marino Woman’s Club was eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A, which also means it is eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1, for association with an event important to the history of the San Marino community. The California State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with this recommendation on August 5, 2011. It is also recognized as such on the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) BERD. The BERD assigned the property a code of 2S2, which indicates that it has been determined eligible for the National Register through the Section 106 process and that it is listed on the
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
CRHR.1 The property is therefore automatically designated as a local historic landmark under San Marino municipal code Article 18 Chapter 23. The records search results are summarized in Tables A and B. Further background for the San Marino Woman’s Club is provided below.
Table A. Cultural Resource Reports Within One Half-Mile of the Subject Property USGS Quad. Previous Cultural Resource Studies Within 1/2 Mile of Subject Property
El Monte, Calif.
(1981)
LA-3583, 11527; Triem 2011
Table B. Cultural Resources Within One Half-Mile of the Subject Property USGS Quad. Built Resources Within 1/2 Mile of Subject Property El Monte,
California
(1996)
Historic San Marino Woman’s Club: Within Subject Property P-19-00516: Prehistoric Habitation and Historic Ranch (1/2 Mile NW) P-19-179694: Historic-Period Huntington Library (1/4 Mile N) P-19-179695: Historic-Period Edwin Powell Hubble House (1/2 Mile NW) P-19-192489: Historic-Period Wilbert E. McHenry Residence (1/2 Mile SW) P-19-192691: Historic-Per. Franz Henry/Carmen Wiedey Residence (1/4 Mile SE)
Additional Research/The San Marino Woman’s Club. Please see Appendix A for references. For architectural references, please see Robinson & Associates, Inc. et al. (2005), Rifkind (1998) and McAlester (2015). The San Marino Woman’s Club is one of the oldest established groups in the city. During the 1930s, there were many organizations in the community in San Marino that gathered for music, book reviews, and various other activities.
However, there were few organizations for women and on June 8th, 1936, a group of 52 women gathered at the San Marino Police Department courtroom to organize a local women’s club. By the time the San Marino Woman’s Club was completely organized, the club already had around 420 members. The club catered to elite married white women who could afford to pay the $10 dues and had time to attend frequent events and do charity work. Most of these women had live-in domestic help in the 1930s and 1940s; those who took on leadership roles were in their forties and fifties, with grown or nearly-grown children. Georgina Cornwell, who was a housewife and mother, was the club’s first president. Her husband was in the fruitgrowing business, which during that era was still one of the most important regional economic activities.
The San Marino Woman’s Club held nine regular annual meetings as well as four evening meetings to which husbands (unmarried women do not appear to have been members) were invited. The members of the club were required to wear black dresses and black hats with a pair of white gloves. There were sixteen different guilds within in the club: music, drama, literature, writers, home craft, philanthropy, foreign language, current events, travel, bible, home interior, language, sports, public affairs, flower, and garden. Regular meetings were held at Henry E. Huntington Middle School auditorium while the guild meetings were held at homes of the members. The club raised funds for a slightly used ambulance, which it donated 1 California OHP does not maintain a comprehensive list of properties on the CRHR and refers inquiries to the Information Centers.
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
to the city in 1940. This was just one of many charitable contributions the group made to the community over the decades.
Prior to its acquisition by the women’s club, the property held a residence (one of only one or two on the block) and was surrounded by open fields since the area was mostly undeveloped. In 1940, Los Angeles County Health Department physician George Hodel 1 lived in the house with his wife Dorothy and their toddler son. They lived in the house only for a year or so before moving elsewhere. The build date and other details about the residence are unknown. The house was demolished prior to development of the Woman’s Club and is unrelated to its historical significance.
In 1939, the club purchased the property at 1800 Huntington Drive for $6,000 to build a clubhouse for its growing membership. It was not until ten years later that the clubhouse was completed. Fundraising efforts were suspended when the US entered World War II in 1942, and construction remained difficult immediately after the war in the late 1940s. Sybil Ivey, who had served as club president from 1940 to 1942, was the chair of the building committee. A mother of two who was originally from Australia, Ivey was a schoolteacher before her marriage to bank president Herbert Ivey. Members raised most of the funds to complete the clubhouse through bazaars, rummage sales, parties, and various entertainment events over a ten-year period. They also made an appeal to the public for funds. In 1949, the club requested and received variances from San Marino City Council because the parcel was zoned for residential use and required setbacks that did not fit in with the club’s plans for the property. By the end of the decade, the club had $57,000 on hand, and was able to borrow an additional $35,000 in 1951, enabling them to plan completion of the project.
Designed by Marion J. Varner in 1950 as one of his early projects, the building is a simple example of Midcentury Modern architecture.2 When completed, the San Marino Woman’s Club had a dining room, auditorium, lounge (fireside room at the north end of the building), and a craft room at the rear of the building. There were also storage rooms, a large kitchen for catering events, a large women’s restroom with a powder room, a dressing room, and a men’s restroom. The southwest corner of the building had a small caretaker’s apartment with its own bathroom and kitchenette. There were two unfinished upstairs rooms, one of which was intended to become a projection room. The building has served as a community focal point for many years while the club pursued its charitable work. The building was constructed to serve the entire community, not just the Woman’s Club, although they funded its construction. The first meeting in the building was in April 1952.
Over the years, the club’s charitable contributions have been numerous and include the endowment of a bed at the Orthopedic Hospital, nursing scholarships, Toys for Tots, and others. They also provided help to the Assistance League, American Red Cross and the City of Hope. The building was made available to the community for meetings and events. The 1 Hodel has gained notoriety in recent years after his son, retired police detective Steve Hodel, investigated the unsolved 1947 “Black Dahlia” murder and accused his father of being the killer. The case remains unsolved.
2 Although the 2011 DPR calls the building architecture “Modern Colonial Revival,” the meaning of this term is unknown to the preparers of this document and not a style that appears in the literature on architectural history.
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
San Marino Woman’s Club moved its organization to Pasadena in 2004, and the City purchased the property in 2005. In the past decades, the San Marino Center at 1800 Huntington Drive was available to rent as a venue for special events.
Additional Research/Architect Marion J. Varner. Born February 8, 1912 in Kansas, Marion Jesse Varner moved to Pomona, California by 1920 with his parents Clarence and Mabel Varner and siblings. His father owned a plastering company. Marion worked as a baker in his late teens, and married June Bupp in 1934. He studied architecture at USC, graduating first in his class in 1936. During the Depression, however, there was little construction, and he had to work as a gas station attendant. He served as a naval architect during World War II. By 1947, he had opened Marion J. Varner and Associates in Pasadena. In 1951, he designed a 24-house tract in Anaheim shortly after completing the San Marino Woman’s Club drawings.
Varner went on to a very prolific career through the end of the century, designing primarily public buildings (and specializing in police stations and detention facilities) throughout Los Angeles County and nationwide. Some of his major projects include Hawthorne Police Station, 1955; Torrance Fire Station, 1955; San Fernando Police Station, 1956; Compton Community Center, 1956; Gardena Medical Clinic, 1956; Glendora Hospital, 1956; El Segundo Fire Station, 1957; Hawthorne Fire Station, 1957; Downey Civic Center, 1958; San Gabriel Police Station, 1961; Gardena City Hall, police building and library, 1963 for which he received an award from the Society of American Registered Architects (SARA); Arcadia high-rise office, 1963; and Bell Gardens City Hall in 1966. Varner also won an award from SARA for his design for the Vernon City Hall and Police Station in 1975. In 1978 Varner joined W. Gayle Daniel and Samuel E. Hart of the SARA to design the first energy-effective case study house in Rancho California and the first to be sponsored by a chapter of a professional society. Varner was active professionally serving as president of the National Board of the Society of American Registered Architects and in 1968 he served as president of the local chapter. He died on April 10, 2005 in San Marino. His Glendale Police Department (1960) was recommended eligible to the California Register in 2006.
Sacred Lands File Search. Results of the Sacred Lands File search with the NAHC were positive. The NAHC does not share details or locations for its Sacred Lands File search. They did recommend contacting the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation for more information. This should occur when the City initiates AB52 Native American consultation.
Field Survey
During the field survey, BCR Consulting Principal Archaeologist David Brunzell inspected 100% of the subject property. The San Marino Woman’s Club building was identified and documented on DPR 523 forms. The forms include references as well as photographs and maps (see Appendix A). No other cultural resources (including historic-period buildings or prehistoric or historic-period archaeological sites) were identified during the field survey.
Ground surface visibility for the unbuilt and non-paved portions of the project site was approximately 40 percent, and sediments consisted of fine sandy silt. The construction of the San Marino Woman’s Club building, and excavation and paving for roads, alleys, and parking lots have resulted in grading of the entire subject property.
The San Marino Woman’s Club Building Description (Trien 2011:1). Located on Huntington Drive between the San Marino Library and the Henry E. Huntington School, the
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
former San Marino Woman’s Club building is a large primarily one-story building with a flat roof and raised parapet along the rear and side elevations. The front elevation features a sidefacing medium gable roof with an offset front gable wing. An l-shaped porch runs across the front elevation and is supported by decorative wrought iron posts. The roof is covered with wood shingles. A large multi-paned steel framed window is located below the main front gable.
Underneath the window is brick trim. A tall exterior brick chimney is located on the northeast elevation. Windows are primarily multi-paned steel casements. Siding is stucco and foundation is concrete. The interior of the building when first built contained a large auditorium, dining room, meeting room and office.
Character-defining Features. Only minor alterations to the building have occurred since it was originally evaluated in 2011; the only visible exterior change is the removal of the planter adjacent to the main façade. The character-defining features of the building include:
• T-shaped plan with single-story massing
• Flat/low-pitch primary roof with raised parapet
• Entry porch with decorative wrought-iron posts and wood shake (shingle) roof • Dining room (east) porch with decorative wrought-iron posts and wood shake (shingle) roof
• Low-pitch gabled roof with wood shake (shingle) at center of main façade • Steel casement windows
• Multiple-light picture windows at the dining room (north, south, east elevations) • Smooth stucco cladding
• San Marino Woman’s Club plaque
The interior of the building has been more heavily altered over the decades than its exterior architecture, but limited elements of its original historic fabric remain. Interior Character-defining features include:
• San Marino Woman’s Club seal in linoleum floor
• Original rounded hanging light fixtures
Features of the building that are not character defining:
• Non-original partially-glazed entry doors
• Contemporary awnings installed above main-façade entrances • Security bars installed over windows
• Utilitarian doors and windows at the rear (south) of building California Register Evaluation
In 2011, the property was evaluated for historic eligibility pursuant to NHPA Section 106 compliance for a FEMA-funded project and formally determined eligible under Criterion A of the National Register for its historic associations as a woman's club and community meeting place that was a focal point for many years.
The 2011 DPR form. recommended that the building retained integrity sufficient for historic eligibility as quoted below:
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
• Location: “The property at 1800 Huntington Drive is in its original location.” • Design: “The original design of the 1952 building is primarily intact except for changes to the front entrance doors and two small additions in 1958 done in the same style.” • Setting: “The historic setting of the property is partially intact. The relationship to the adjacent library and school remain. However, the original 1950 library was replaced with a new library building within the last few years.” • Materials: “The integrity of materials was found to be somewhat intact.” • Feeling and Association: “The feeling and association as a woman’s club is no longer intact since the building is now the San Marino Community Center, but it continues to function to serve the community.”
• Workmanship: The 2011 DPR 523 form did not specifically address integrity of workmanship.
• Summary: “Overall, the integrity of the building appears sufficient for eligibility.” The evaluation received State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurrence, and the property was added to the California Register. San Marino municipal code Article 18 Chapter 23 States that properties listed on the California Register automatically become local San Marino Historic Landmarks.
Since the property was placed on the California Register, the only apparent alterations to the building have been the removal of the brick planter on the main façade. The property therefore retains integrity as a historical resource and qualifies as a historical resource under CEQA.
Environmental Impacts to Historical Resources
Because the San Marino Woman’s Club is listed on the California Register of Historical Resources, it qualifies as a historical resource under CEQA (14 CCR 15064.5[a][1].
A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment (14 CCR 15064.5[b]). A “substantial adverse change” is further defined in 14 CCR 15064.5(b)1 and 2 as follows:
(1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.
(2) The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
(A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources;
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource (14 CCR 15064.5[b][3]). The Standards are intended to pertain to rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. A project should also be consistent with City requirements and carried out in consultation with a professional that meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Architecture.
14 CCR Section 15126.4(b) addresses impacts to historical resources in additional detail:
(1) Where maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of the historical resource will be conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, the project's impact on the historical resource shall generally be considered mitigated below a level of significance and thus is not significant.
(2) In some circumstances, documentation of an historical resource, by way of historic narrative, photographs or architectural drawings, as mitigation for the effects of demolition of the resource will not mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur.
Project Conformance to Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
The Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (36 CFR 67.7) state:
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.
Project Evaluation: The property was originally used as a woman’s club and as a community meeting space. Although the woman’s club moved to a different location in 2004, the building’s community functions have persisted. It will continue in use as a community building if the proposed project is completed. However, although its use will remain similar to its original use, distinctive materials and features will be significantly altered by the proposed project, which proposes to alter its exterior architecture to mimic that of a nearby building. Therefore the proposed project does not conform to Standard 1.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
Project Evaluation: The historic character of the property will not be retained and preserved. The project proposes to alter its architectural style and change exterior details and materials to make the historic building conform aesthetically to the style of the adjacent contemporary library building. The proposed project would therefore remove distinctive exterior materials and substantially alter historic features that characterize the property. The proposed project does not conform to Standard 2.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
Project Evaluation: The proposed project will alter the building in a manner where it will not be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Its architectural style and character-defining exterior features will be altered, therefore the project does not conform to Standard 3.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.
Project Evaluation: Standard 4 does not apply to the project; research has not revealed any changes to the property that have acquired historic significance in their own right.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
Project Evaluation: Distinctive materials, features, and finishes of the building will not be preserved. As discussed above, the project proposes a wholesale removal of the historic building’s most important character-defining features including its decorative wrought iron porch supports, wood shake roof, and original steel casement and picture windows. The proposed project does not conform to Standard 5.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
Project Evaluation: The project proposes to replace rather than repair deteriorated historic features. The proposed project does not conform to Standard 6.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
Project Evaluation: Standard 7 does not apply to the project; the project does not propose chemical or physical treatments.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
Project Evaluation: The property is not the location of any known archaeological site.
If archaeological resources are disturbed, appropriate mitigation measures will be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
Project Evaluation: The proposed project will destroy historic materials and features that characterize the property by altering its materials and decorative features to change its architectural style. The proposed project does not conform to Standard 9.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Project Evaluation: The essential form and integrity of the historic property would be impaired if the proposed project (alteration of its architectural style and materials) is undertaken. Such a project is permanent in nature and cannot be reversed in the future. The proposed project does not conform to Standard 10.
The Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties is a set of guidelines established by the National Park Service to encourage historic preservation by providing flexible guidance in repairing and rehabilitating historical resources. Its primary purpose is as a set of practical recommendations for property owners wishing to update function, repair deteriorated features, and/or create new economic uses for qualified historical resources. The goal of the Standards is preservation of the qualities that allow a historical resource to convey its historic significance, i.e. the visible characteristics of a building or structure. A project intended to redesign the exterior elements of a building to create the appearance of a new architectural style cannot conform to either the spirit of the Standards or the more specific guidelines that comprise them.
Therefore, the proposed project does not conform to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and therefore will cause a substantial adverse change to a historical resource pursuant to CEQA (14 CCR § 15126.4(b)(1)).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on these results, BCR Consulting has discovered that the San Marino Woman’s Club has been formally determined eligible for listing on the National Register under Criterion A and listed in the California Register under Criterion 1. Furthermore, because it is listed on the California Register, it also qualifies as a San Marino Historic Landmark.
BCR Consulting recommends that this resource retains the integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association identified in the 2011 evaluation.
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
Thus it retains the historic qualities that resulted in its listing on the California Register. A complete redesign of the building as proposed by the project would materially alter key elements that convey its historical association to the period in which it was constructed and utilized as a women’s club. The character-defining features that would be lost if the proposed project were completed include:
• Main (north) façade entry porch with decorative wrought-iron posts and wood shake (shingle) roof
• Dining room (east) porch with decorative wrought-iron posts and wood shake (shingle) roof
• Original wood shake (shingle) roofs on other parts of the building • Original steel casement windows throughout the building • Original multiple-light picture windows at the dining room (north, south, east elevations)
• Original (interior) rounded hanging light fixtures
As such, the project would destroy most character-defining features of the historic property, leading to a loss of integrity; a substantial adverse impact to a historical resource.
BCR Consulting recommends the following:
Redesign Project to Conform to Secretary of Interior Standards. 14 CCR Section 15126.4(b) states that a less than significant impact could occur if the proposed project activities are consistent with “plans for rehabilitation to ensure that the undertaking maintains consistency with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties” (36 CFR part 68; see http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/ rehab/stand.htm).
Project redesign should be carried out in consultation with a professional architect who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Architecture (see http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_9.htm). A project could potentially be designed that updates this building’s function, connect it to the library and upgrades its ADA accessibility while preserving the physical characteristics that convey its historical significance as listed on California Register of Historical Resources.
Data Collection Mitigation. As identified by 14 CCR Section 15126.4(b), documentation does not mitigate the impacts to less than significant. 14 CCR Section 15126.4(b) also states that documentation of an historical resource, by way of historic narrative, photographs or architectural drawings, as mitigation for the effects of demolition of the resource will not mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect. CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation be undertaken even if it does not mitigate below a level of significance. In this context, recordation serves a legitimate archival purpose.
The level of documentation required as a mitigation should be proportionate with the level of significance of the resource (http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21727).
If documentation is the chosen recommendation, the City would complete or require the completion of Historic American Building Survey (HABS) style photographic documentation of
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
the subject property prior to the start of construction. While the photographs would meet HABS standards, only local curation (and no federal curation or involvement) would be necessary.
The photographic documentation will be provided to the City (and any required local repositories) for curation.
Accidental Discoveries. If previously undocumented cultural resources are identified during earthmoving activities associated with development of the project site, a qualified archaeologist should be contacted to assess the nature and significance of the find, diverting construction excavation if necessary.
Human Remains. If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has determined origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery.
The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
REFERENCES
Bean, Lowell J. and K.S. Saubel
1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.
Bean, Lowell John, and Charles Smith
1978 California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W.C.
Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.
Beattie, George W., and Helen P. Beattie
1974 Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino’s First Century. Biobooks: Oakland.
Beck, Warren A., and Ynez D. Haase
1974 Historical Atlas of California. Oklahoma City: University of Oklahoma Press.
Bettinger, Robert L., and R.E. Taylor
1974 Suggested Revisions in Archaeological Sequences of the Great Basin and Interior Southern California. Nevada Archaeological Survey Research Papers 3:1-26.
Boscana, Father Geronimo
1933 Chinigchinich: Alfred Robinson's Translation of Father Geronimo Boscana's Historic Account of the Belief, Usages, Customs and Extravagancies of the Indians of this Mission of San Juan Capistrano Called the Acagchemem Tribe. Fine Arts Press, Santa Ana.
California Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation Undated, California Environmental Quality Act and Historical Preservation (Technical Assistance Series.
Campbell, E., and W. Campbell
1935 The Pinto Basin. Southwest Museum Papers 9:1-51.
Cleland, Robert Glass
1941 The Cattle on a Thousand Hills—Southern California, 1850-80. San Marino, California: Huntington Library.
Flenniken, J.J.
1985 Stone Tool Reduction Techniques as Cultural Markers. Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, edited by M.G. Plew, J.C. Woods, and M.G. Pavesic.
University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Flenniken, J.J. and A.W. Raymond
1986 Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Replication, Experimentation, and Technological Analysis. American Antiquity 51:603-614.
Flenniken, J.J. and Philip J. Wilke
1989 Typology, Technology, and Chronology of Great Basin Dart Points. American Anthropologist 91:149-158.
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
Heizer, Robert F.
1968 Introduction and Notes: The Indians of Los Angeles County: Hugo Reid's Letters of 1852, edited and annotated by Robert F. Heizer. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.
Hunt, Alice P.
1960 The Archaeology of the Death Valley Salt Pan, California. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 47.
Jaeger, Edmund C., and Arthur C. Smith
1971 Introduction to the Natural History of Southern California. California Natural History Guides: 13. University of California Press. Los Angeles Johnston, B.E.
1962 California's Gabrielino Indians. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.
Lambert, David
1994 The Field Guide to Prehistoric Life. Diagram Visual Information Limited. New York.
Lanning, Edward P.
1963 The Archaeology of the Rose Spring Site (Iny-372). University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 49(3):237-336.
McAlester, Virginia
2015 A Field Guide to American Houses (Revised); The Definitive Guide to Idenifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
McCawley, William
1996 The First Angelinos, The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press/Ballena Press Cooperative Publication. Banning/Novato, California.
Mendenhall, W.C.
1905 Developments of Underground Waters in the Eastern Coastal Plain Regions of Southern California. USGS Water Supply Paper, Number 137.
National Park Service
1997 National Register Bulletin. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
Electronic Document: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB15_web508.pdf. Accessed Multiple Dates.
Robinson & Associates, Inc., Judith H. Robinson, and Stephanie S. Foell 2005 Growth Efficiency and Modernism GSA Buildings of the 1950s 60s and 70s. U.S.
General Services Administration.
Rifkind, Carole
1998 A Field Guide to Contemporary American Architecture. Penguin Books Limited.
Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England.
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 BCR CONSULTING LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SAN MARINO CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
Triem, Judy
2011 Department of Park and Recreation 523 Form for the San Marino Woman’s Club.
Provided by San Buenaventura Research Assc. Santa Paula, California.
U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Technical Preservation Services 2017 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties With Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.
United States Geological Survey
1981 El Monte, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.
Wallace, William J.
1958 Archaeological Investigation in Death Valley National Monument. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 42:7-22.
1962 Prehistoric Cultural Development in the Southern California Deserts. American Antiquity 28(2):172-180.
1978 The Southern Valley Yokuts, and The Northern Valley Yokuts. In Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 8, California, edited by W.L. d’Azevedo, pp. 448-470.
W.C. Sturtevant, General Editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Warren, Claude N. and R.H. Crabtree
1986 The Prehistory of the Southwestern Great Basin. In Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 11, Great Basin, edited by W.L. d’Azevedo, pp.183-193. W.C.
Sturtevant, General Editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Williams, Patricia, Leah Messinger, Sarah Johnson
2008 Habitats Alive! An Ecological Guide to California's Diverse Habitats. California Institute for Biodiversity, Claremont, California.
Woodford, A.O., J.E. Schuellhamer, J.E. Wooder, and R.F. Yerkes 1954 Geology of the Los Angeles Basin. In Geology of Southern California, Bulletin 170.
Division of Mines and Geology. San Francisco.
Additional resources are provided in Appendix A.
J U L Y 9 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
S A N M A R I N O C E N T E R R E N O V A T I O N P R O J E C T
APPENDIX A
DEPARTMENT OF PARK AND RECREATION 523 FORMS/
SHPO CONCURRENCE
*Recorded by Kara Brunzell *Date: 2021 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _ _________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ____________________________________________ San Marino Historic Context
The land of the City of San Marino, which was part of the San Gabriel Mission, was initially occupied by Gabrielino (Tongva) Indians, who had a village located on what is now the Huntington Middle School. In 1852, Tennessee native Benjamin Davis Wilson acquired a vast tract of land that included the area that later became San Marino as well as several neighboring towns.
Wilson went on to serve as the second elected mayor of Los Angeles, on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, and was elected to three terms in the California State Senate. In 1873, Benjamin Wilson gave 500 acres of his land to his son in law James Debarth Shorb. Shorb then named the ranch on his land “San Marino” which was inspired by his grandfather’s plantation in Maryland which in turn got its name from the Republic of San Marino, Italy.1 Both Wilson and Shorb had capitalized on the rich agricultural resources and railroad industries that were present at the time in California. They had become very wealthy after growing a large number of fruits and crops. Wilson gained a majority of his profit from selling wine grapes. Shorb became well=known for introducing a very intricate irrigation system that included 300,000 feet of iron pipe and old tiles that were used to regulate the flow of water to crops. He sold this irrigation system to neighboring farmers for a profit. In 1903, the San Marino land was purchased from James Shorb by Henry E. Huntington, a businessman who was the owner of the Pacific Electric Railway Company in Southern California. Henry Huntington played a major role in shaping the economy of Southern California.2 The prominent Patton family in San Marino was related to the Wilsons. George S. Patton Jr., a general in the U.S. Army who gained recognition during World War II. His father, George Patton Sr. was also in the military and married the daughter of Benjamin Wilson. Thus, their family became the heirs to the Lake Vineyard estate which was connected to Huntington’s ranch.
Huntington and Patton Sr. joined with another landowner to incorporate San Marino in 1913. They also spearheaded a campaign to prevent their properties from being developed by the city. Their advocacy for restrictive zoning has prevented the development of strip malls and mansions in San Marino.3 The first school in San Marion was established in 1917 in the vicinity of the subject property; its first high school did not open until 1955. With a population boom in the 1980s and the creation of the San Marino Schools Foundation, the schools were remodeled. During this time, San Marino’s neighborhoods were 99.7 percent white, however, many overseas buyers were attracted to San Marino because of its association with wealth and the reputation of its public schools including. By 1986, San Marino High School’s student body was thirty-six percent Asian, a big increase from the year before. Demographic change led to incidents of racist actions and racial tensions, and prompted the city to establish an Ethnic Harmony Commission. Today, San Marino is roughly sixty percent Asian and thirty percent white. 4 San Marino Woman’s Club
The San Marino Woman’s Club is one of the oldest established groups in the city. During the 1930s, there were many organizations in the community in San Marino that gathered for music, book reviews, and various other activities. However, there were few organizations for women and on June 8th, 1936, a group of 52 women gathered at the San Marino police department courtroom to organize a local women’s club. By the time the San Marino Woman’s Club was completely organized, the club already had around 420 members. The club catered to elite married white women who could afford to pay the $10 dues and had time to attend frequent events and do charity work. Most of these women had live-in domestic help in the 1930s and 1940s; those who took on leadership roles were in their forties and fifties, with grown or nearly-grown children. Georgina 1 "San Marino, CA," History of San Marino, https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/government/history_of_san_marino_/index.php, Accessed February 23, 2021, https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/government/history_of_san_marino_/index.php. 2 "San Marino, CA," History of San Marino, https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/government/history_of_san_marino_/index.php, Accessed February 23, 2021, https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/government/history_of_san_marino_/index.php. 3 Scott Garner, “Neighborhood Spotlight: San Marino’s Exclusivity Was Always the Plan,” Los Angeles Times, Mar. 23, 2018. 4 "San Marino High School," Our History – About Us – San Marino High School, Accessed February 23, 2021, https://www.sanmarinohs.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=223775&type=d&pREC_ID=491709; Merlin Chowkwanyun and Jordan Segall, "How an Exclusive Los Angeles Suburb Lost Its Whiteness," Bloomberg.com, Aug. 27, 2012, Accessed February 23, 2021, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-08-27/how-an-exclusive-los-angeles-suburb-lost-its-whiteness.
*Recorded by Kara Brunzell *Date: 2021 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _ _________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ____________________________________________ Cornwell, a housewife and mother who was about 50 years old during this period, was the club’s first president. Her husband was in the fruit-growing business, which during that era was still one of the most important regional economic activities. 5 The San Marino Woman’s Club held nine regular annual meetings as well as four evening meetings to which husbands (unmarried women do not appear to have been members) were invited. The members of the club were required to wear black dresses and black hats with a pair of white gloves. There were sixteen different guilds within in the club: music, drama, literature, writers, home craft, philanthropy, foreign language, current events, travel, bible, home interior, language, sports, public affairs, flower, and garden. Regular meetings were held at Henry E. Huntington Middle School auditorium while the guild meetings were held at homes of the members. The club raised funds for a slightly used ambulance, which it donated to the city in 1940. This was just one of many charitable contributions the group made to the community over the decades. 6 Prior to its acquisition by the women’s club, the property held a residence (one of only one or two on the block) and was surrounded by open fields since the area was mostly undeveloped. In 1940, Los Angeles County Health Department physician George Hodel7lived in the house with his wife Dorothy and their toddler son. They lived in the house only for a year or so before moving elsewhere. The build date and other details about the residence are unknown. The house was demolished prior to development of the Woman’s Club and is unrelated to its historical significance.8 In 1939, the club purchased the property at 1800 Huntington Drive for $6,000 to build a clubhouse for its growing membership.
It was not until ten years later that the clubhouse was completed. Fundraising efforts were suspended when the US entered World War II in 1942, and construction remained difficult immediately after the war in the late 1940s. Sybil Ivey, who had served as club president from 1940 to 1942, was the chair of the building committee. A mother of two who was originally from Australia, Ivey was a schoolteacher before her marriage to bank president Herbert Ivey. Members raised most of the funds to complete the clubhouse through bazaars, rummage sales, parties, and various entertainment events over a ten-year period. They also made an appeal to the public for funds. In 1949, the club requested and received variances from San Marino City Council because the parcel was zoned for residential use and required setbacks that did not fit in with the club’s plans for the property.
By the end of the decade, the club had $57,000 on hand, and was able to borrow an additional $35,000 in 1951, enabling them to plan completion of the project. 9
Designed by Marion J. Varner in 1950 as one of his early projects, the building is a simple example of Midcentury Modern architecture. When completed, the San Marino Woman’s Club had a dining room, auditorium, lounge (fireside room at the north end of the building), and a craft room at the rear of the building. There were also storage rooms, a large kitchen for catering events, a large women’s restroom with a powder room, a dressing room, and a men’s restroom. The southwest corner of the building had a small caretaker’s apartment with its own bath room and kitchenette. There were two unfinished upstairs rooms, one of which was intended to become a projection room. The building has served as a community focal point for many years while the club pursued its charitable work. The building was constructed to serve the entire community, not just the Woman’s Club, although they funded its construction. The first meeting in the building was in April 1952. 10 Over the years, the club’s charitable contributions have been numerous and include the endowment of a bed at the Orthopedic Hospital, nursing scholarships, Toys for Tots, and others. They also provided help to the Assistance League, American Red Cross and the City of Hope. The building was made available to the community for meetings 5 Graziella Almanza, “The San Marino Woman’s Club,” The Grapevine, San Marino Historical Society, Fall 2000. 6 Almanza, 2000.
7 Hodel has gained notoriety in recent years after his son, retired police detective Steve Hodel, investigated the unsolved 1947 “Black Dahlia” murder and accused his father of being the killer. The case remains unsolved. 8 US Census Records, 1940; World War II Registration Card, George Hodel, October 16, 1940 9 City of San Marino, Application for Variance, June 8, 1949. 10 Almanza, 2000.
*Recorded by Kara Brunzell *Date: 2021 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _ _________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ____________________________________________ and events. The San Marino Woman’s Club moved its organization to Pasadena in 2004, and the City purchased the property in 2005. In the past decades, the San Marino Center at 1800 Huntington Drive was available to rent as a venue for special events.11 Marion J. Varner
Born February 8, 1912 in Kansas, Marion Jesse Varner moved to Pomona, California by 1920 with his parents Clarence and Mabel Varner and siblings. His father owned a plastering company. Marion worked as a baker in his late teens, and married June Bupp in 1934. He studied architecture at USC, graduating first in his class in 1936. During the Depression, however, there was little construction, and he had to work as a gas station attendant. He served as a naval architect during World War II. By 1947, he had opened Marion J. Varner and Associates in Pasadena. In 1951, he designed a 24-house tract in Anaheim shortly after completing the San Marino Woman’s Club drawings. Varner went on to a very prolific career through the end of the century, designing primarily public buildings (and specializing in police stations and detention facilities) throughout Los Angeles County and nationwide. Some of his major projects include Hawthorne Police Station, 1955; Torrance Fire Station, 1955; San Fernando Police Station, 1956; Compton Community Center, 1956; Gardena Medical Clinic, 1956; Glendora Hospital, 1956; El Segundo Fire Station, 1957; Hawthorne Fire Station, 1957; Downey Civic Center, 1958; San Gabriel Police Station, 1961; Gardena City Hall, police building and library, 1963 for which he received an award from the Society of American Registered Architects (SARA); Arcadia high-rise office, 1963; and Bell Gardens City Hall in 1966. Varner also won an award from SARA for his design for the Vernon City Hall and Police Station in 1975. In 1978 Varner joined W. Gayle Daniel and Samuel E. Hart of the SARA to design the first energy-effective case study house in Rancho California and the first to be sponsored by a chapter of a professional society. Varner was active professionally serving as president of the National Board of the Society of American Registered Architects and in 1968 he served as president of the local chapter. He died on April 10, 2005 in San Marino. His Glendale Police Department (1960) was recommended eligible to the CRHR in 2006. 12 11 Judy Triem, “San Marino Woman’s Club,” San Buenaventura Research Associates, DPR, 2011. 12 US Census, Los Angeles, 1940; Los Angeles Times, “Obituary Marion Jesse Varner,” 12 April 2005, “Contemporary Homes Exhibit, 19 January 1947, “24 Homes Being Built on Tract in Anaheim,” 12 August 1951.
*Recorded by Kara Brunzell *Date: 2021 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _ _________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ____________________________________________ Photograph 1: 1800 Huntington Drive, north elevation, camera facing south, January 19, 2021.
Photograph 2: 1800 Huntington Drive, north and east elevations, 1958 addition center frame, camera facing southwest, January 19, 2021.
*Recorded by Kara Brunzell *Date: 2021 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _ _________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ____________________________________________ Photograph 3: 1800 Huntington Drive, south and east elevations, camera facing northwest, January 19, 2021.
Photograph 4: 1800 Huntington Drive, steel storage units, west and south elevations, camera facing northeast, January 19, 2021.
*Recorded by Kara Brunzell *Date: 2021 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _ _________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ____________________________________________ Photograph 5: 1800 Huntington Drive, west elevation, camera facing northeast, January 19, 2021.
Photograph 6: 1800 Huntington Drive, north and west elevations, camera facing southeast, January 19, 2021.
*Recorded by Kara Brunzell *Date: 2021 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _ _________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ____________________________________________ Photograph 7: North entrance of 1800 Huntington Drive, camera facing south, January 19, 2021.
Photograph 8: Interior of 1800 Huntington Drive, January 18, 2021.
*Recorded by Kara Brunzell *Date: 2021 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _ _________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ____________________________________________ Photograph 9: “Fireside Room” of 1800 Huntington Drive, January 19, 2021.
Photograph 10: Kitchen of 1800 Huntington Drive, January 19, 2021.
*Recorded by Kara Brunzell *Date: 2021 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _ _________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ____________________________________________ B6. Construction History:
Original construction, 1951, Kemp Bros.
1958 – Two small additions at northeast and southwest building corners 1960 – kitchenette & powder room added to interior, exit door added to southeast corner of dining room, interior exit lights added, hand rail installed at west (rear) entrance) 1981 – dropped acoustic ceilings with recessed lighting installed 1979, 1993 – shake roof replaced in kind
1992 – free-standing metal storage unit added
1997 – canvas awnings installed
2007 – men’s and women’s restrooms remodeled
Unknown date after 1980, main entrance doors replaced
2012-2018 – brick planter removed from main façade
In 2011, the property was evaluated for historic eligibility pursuant to Section 106 compliance for a FEMA-funded project and recommended eligible for its historic associations as a woman's club and community meeting place that was a focal point for many years. The 2011 evaluation also recommended that the property retained sufficient historic integrity to qualify for historic listing. The evaluation received SHPO concurrence, and the property was added to the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Since the property was placed on the CRHR, the only apparent alterations to the building has been the removal of the brick planter on the main façade. The property therefore retains integrity as a historical resource.
Figure 1: Architect’s Rendering San Marino Woman’s Club, Marion J. Varner, 1950, USC Digital Archive.
*Recorded by Kara Brunzell *Date: 2021 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _ _________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ____________________________________________ Figure 2: San Marino Woman’s Club, Georgina Cornwell left, Sybil Ivey second from right and three other members in lounge before cornerstone ceremony, 16 April 1952, USC Digital Archive.
J U L Y 9 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
S A N M A R I N O C E N T E R R E N O V A T I O N P R O J E C T
APPENDIX B
PALEONTOLOGICAL OVERVIEW
2345 Searl Parkway ♦ Hemet, CA 92543 ♦ phone 951.791.0033 ♦ fax 951.791.0032 ♦ WesternScienceCenter.org BCR Consulting January 27, 2021
Joseph Orozco
505 West 8th Street
Claremont , CA 91711
Dear Mr. Orozco,
This letter presents the results of a record search conducted for the San Marino Center Renovation Project in the city of San Marino, Los Angeles County, California. The project site is located south of Huntington Drive, east of Virginia Road, and west of West Drive in Section 2 of Township 1 South and Range 12 West on the El Monte CA USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle.
The geologic unit underlying the project area is mapped entirely as alluvial sand and gravel deposits dating to the Pleistocene epoch (Dibblee, 1999). Pleistocene alluvial units are considered to be of high paleontological sensitivity. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the project area, but does have numerous localities within similarly mapped alluvial sediments throughout the region. Pleistocene alluvial deposits in southern California are well documented and known to contain abundant fossil resources including those associated with Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi), Pacific mastodon (Mammut pacificus), Sabertooth cat (Smilodon fatalis), Ancient horse (Equus sp.) and many other Pleistocene megafauna.
Any fossils recovered from the San Marino Center Renovation Project area would be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with development of the area has the potential to impact the paleontologically sensitive Pleistocene alluvial units and it is the recommendation of the Western Science Center that a paleontological resource mitigation plan be put in place to monitor, salvage, and curate any recovered fossils associated with the current study area.
If you have any questions, or would like further information, please feel free to contact me at [email protected]
Sincerely,
Darla Radford
Collections Manager
J U L Y 9 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
S A N M A R I N O C E N T E R R E N O V A T I O N P R O J E C T
APPENDIX C
SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
January 25, 2021
Joseph Orozco
BCR Consulting LLC
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: San Marino Center Renovation Project, Los Angeles County Dear Mr. Orozco:
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were positive. Please contact the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation on the attached list for more information. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.
Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].
Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
SECRETARY
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Luiseño
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
Julie TumamaitStenslie
Chumash
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians - Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas, Chairperson
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
Phone: (626) 926 - 4131
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel
Band of Mission Indians
Anthony Morales, Chairperson
P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, CA, 91778
Phone: (626) 483 - 3564
Fax: (626) 286-1262
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrielino /Tongva Nation
Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St.,
#231
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
Phone: (951) 807 - 0479
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Robert Dorame, Chairperson
P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA, 90707
Phone: (562) 761 - 6417
Fax: (562) 761-6417
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Charles Alvarez,
23454 Vanowen Street
West Hills, CA, 91307
Phone: (310) 403 - 6048
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 663 - 5279
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Scott Cozart, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92583
Phone: (951) 654 - 2765
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed San Marino Center Renovation Project, Los Angeles County.
PROJ-2021-
000430
01/25/2021 11:31 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Los Angeles County
1/25/2021
J U L Y 9 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
S A N M A R I N O C E N T E R R E N O V A T I O N P R O J E C T
APPENDIX D
RESUMES OF PROJECT PERSONNEL
DAVID BRUNZELL, M.A., RPA
Owner/Principal Investigator (2002-Present)
BCR Consulting LLC
909-525-7078
[email protected]
EXPERTISE
Cultural Resource Project Management
National Environmental Policy Act Cultural Resource Compliance California Environmental Quality Act Cultural Resource Compliance National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 Compliance Government Agency (Federal/State/Regional) Partnering, Streamlining, and Consultation Technical Report Writing for Archaeology, History, and Architectural History NRHP/CRHR Evaluation of Pre/historic Archaeological, and Historic Architectural Resources Preparation of all DPR523 Site Records
Archaeological, Historical, and Architectural History Research Archaeological Excavation
Archaeological and Architectural History Survey
Lithic and Ground Stone Analysis
Global Positioning Systems / Archaeological Mapping and Orienteering Fossil Preparation
Laboratory Analysis
Native American Consultation
EDUCATION
California State University, Fullerton, M.A. Anthropology/Archaeology, 2002 California State University, Fullerton, B.A. Anthropology, 1997 Pomona College Field School, Southern Oregon/Northern California, 1995 Continuing Education
Riverside County Cultural Sensitivity Training 2011, 2009, 2007 Cal State San Bernardino College of Extended Learning, Science of Flint Knapping, 2007 National Preservation Institute NHPA Section 106 Training, 2004
PERMITS
BLM Principal Investigator for Cultural Resource Investigations (California, Great Basin) California Department of Transportation Principal Investigator for Cultural Resources Authorized Researcher at Each of the Twelve California Archaeological Information Centers
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS, AWARDS, AND CERTIFICATIONS
2002-Present Member, Register of Professional Archaeologists 2000-Present Member, Society for American Archaeology
2009-Present Member, Society for California Archaeology 2011-Present Certified Archaeologist for Unincorporated Orange County 2013-15 Board of Directors, Claremont Heritage
1996-2002 Lambda Alpha Society, National Collegiate Honors Society for Anthropology 2008-09 Board of Directors, Pomona Valley Historical Society
SELECTED PROJECTS MANAGED
Cultural Resources Impacts Assessment of the Proposed Wattstar Cinema Project on the National Register Listed Watts Station, Watts Community of Los Angeles Cultural Resources Assessment of the Mountain View Mobile Home Park, Santa Monica, Los Angeles County, California
Archaeological Monitoring of the Marina Del Rey 18" Waterline Replacement, Phase II, Los Angeles County, California
Cultural Resource Assessment and Architectural Evaluation for Ridgeline Equestrian Estates, City of Orange, Orange County, California
Cultural Resources Assessment of the San Juan Creek Road Widening Project, San Juan Capistrano, Orange County, California
Cultural Resources Assessment of the Sun Ranch Drainage Project, San Juan Capistrano, Orange County, California
Cultural Resources Assessment of 129 Southern California Crown Castle Project Locations, San Diego County, California
Cultural Resources Assessment of the T-Mobile PUC Project, San Diego County, California Cultural Resources Assessment and California Register Eligibility Evaluation of the Norco Water District Project, Norco, Riverside County, California Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of Tentative Parcel Map No. 36229, APN 471-080- 014, Reche Canyon, Unincorporated Riverside County, California Archaeological Excavations at the Dateland Project, Indio, Riverside County, California National Register Eligibility Evaluation of the Coalinga Library, Coalinga, Fresno County Archaeological and Paleo Monitoring of the Beacon Solar Project, Kern County, California Cultural Resources Assessment of 7,688 Acre Solar Development in the Mojave Desert, Kern County
Cultural Resources Assessment 340 Acres at Cronise Lake, Unincorporated San Bernardino County, California
Cultural Resources Assessment Assessor Parcel Numbers 0256-41-01, -02, -03, -47, and - 48 Bloomington Community of Unincorporated San Bernardino County, California Cultural Resources Assessment of the Montecito Coastal Geophysical Survey Project, Montecito, Santa Barbara County, California
Cultural Resources Assessment of the E&B Cuyama Interplant Pipeline, Santa Barbara County, California
Cultural Resources Assessment of the Crestview Avenue Project (TTM No. 5920) City of Camarillo, Ventura County, California
Cultural Resources Assessment of the Potrero Road Slant Test Well Project, Unincorporated Monterey County, California
Cultural Resources Assessment of the Western Oil Independent, LLC Capps Tank Facility Project, Monterey County, California
Cultural Resources Assessment of the Simi Village Project, City of Simi Valley, Ventura County, California
KARA BRUNZELL
BCR Consulting LLC
Project Manager/Principal Architectural Historian/Historian 707-290-2918
[email protected]
EXPERTISE
Kara Brunzell has practiced in the fields of history/architectural history, cultural resource management, and historic preservation since 2007. She has served as a consulting historian on historical research investigations for federal, state, and local governments. She is proficient in the recordation, inventory, and evaluation of historic resources using the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) guidelines. Her expertise includes preparing reports and making recommendations regarding Section 106 review and compliance. Kara is experienced in applying the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to both large-scale survey projects and individual historic-period resources. She has also worked in municipal preservation planning and non-profit historic preservation. Her non-profit work has included coordination of technical services, content creation and implementation for preservation education, and management of a preservation advocacy program. Kara qualifies as a historian and architectural historian under the United States Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (as defined in 36 CFR, Part 61).
EDUCATION
CSU Sacramento, Master of Arts in Public History, 2009
UCLA, Bachelor of Arts in History, 1988
Continuing Education
California Preservation Foundation (CPF) Conference 2014 “Redefining Preservation” CPF Webinar 2011: “Environmental Benefits of Reuse”
CPF Conference 2011: Santa Monica, California, “Preservation on the Edge” CPF Workshop 2011: Napa, Calif., “Preservation Ordinances” CPF Workshop 2009: “The Use and Application of the California Historical Building Code” CPF Conference 2008: Napa, California, “Balance and Complexity: The Vineyard and Beyond” CPF Workshop 2008: Davis, California, Historic Resource Surveys: A to Z”
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS, AWARDS, AND CERTIFICATIONS
2011-Present Member, California Preservation Foundation 2009-Present Member, Napa County Landmarks
2007-Present Member, Napa County Historical Society
2010 Grant Application, 2010-2011 CLG Grant Awarded, City of Napa, California 2009 Grant Application, 2009-2010 CLG Grant Awarded, City of Napa, California 2008 Grant Application, 2008-2009 CLG Grant Awarded, City of Napa, California
SELECTED PROFESSIONAL PROJECTS
Section 106 and CEQA Compliance Tasks for the GRID Roads Bookends Project, American Canyon, Napa County, California
Postal Historic Structure Report; Nineteen California Locations Historic Buildings and Structures Inventory for Fort Hunter Liggett, Jolon, Monterey County, California
Section 106 Compliance Tasks for the Pavement Reconstruction Project, Belmont, San Mateo County, California
Architectural/Historical Evaluation and Review of Proposed Project for Beltane Ranch; Sonoma County, California
NRHP Nomination of Sperry Flour Company, Vallejo, Solano County, California Historic Context Survey and Historic District Nomination for the Newton Booth Neighborhood; Sacramento, California
Historic Architectural Evaluation of the Delta Research Station; Rio Vista, Solano County, California
Historic Context Survey of Davis; Yolo County, California Architectural/Historical Evaluation of the Brown Ranch; Sonoma, California Architectural/Historical Evaluation and Archaeological Survey of Santa’s Village in Skyforest, San Bernardino County, California
Architectural/Historical Evaluation and Cultural Resources (Archeological and Paleontological) Assessment of a Motel at 11615 - 11645 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, Contra Costa County, California
Jesse Unruh Building Roof Replacement Project; Department of General Services, Sacramento, California
Redwood Agricultural Inspection Station Repairs; California Department of General Services, Del Norte County, California
Landfall Renovation Project, Review of Proposed Design; Belvedere, Marin County, California Los Gatos Creek Watershed Maintenance Program; San Jose Water Company, Santa Clara County, California
Historic Resource Evaluation of Five Buildings at Oakland International Airport; Port of Oakland, California
Historic Resource Survey and Evaluation of Soares Ranch; Union City, Alameda County, California
State Printing Plant and Textbook Warehouse Relocation and Building Demolition Project; California Department of General Services; Sacramento, California Interlake Tunnel Project: Monterey County Water Resources Agency; Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties, California
Department of Motor Vehicles Fell Street 5024 Evaluation; California Department of General Services; San Francisco, California
Local Historic Register Nomination of Main Street Bridge, Napa, Napa County, California Environmental Impact Report, California High-Speed Train Project, Fresno to Bakersfield Section, California
ACADEMIC PAPERS/PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS
2011 Historic Preservation: Engine of the Napa Economy
2008 Historic Landscape Regulation and Practice in the City of Napa 2008 September 11: History, Memory, and Comics
2008 Marxism and History
2008 Historiography of the American West (Published in Clio, CSUS Graduate Journal) 2007 History of the Silverado Trail, Napa County, California 2007 The Chinese Community in Napa as Portrayed by the Napa County Reporter, 1860-1880
2007 The Chinese Community in Early Napa: A Museum Exhibit 2007 Downtown Napa Intensive Building Survey and Historic Context Statement
J U L Y 9 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
S A N M A R I N O C E N T E R R E N O V A T I O N P R O J E C T
APPENDIX E
PROPOSED PROJECT EXHIBIT
January 2022
Appendix C-1
Recommendations Memo, Chattel Historic Preservation Consultants
MEMORANDUM
DATE November 15, 2021
TO Marcella Marlowe, Ph.D., City Manager
Michael, Throne, PE, Parks and Public Works Director, City Engineer City of San Marino
CC Travis McGill, Director
Julie Gilbert, Project Manager
ELMT Consulting
FROM Robert Chattel, AIA, President
Sydney Andrea Landers, Associate I
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
RE San Marino Center (San Marino Women’s Club)
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Recommendations Memorandum
This memorandum describes existing conditions and provides recommendations for the City of San Marino (City) proposed exterior and interior work to the San Marino Center (San Marino Women’s Club), 1800 Huntington Drive in San Marino, California (subject property or building) to ensure conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s Standards). The subject property (Assessor Parcel No. 5334-024-903) is a one-story stucco-clad community building constructed in 1952 as the San Marino Women’s Club designed by architect Marion J. Varner in the Ranch style.
1 The building is composed of a large auditorium,
dining room, meeting room and office. Constructed as the San Marino Women’s Club2, The building has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and the California Register for Historic Places (California Register) for being the first community meeting center in San Marino.
The subject property was officially determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) in a 2011 report prepared by San Buenaventura Research Associates for the City. It was subsequently surveyed in the 2020 Citywide Historic Resources Survey Report (Citywide survey) prepared by Architectural Resources Group that identified the subject property as an individual property determined eligible for the National Register by a consensus through Section 106 process. The subject property is thus listed in the California Register and is designated as a San 1 The subject property was variously described in survey and in the determination of National Register eligibility as Modern Colonial Revival style but is more appropriately described as Ranch style. 2 The building has been interchangeably referred to as the San Marino Women’s or Woman’s Club in existing documentation. For purposes of consistency, we have selected to refer to it as the San Marino Women’s Club as that is how it is listed in the original 1951 building permit.
1800 Huntington Drive
Marino Historic Landmark.
3 The subject property is significant for social history under National Register/California Register criterion A/1.
Figure 1: Architectural Rendering of the San Marino Women’s Club (Pasadena Museum of History, 1951)
Designed as an early community building, its architectural expression imparts a residential character consistent the Ranch style that was at the height of its popularity. At the time of its design and construction, it was located in a residential zone and received a zoning variance. Characteristic features of the Ranch style include a low sloping, front facing cross gable roof clad in wood shake shingles, painted stucco, square steel porch columns with ornamental ironwork supporting the recessed porch, steel sash casement windows and Late Moderne style features such as the rectangular grid pattern on the high-volume auditorium exterior walls and bevel frames at some windows.
By 1958, two additions were made to the subject property. The east addition is a 100 square foot storage space that infilled a portion of the east elevation porch and the west addition is a 110 square foot office space that infilled the west elevation porch. Alterations include the raised windowsill at the large east elevation dining room window, sheet metal awnings added to the west elevation, an exit door added to the dining room at the south elevation, replacement of the entry door leaves, removal of a raised planter and extension of paved walkways at the north elevation. Consistent with previous evaluations, these are minor alterations, and the subject property retains integrity.
Proposed work plans to mesh the designs of the subject property with the adjacent Crowell Public Library (library), a building influenced by the Spanish-Mediterranean style, featuring characteristic elements of the style such as a terracotta tile roof, arches above windows and doors, stucco exterior and trellises. The project plans aim to rehabilitate and alter the subject property in a manner that would ensure the subject property and library read as one cohesive unit despite being on separate parcels and from different periods. The subject property, when compared to the adjacent library, appears dated and needs investment and repositioning to improve its functionality and use. The proposed work plans currently include replacing steel sash windows with insulated glazed aluminum frame windows, removing reveals and adding new stucco, adding new arches at the primary north elevation entry at the south elevation, adding wall and shade canopies, replacing the planter at the north elevation, replacing the square steel porch columns with ornamental ironwork for round stucco columns, replacing the wood shake roof with Mission or Spanish terracotta tile. The proposed work plans do not conform with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s Standards).
3 The San Marino Historic Preservation Ordinance (23.18.03.A) includes Automatic Designation as a local City landmark when a property is listed in the National Register or California Register.
1800 Huntington Drive
To identify potential design alternatives that would be consistent with the Secretary’s Standard’s, Chattel, Inc. (Chattel) President Robert Chattel, AIA, and Associate I Sydney Andrea Landers conducted a site visit on October 20, 2021 with ELMT Project Manager Julie Gilbert and City Engineer Michael Throne. This memorandum summarizes Chattel’s observations during the site visit, and provides recommendations based on limited historic image research (Attachment A), permit research (Attachment C), review of proposed site plan drawings drawn by Crane Architectural Group dated November 2020 (Attachment D), previous historic evaluation review (Attachment F), and discussion with the City Engineer. Attachment B includes contemporary photographs and Attachment F includes exterior elevations denoting where alterations have occurred.
Existing Conditions
The subject property consists of a generally one-story building of rectangular massing, with two additions one in the front and one in the rear both dating to 1958. The front addition is to the east of the projecting wing and the rear addition is to the east of the auditorium. The front elevations takes on residential massing and features an L-shaped porch that wraps around the north elevation. The north elevation (primary façade) faces Huntington Drive (Huntington) (Images 1-6, 24-29), the east elevation directly abuts the adjacent building (library) (Images 7-14), the south elevation faces a surface parking lot shared by the library (Images 15-19) and the west elevation faces a surface parking lot (Images 20-23).
North Elevation (Façade)
The north elevation (façade) is comprised of an L-shaped porch that wraps around the north and west elevations, an office addition on the west end of the porch and a projecting wing on the east end. The roof of the north elevation is front facing and cross gabled with wood shake shingles. The roof overhangs over the L-shaped porch as well as the east projecting wing. The office addition is approximately 100 sq ft and partially infilled the west end of the porch in 1958. The east projecting wing features a central 6x3 steel casement window surrounded by a painted wooden bevel frame.
Intersecting the cross gabled roof is the auditorium’s high volume stucco wall with a flat roof. The porch is lined by square steel porch columns with ornamental ironwork. The north facing side of the porch is lined with hedges. The double door entry is recessed into the inner corner of the porch. To the east of the recessed entry door are two metal double doors central with the walkway. To the west of the recessed entry is a 4x3 steel casement window. Original pavement along the north elevation is denoted by original red paint. This original pavement wraps the building’s exterior walls and is mostly covered by a roof overhang. This elevation faces Huntington Drive and is highly visible from the public right of way.
East Elevation
The east elevation is comprised of the east addition on the north end and a central north-facing porch entry to the dining hall. The east addition has one window facing north with metal bars and an aluminum frame. Adjacent to it, on the original building envelope, is a steel casement window with a wooden frame painted white. The roofline extends past the addition to create a covered porch with half of the original brick chimney exposed. The pavement underneath the roof overhang is original.
Going south, the front addition has one wooden door with a window that faces east. Past this are two 3 panel steel sash windows underneath another roof overhang porch entry.
This entry faces north and consists of a large 4x4 wooden casement window framed by two narrow wooden doors with three windows and transoms. These doors are barely wider than the 28-inch variance permitted through the California Historic Building Code (CHBC).
1800 Huntington Drive
Along the east elevation’s south end, is a large three by six panel steel casement windows. This window is half of its original height, evident by markings on the stucco that extend from the window to the ground level. Chattel was informed that the bottom half of the window was filled in at an unknown date (likely soon after construction) due to drainage and flooding issues with having the window be at ground level. The roofline above this window is a false gable parapet over a flat roof.
The rest of the east elevation’s envelope is painted stucco and minimally detailed. This elevation is less visible from the public right of way as it directly faces the library.
South Elevation
The south elevation features two 2x4 pane steel sash windows that are central and evenly spaced in the dining hall. On the east end, there is an exit door and metal rail for the center’s handicap entrance that was added in 1956. The roofline remains flat with an elevated parapet on the west end to cover mechanical equipment. The 1958 rear addition is half of the height of the high-volume auditorium is nestled in the L-shaped plan of the auditorium rear and dining hall. The rear of the auditorium features two exit doors: one at ground level and one at level with the auditorium with a concrete staircase and metal railing lining the side of the building. The rear of the auditorium remains unpainted and minimally altered. This elevation is not visible from the public right of way.
West Elevation
The west elevation is primarily composed of the flat roof high volume auditorium and a side gabled porch entry on the north end. Near the roofline, the exterior is adorned in a rectangular grid pattern on stucco, similar to the Late Moderne. The south end of the west elevation contains two narrow wooden sash windows covered by black metal bars. Below these windows is a chain link fence, a third of the building’s height, that covers access to mechanical equipment. To the north of this fence is an elevator door entry with a concrete staircase and metal railing leading up to the building. The metal handrail was added in 1956. The central portion of the west elevation consists of three evenly spaced steel casement windows 6x6 pane steel sash windows that are covered by corrugated metal awnings with scalloped ends. The awnings have been painted white and feature similar ornamental ironwork as the square steel porch columns. The north end of the west elevation features a side gable wing that contains an office and the front porch of the subject property. This projecting gable includes two windows with metal awnings that face west and south respectively. The top of the gable includes a metal vent that has been painted to match the rest of the exterior envelope. At the north end, a three-step concrete staircase leads to the front porch and is covered by a green fabric awning that lists “San Marino Women’s Center” in faded lettering. The porch is lined by a minimalistic metal baluster and railing. Much of the west elevation is obscured and lined by vegetation and trees on the property. This elevation is visible from the public right of way.
The table below summarizes major construction phases and additions identified in existing building permit records provided by the City of San Marino.
Date Permit
Type/
Number
Architect/
Contractor
Value Description Notes
06/08/1951 Building
Permit
7772
Architect:
Marion J.
Varner
$90,000 New construction of
Women’s Club
Zoning
variance for
use in
residential
neighborhood
08/28/1956 Building
Permit
10522
Architect:
Marion J.
Varner
$500 Alterations: Exit door in SE
corner of dining room, exit
All on
secondary,
rear elevation
1800 Huntington Drive
lights, metal hand rail for
stoop on rear west side
07/30/1958 Building
Permit
11468
Contractor:
Norwood &
Delong
$5,000 Storage and office
additions
Two additions
infilling
existing porch
east and
west,
respectively
02/23/1960 Building
Permit
15558
Contactor:
Norwood &
Delong
$3500 New kitchenette and half
bath
No structural
changes
Character-Defining Features
The subject property retains the following character-defining features of Ranch and Late Moderne styles:
• One-story rectangular massing with front facing and cross gable roofs; • Stucco with rectangular grid reveals at parapet;
• Multi-light steel sash windows, wood grid windows, some with wood bevel frames; • Square steel porch columns with ornamental ironwork; and, • Fenestration pattern of windows and doors at north (primary), east, south (rear), and west elevations.
Recommendations
The subject property lacks some aesthetic appeal of its original design due to two additions that infilled the primary north elevation porch on both the east and west, which altered its original massing, removal of the front planter, deterioration of the exterior stucco, and weathered wood shakes. Restoring the original footprint by removing both porch additions and rehabilitating character defining features would significantly enhance the aesthetic appeal of the building.
The goal of the revised design should be first and foremost to restore and rehabilitate the subject property’s character defining features while allowing for subtle changes in massing, color, and landscaping to visually connect it with the library. Visual elements of the Spanish-Mediterranean style library can be integrated into the building by subtle changes to roof color and material, exterior paint color, hardscape, and landscaping to improve compatibility with the library.
We recommend referencing Preservation Brief 22: The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco and Preservation Brief 13: The Repair and Thermal Upgrading of Historic Steel Windows for any future rehabilitation work on these features.
To ensure that any revised design conforms with the Secretary’s Standards, the design architect should work with a qualified historic preservation consultant through design collaboration.4 4 A qualified historic preservation consultant must meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in architecture, historic architecture, or architectural history.
1800 Huntington Drive
Specifically, our recommendations are as follows and additional reference materials are provided in Attachment G:
At the north elevation:
• Retain and rehabilitate character-defining features to greatest extent feasible. • Retain wood shake roof or replace with compatible replacement such as red asphalt shingle or flat terracotta tile.
• Patch, repair and repaint stucco, as necessary. Stucco can be painted to be compatible with the library.
• Retain and rehabilitate square steel porch columns and ornamental ironwork, repaint as necessary. Columns and ornamental ironwork can be painted brown to be compatible with trim of the library.
• Rehabilitate and repair steel sash windows, as necessary. • Retain and rehabilitate original paving, as necessary. • Restore original planter at north elevation, match vegetation with library. • Remove two porch additions (east storage addition and west office addition). Ensure that brick chimney is not damaged in removal of east storage addition. Chemically remove overpaint on brick.
• Detail wall and shade canopy to not touch existing building ensuring reversibility, and revise wall and shade canopy design to be subordinate to existing building. Provide only minimal metal infill at existing porch to enclose courtyard.
• Replace existing primary north entry door leaves to match existing.
At the east elevation:
• Retain and rehabilitate character-defining features to greatest extent feasible. • Patch, repair and repaint stucco, as necessary. Stucco can be painted to be compatible with the adjacent library.
• Rehabilitate and repair steel sash and wood grid windows, as necessary. • Remove porch addition (east storage addition). Ensure that brick chimney is not damaged in removal of east storage addition. Chemically remove overpaint on brick. Restore steel sash doors that were removed to provide access into addition.
At the south elevation:
• Retain and rehabilitate character-defining features to greatest extent feasible. • Patch, repair and repaint stucco, as necessary. Stucco can be painted to be compatible with the adjacent library.
• Rehabilitate and repair steel sash and wood grid windows, as necessary. • Detail wall and shade canopy to not touch existing building ensuring reversibility. Simplify design of the screen wall and trellis to eliminate round arches and detail to be self-supporting and not attached to the existing building.
At the west elevation:
• Retain and rehabilitate character-defining features to greatest extent feasible. • Patch, repair and repaint stucco, as necessary. Stucco can be painted to be compatible with the adjacent library.
• Rehabilitate and repair sheet metal window awnings, repaint as necessary. • Rehabilitate and repair steel sash windows, as necessary.
1800 Huntington Drive
• Remove porch addition (west office addition). Restore missing square steel porch columns with ornamental ironwork.
Attachments
Attachment A: Historic Images
Attachment B: Contemporary Images
Attachment C: Original Permits
Attachment D: Site Plan, Proposed Plans
Attachment E: Exterior Elevations, Alterations denoted
Attachment F: Previous Historic Evaluation
Attachment G: Replacement Tile Examples
Attachment A:
Historic Images
San Marino Center (San Marino Women’s Club)
1800 Huntington Drive
San Marino, California
this page intentionally left blank.
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Attachment A: Historic Images
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
Image 1: Architectural Rendering of San Marino Women’s Club (1950) (Pasadena Museum of History)
Image 2: San Marino Women’s Club, 1952. (1952) (University of Southern California Digital Collections)
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Attachment A: Historic Images
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
Image 3: San Marino Women’s Club, 1952 (1952) (University of Southern California Digital Collections)
Attachment B:
Contemporary Images
San Marino Center (San Marino Women’s Club)
1800 Huntington Drive
San Marino, California
this page intentionally left blank.
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Attachment B: Contemporary Images
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
Image 1: San Marino Center, north elevation (left) and west elevation (right), view southeast (Chattel, 2021)
Image 2: San Marino Center, north elevation, view southeast (Chattel, 2021)
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Attachment B: Contemporary Images
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
Image 3: Entrance to the San Marino Center, north elevation, view south (Chattel, 2021) Image 4: San Marino Center, north elevation, view south (Chattel, 2021
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Attachment B: Contemporary Images
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
Image 5: San Marino Center, north elevation, note steel sash windows with wooden bevel frame, view south (Chattel, 2021)
Image 6: San Marino Center, east elevation (left) and north elevation (right), view southwest (Chattel, 2021)
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Attachment B: Contemporary Images
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
Image 7: San Marino Center, east elevation (far left) and north elevation (center), note brick chimney bisected by east storage addition and ornamental ironwork (Chattel, 2021) this space intentionally left blank.
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Attachment B: Contemporary Images
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
Image 9: Detail of recessed porch on east elevation, note steel sash windows and original wooden doors, view west (Chattel, 2021)
Image 8: San Marino Center, north elevation (left) and east elevation (right), note recessed porch with original paving painted red, view west (Chattel, 2021)
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Attachment B: Contemporary Images
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
Image 11: Detail of steel sash window on east elevation, note the tear in stucco where window originally extended to ground level and infilled at a unknown date, view southwest (Chattel, 2021)
Image 10: San Marino Center, east elevation, view southwest (Chattel, 2021)
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Attachment B: Contemporary Images
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
Image 12: San Marino Center, south elevation (left) and east elevation (right), view northwest (Chattel, 2021)
Image 13: Detail of steel sash window on the south elevation, view north (Chattel, 2021)
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Attachment B: Contemporary Images
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
Image 14: San Marino Center, south elevation, view northwest (Chattel, 2021) Image 15: San Marino Center, south elevation, view north (Chattel, 2021)
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Attachment B: Contemporary Images
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
Image 16: San Marino Center, south elevation, view north (Chattel, 2021) Image 17: San Marino Center, west elevation, view northeast (Chattel, 2021)
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Attachment B: Contemporary Images
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
Image 18: San Marino Center, west elevation, view east (Chattel, 2021) Image 19: San Marino Center, west elevation, view east (Chattel, 2021)
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Attachment B: Contemporary Images
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
Image 20: San Marino Center, west elevation, view east (Chattel, 2021) Image 21: San Marino Center, north elevation, view southeast, note entry porch (Chattel, 2021)
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Attachment B: Contemporary Images
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
Image 22: Detail of door and window of west office addition, north elevation, view south (Chattel, 2021)
Image 23: Detail of steel sash windows on west elevation, view southeast (Chattel, 2021)
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Attachment B: Contemporary Images
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
Image 24: San Marino Center, north elevation, note entry double doors, view southeast (Chattel, 2021)
Image 25: Detail of cornerstone, north elevation, view east (Chattel, 2021)
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Attachment B: Contemporary Images
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
Image 26: View of entry double doors from interior, view northeast (Chattel, 2021) Image 27: View of interior lobby, view west
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Attachment B: Contemporary Images
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
Image 28: Detail of commemorative tiles for the San Marino Women’s Club (Chattel, 2021) this space intentionally left blank.
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Attachment B: Contemporary Images
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
Image 29: View of auditorium, view southwest (Chattel, 2021) Image 30: View of auditorium, view northeast (Chattel, 2021)
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Attachment B: Contemporary Images
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
Image 31: View of adjoining dining hall, view northeast (Chattel, 2021) Image 32: View of dining hall, view east (Chattel, 2021)
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Attachment B: Contemporary Images
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
Image 33: View of dining hall, view south (Chattel, 2021) this space intentionally left blank.
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Attachment B: Contemporary Images
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
Image 34: View of meeting room, view northeast (Chattel, 2021) Image 35: View of meeting room, view southwest (Chattel, 2021)
Attachment C:
Original Permits
San Marino Center (San Marino Women’s Club)
1800 Huntington Drive
San Marino, California
Attachment D:
Proposed Plans
San Marino Center (San Marino Women’s Club)
1800 Huntington Drive
San Marino, California
DRAFT
Attachment E:
Original Elevations with Alterations Denoted
San Marino Center (San Marino Women’s Club)
1800 Huntington Drive
San Marino, California
this page intentionally left blank.
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Attachment E: Original Elevations with Alterations Denoted Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
North Elevation
East Elevation
South Elevation
West Elevation
Attachment F:
Previous Historic Evaluation
San Marino Center (San Marino Women’s Club)
1800 Huntington Drive
San Marino, California
Date ; R 1/4 of 1/4 of Sec B.M.
State of California — The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
PRIMARY RECORD
Primary
HRI
Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 3S
Other Listing
Review Code ________ Reviewer ____________________________________ Date _______________ Page
P1. Other Identifier:
P2. Location:
P3. Description (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) APN 5334-024-903
Located on Huntington Drive between the San Marino Library and the Henry E. Huntington School, the former San Marino Woman’s Club building is a large primarily one story building with a flat roof and raised parapet along the rear and side elevations. The front elevation features a side-facing medium gable roof with an offset front gable wing. An l-shaped porch runs across the front elevation and is supported by decorative wrought iron posts. The roof is covered with wood shingles. A large multi-paned steel framed window is located below the main front gable. Underneath the window is brick trim. A tall exterior brick chimney is located on the northeast elevation. Windows are primarily multi-paned steel casements. Siding is stucco and foundation is concrete. The interior of the building when first built contained a large auditorium, dining room, meeting room and office. 1 3 of Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) San Marino Woman’s CLub Not for Publication X Unrestricted a. County Los Angeles and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) b. USGS 7.5ʼ Quad El Monte 1966/81/94
c. Address:
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/linear resources)!! ;! ! ! mE/! ! ! ! mN e. Other Locational Data (Enter Parcel #, legal description, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) 1800 Huntington Drive
P3b. Resource Attributes (List attributes and codes)
P4. Resources Present Building! ! Structure! ! Object! ! Site! ! District! ! Other (isolates, etc.) P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects) City San Marino Zip 91108
HP13; HP38
X
P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #)
P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
Prehistoric Historic Both
P7. Owner and Address
P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation and address)
P9. Date Recorded:
P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none”) Attachments NONE
Location Map
Sketch Map
Continuation Sheet
Building, Structure and Object Record
Archaeological Record
X
X
District Record
Linear Feature Record
Milling Station Record
Rock Art Record
Artifact Record
Photograph Record
Other (List)
front (northern) elevation, 13 July 2011
X
1952-F - building permits
City of San Marino
2200 Huntington Drive
San Marino, CA 91108
Judy Triem/San Buenaventura Research Assc.
1328 Woodland Drive
Santa Paula, CA 93060
Section 106 Review
20 July 2011
B11. Additional Resource Attributes (List attributes and codes) B12. References:
B13. Remarks:
B14. Evaluator:
Date of Evaluation:
B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date:! ! ! Original Location:
B8. Related Features:
B9a. Architect:! ! ! ! ! ! ! b. Builder:
B10. Significance: Theme! ! ! ! ! ! Area:
Period of Significance: !! ! ! Property Type:! ! ! ! Applicable Criteria:
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period and geographical scope. Also address integrity.) B1. Historic Name:
B2. Common Name:
B3. Original Use:! ! ! ! ! ! ! B4. Present Use:
B5. Architectural Style:
B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) State of California — The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
San Marino Woman’s Club
Page
The San Marino Woman’s Club was organized in 1936 with 420 members and held its general meetings in the Henry E. Huntington School. In 1942 the club purchased the property at 1800 Huntington Drive for the purpose of building a much needed clubhouse for its growing membership. However, it was not until ten years later that the 15,720 square foot clubhouse was completed on the site.
When completed, the San Marino Woman’s Club was the first meeting place to be built in the community. The building was constructed to serve the entire community, not just the Woman’s Club, although they funded its construction. Members raised most of the funds to complete the clubhouse through bazaars, rummage sales, parties and various entertainment events over a ten year period. They also made an appeal to the public for funds.
Over the years, the club’s charitable contributions have been numerous and include the endowment of a bed at the Orthopedic Hospital, nursing scholarships, Toys for Tots and others. They also provided help to the Assistance League, American Red Cross and the City of Hope. The building was made available to the community for meetings and events. After selling its building, the San Marino Woman’s Club moved its organization to Pasadena in 2004. (cont’d.) Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) San Marino Woman’s Club 2 3 of
San Marino Community Center
mature tree in front; parking area on side and rear
X
woman’s club/community center community center
Marion J. Varner unknown
Social history San Marino
1952 - 1958 clubhouse A
Balvin, Christie. “San Marino Woman’s Club Creates $1 Million Endowment with the Pasadena Community Foundation.” Pasadena Community Foundation, May 25, 2007.
City of San Marino, building permits for San Marino Woman’s Club, 6/8/1951, 7/30/1958. (Cont’d.)
HP38
San Buenaventura Research Associates
20 July 2011
(This space reserved for official comments.)
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
NRHP Status Code 3S
HRI # Primary #
Modern Colonial Revival
1952; two additions in 1958; separate modular building in rear, date unknown
State of California — The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Page
B10. Significance
Marion J. Varner, Architect
Born February 8, 1912 in Kansas, Marion J. Varner moved to Pomona, California by 1920 with his parents Clarence and Mabel Varner and siblings. His father owned a plastering company. Marion lived with his family in 1930, and at age 18, was employed as a baker.
Varner’s educational background is unknown. The first known reference to his architecture career was in 1951 when the Los Angeles Times reported he designed 24 homes in the Anaheim Tract at the same time he was designing the San Marino Woman’s Club. His office was located in Pasadena. Varner had a very prolific career designing primarily public buildings throughout Los Angeles County.
Some of his major projects include Hawthorne Police Station, 1955; Torrance Fire Station, 1955; San Fernando Police Station, 1956; Compton Community Center, 1956; Gardena Medical Clinic, 1956; Glendora Hospital, 1956; El Segundo Fire Station, 1957; Hawthorne Fire Station, 1957; Downey Civic Center, 1958; San Gabriel Police Station, 1961; Gardena City Hall, police building and library, 1963 for which he received an award from the Society of American Registered Architects (SARA); Arcadia high-rise office, 1963; and Bell Gardens City Hall in 1966. Varner also won an award from SARA for his design for the Vernon City Hall and Police Station in 1975. In 1978 Varner joined W. Gayle Daniel and Samuel E. Hart of the SARA to design the first energy-effective case study house in Rancho California and the first to be sponsored by a chapter of a professional society. (Los Angeles Times, 1951-1978) Varner was active professionally serving as president of the National Board of the Society of American Registered Architects and in 1968 he served as president of the local chapter. He died on April 10, 2005 in San Marino.
The San Marino Community Center, formerly the San Marino Woman’s Club, is associated with an event (Criterion A) which is important to the history of the San Marino community. It apparently was the first community building constructed in San Marino and has served as a community focal point for many years while the club also pursued its charitable work. The building is not associated with any known individuals (Criterion B) important to the history of the San Marino community. The building does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction (Criterion C). The Woman’s Club is an undistinguished example of the Modern Colonial style. It was designed by Pasadena architect Marion Varner and is one of his early designs. Varner was a prolific architect during the 1950s and 1960s designing numerous public buildings throughout Los Angeles County. Varner’s work is not sufficiently documented to regard him as a Master architect. Criterion D refers to archaeology and is not addressed in this report.
Integrity Discussion
The property at 1800 Huntington Drive is in its original location. The original design of the 1952 building is primarily intact except for changes to the front entrance doors and two small additions in 1958 done in the same style. The historic setting of the property is partially intact. The relationship to the adjacent library and school remain. However, the original 1950 library was replaced with a new library building within the last few years. The integrity of materials is somewhat intact. The feeling and association as a woman’s club is no longer intact since the building is now the San Marino Community Center, but it continues to function to serve the community. Overall, the integrity of the building appears sufficient for eligibility.
B12. References
Los Angeles Times, various articles, 1951 through 1978.
Los Angeles County Assessor’s Property information
3 3 of Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) San Marino Woman’s Club Recorded by:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Judy Triem Date! ! ! 20 July 2011 X Continuation Update Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Attachment G:
Replacement Tile Examples
San Marino Center (San Marino Women’s Club)
1800 Huntington Drive
San Marino, California
8 of 962
January 2022
Appendix E
Traffic Impact Analysis
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
SAN MARINO CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
City of San Marino, California
September 21, 2021
Prepared for:
ELMT Consulting
2201 N. Grand Avenue, #10098
Santa Ana, California 92711
LLG Ref. 1-20-4416-1
Prepared by: Under the Supervision of:
Chin S. Taing, PTP, RSP1 Clare M. Look-Jaeger, P.E.
Senior Transportation Planner Principal
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4416-1 San Marino Center Improvement Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4416\report\4416-Rpt3.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Transportation Study Overview....................................................................................... 1
1.2 Study Methodology ......................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program Status..................................... 4
2.0 Project Description.................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Existing Project Site......................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Proposed Project Description .......................................................................................... 5
2.3 Project Site Access........................................................................................................... 5
2.3.1 Vehicular Site Access.......................................................................................... 5
2.3.2 Non-Vehicular Site Access................................................................................. 8
2.4 Existing Overall Site and Total Parking Supply ............................................................. 8
2.5 City Code Parking Requirements .................................................................................... 9
2.6 Comparison of Industry Standard Parking Ratios........................................................... 11
2.6.1 ITE Parking Demand Ratios............................................................................... 11
2.6.2 ULI Shared Parking Demand Concept and Analysis......................................... 12
2.7 Parking Management Strategies...................................................................................... 16
2.8 Project Trip Generation and Distribution........................................................................ 17
2.8.1 Project Trip Generation....................................................................................... 17
2.8.2 Weekday ITE Project Trip Generation Summary .............................................. 17
2.8.3 Weekday Site-Specific Project Trip Generation Summary................................ 17
2.8.4 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment.......................................................... 19
3.0 Project Site Context ................................................................................................................ 24
3.1 Non-Vehicle Network...................................................................................................... 24
3.1.1 Pedestrian System ............................................................................................... 24
3.1.2 Bicycle System.................................................................................................... 24
3.2 Transit Network ............................................................................................................... 25
3.3 Vehicle Network.............................................................................................................. 25
3.3.1 Roadway Classifications ..................................................................................... 25
3.3.2 Regional Highway System.................................................................................. 29
3.3.3 Roadway Descriptions ........................................................................................ 29
3.4 Traffic Count Data........................................................................................................... 29
3.5 Cumulative Development Projects.................................................................................. 32
3.5.1 Related Projects................................................................................................... 36
3.5.2 Ambient Traffic Growth Factor.......................................................................... 36
4.0 CEQA Transportation Assessment....................................................................................... 41
4.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Project Screening ......................................................... 41
4.1.1 Transit Priority Area Screening .......................................................................... 41
4.1.2 Low VMT Area Screening.................................................................................. 42
4.1.3 Project Type Screening ....................................................................................... 43
4.1.4 Summary of Screening Conclusions................................................................... 43
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4416-1 San Marino Center Improvement Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4416\report\4416-Rpt3.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
SECTION PAGE
4.2 VMT Impact Conclusions............................................................................................... 44
4.3 Active Transportation and Public Transit Analysis........................................................ 44
4.3.1 Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs................................................................. 44
4.3.2 Qualitative Impact Conclusions.......................................................................... 45
5.0 Non-CEQA Analysis............................................................................................................... 47
5.1 Analysis Methodology..................................................................................................... 47
5.2 Criteria for Non-CEQA Analysis.................................................................................... 48
5.3 Analysis Scenarios ........................................................................................................... 48
5.4 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................................... 49
5.4.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................. 49
5.4.2 Existing With Project Conditions........................................................................ 49
5.5 Future Year 2024 Cumulative Conditions ....................................................................... 49
5.5.1 Future Year 2024 Cumulative Without Project Conditions ............................... 49
5.5.2 Future Year 2024 Cumulative With Project Conditions..................................... 53
6.0 Summary and Conclusions.................................................................................................... 58
APPENDICES
APPENDIX
A. Shared Parking Analysis Worksheets
B. Traffic, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Count Data
C. San Gabriel Valley COG Vehicle Miles Traveled Evaluation Tool Screening Worksheets D. HCM and Levels of Service Explanation
HCM Data Worksheets – Weekday AM and PM Peak Hours
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4416-1 San Marino Center Improvement Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4416\report\4416-Rpt3.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
SECTION—FIGURE # PAGE
1–1 Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................................... 2 2–1 Aerial Photograph of Existing Project Site............................................................................ 6 2–2 Renovation Floor Plan ........................................................................................................... 7 2–3 Existing On-Site Parking Supply ........................................................................................... 10 2–4 Project Trip Distribution – Weekday AM Peak Hour........................................................... 20 2–5 Project Trip Distribution – Weekday PM Peak Hour............................................................ 21 2–6 Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour............................................................ 22 2–7 Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour............................................................ 23 3–1 Existing and Proposed Bikeways........................................................................................... 26 3–2 Existing Transit Routes .......................................................................................................... 27 3–3 Existing Lane Configurations................................................................................................ 30 3–4 Existing Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour ......................................................... 34 3–5 Existing Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour.......................................................... 35 3–6 Location of Related Projects.................................................................................................. 38 3–7 Related Projects Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour............................................. 39 3–8 Related Projects Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour ............................................. 40 5–1 Existing With Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour.................................... 51 5–2 Existing With Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour..................................... 52 5–3 Future Without Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour.................................. 54 5–4 Future Without Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour .................................. 55 5–5 Future With Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour....................................... 56 5–6 Future With Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................ 57
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4416-1 San Marino Center Improvement Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4416\report\4416-Rpt3.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
LIST OF TABLES
SECTION—TABLE # PAGE
2–1 Weekday Shared Parking Demand Analysis......................................................................... 14 2–2 Weekend Shared Parking Demand Analysis......................................................................... 15 2–3 Project Trip Generation Forecast........................................................................................... 18 3–1 Existing Transit Routes.......................................................................................................... 28 3–2 Existing Roadway Descriptions............................................................................................. 31 3–3 Existing Traffic Volumes....................................................................................................... 33 3–4 Related Projects List and Trip Generation............................................................................. 37 5–1 Level of Service Criteria and Delay Characteristics.............................................................. 48 5–2 Summary of Delays and Levels of Service ........................................................................... 50
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4416-1 San Marino Center Improvement Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4416\report\4416-Rpt3.doc
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
SAN MARINO CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
City of San Marino, California
September 21, 2021
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Transportation Study Overview
This transportation impact study has been conducted to identify and evaluate the potential transportation impacts of the proposed San Marino Center Improvement project (“proposed project”). The project site is located at 1800 Huntington Drive, along the south side of Huntington Drive, west of West Drive in the City of San Marino. The proposed project site is generally bounded by Huntington Drive to the north, the existing parking lot and tennis courts for Henry E. Huntington Middle School to the south and west, and the Crowell Public Library to the east. The project site and general vicinity are shown in Figure 1-1.
The transportation assessment follows the analysis methodology that is consistent with the City of San Marino Citywide Traffic Circulation Study1. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7, the City of San Marino has adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for the purpose of analyzing transportation impacts under CEQA. In addition, the City maintains vehicle Level of Service (LOS) standards for local transportation infrastructure. Therefore, the Guidelines identify both CEQA based analysis requirements and nonCEQA based analysis requirements for analyzing the potential transportation impacts of proposed development projects.
This study evaluates potential project-related VMT impacts pursuant to the screening criteria, analysis tools, and thresholds adopted and approved for use by the City of San Marino. The study also evaluates potential project-related effects on LOS at four (4) key intersections in the vicinity of the project site. The study intersections were determined in consultation with City of San Marino staff. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method was used to determine LOS for the three (3) signalized intersections and one (1) unsignalized intersection.
This report (i) presents the proposed project’s existing transportation network context, (ii) presents existing traffic volumes, (iii) forecasts cumulative baseline conditions, (iv) forecasts projectgenerated traffic, (v) assesses the potential for project-related transportation impacts consistent with the CEQA compliant and non-CEQA compliant metrics set forth by the City of San Marino, and (vi) recommends transportation mitigation and/or improvement measures, where necessary. 1 City of San Marino Citywide Traffic Circulation Study, prepared by Iteris, March 11, 2021.
-2- Page 318 of 962
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4416-1 San Marino Center Improvement Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4416\report\4416-Rpt3.doc
1.2 Study Methodology
The CEQA and non-CEQA analysis criteria for this transportation assessment were identified in consultation with City of San Marino staff. The analysis criteria were determined based on the City’s Guidelines, the proposed project description and location, and the characteristics of the surrounding transportation system. As the Lead Agency under CEQA, the City of San Marino confirmed the appropriateness of the analysis criteria when it approved the transportation assessment Scope of Work Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
On September 27, 2013, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743 (Steinberg, 2013). Among other things, SB 743 created a process to change the methodology to analyze transportation impacts under CEQA (Public Resources Code section 21000 and following) in order to promote: 1) the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, 2) the development of multimodal transportation networks, and 3) a diversity of land uses. On December 30, 2013, the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a preliminary evaluation of alternative methods of transportation analysis, which included analysis based on project VMT rather than impacts to intersection Level of Service. OPR issued other draft discussion documents in March 2015 and January 2016, suggesting some new revisions to the state CEQA Guidelines. In November 2017, OPR submitted the proposed amendments to the CEQA Guidelines to the State’s Natural Resources Agency (that include a proposed new Guidelines section 15064.3 which governs how VMT-based analyses of potential traffic impacts should be conducted). On January 26, 2018, the Natural Resources Agency published a Notice of Rulemaking, commencing the formal rulemaking process for the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines. On December 28, 2018, the California Office of Administrative Law adopted the proposed amendments, formally implementing the use of VMT as the metric for transportation analysis under CEQA and providing a grace period allowing local agencies to opt-in to the new metrics. State-wide implementation of the new metric was required by July 1, 2020.
In anticipation of the mandated change to VMT, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG), of which the City of San Marino is a participating agency, undertook the SGVCOG SB 743 Implementation Study to assist with answering important implementation questions about the methodology, thresholds, and mitigation approaches for VMT impact analysis in the member agencies. The City of San Marino utilized the information produced through the Implementation Study to adopt a methodology and significance thresholds for use in CEQA compliant transportation analyses. The new metric and thresholds of significance were formally adopted through City Council Resolution No. 20-182
on July 8, 2020. In alignment with the goals of SB 743, the City also requires an evaluation of a project’s impact on the multi-modal pedestrian, bicycle, and transit network.
2 Resolution No. 20-18, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Marino, California, Adopting “Vehicle Miles Traveled” Thresholds of Significance for Purposes of Analyzing Transportation Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act, adopted on July 8, 2020.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4416-1 San Marino Center Improvement Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4416\report\4416-Rpt3.doc
The City’s Guidelines further note that SB 743 does not prevent agencies from continuing to analyze delay or LOS outside of CEQA review for other transportation planning or analysis purposes (i.e., general plans, impact fee programs, corridor studies, congestion reduction, or ongoing network monitoring). The City has LOS standards which local transportation infrastructure should strive to maintain. The LOS standards apply to discretionary approvals of new land use development projects. Therefore, the City’s Guidelines also include requirements for non-CEQA analyses.
Specifically, the City requires utilization of the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology to evaluate LOS at signalized and unsignalized intersections.
The proposed project’s CEQA transportation impacts have been evaluated based on the City of San Marino’s adopted VMT screening criteria, methodology, and thresholds. In order to evaluate the proposed project’s effect on local transportation infrastructure, a non-CEQA analysis of four (4) study intersections has been conducted for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, utilizing the HCM analysis methodologies for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
1.3 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program Status The Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) was previously a state-mandated program that was enacted by the California State Legislature with the passage of Proposition 111 in 1990 that primarily utilized a level of service (LOS) performance metric. Pursuant to California Government Code §65088.3, local jurisdictions may opt out of the CMP requirement without penalty if a majority of the local jurisdictions representing a majority of the County’s population formally adopt resolutions requesting to opt out of the program. As stated in a letter from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) 3 , by August 28, 2019, 57 local
jurisdictions, which in total represent 8.5 million in population, had adopted resolutions electing to be exempt from the CMP. With the Los Angeles County region having reached the statutorily required threshold, the provisions of the CMP are no longer applicable to any of the 89 local jurisdictions within Los Angeles County, regardless of whether or not a jurisdiction adopted an optout resolution. Therefore, CMP Traffic Impact Analysis is no longer required in Environmental Impact Reports.
3 Kalieh Honish, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, to Seleta Reynolds, City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation, “Re: Dissolution of the Congestion Management Program in Los Angeles County”, August 28, 2019.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4416-1 San Marino Center Improvement Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4416\report\4416-Rpt3.doc
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Existing Project Site
The project site is located at 1800 Huntington Drive, along the south side of Huntington Drive approximately 345 feet west of West Drive. The site is generally bounded by Huntington Drive to the north, the existing parking lot and tennis courts for Henry E. Huntington Middle School to the south and west, and the Crowell Public Library to the east. The proposed project site and general vicinity are shown in Figure 1-1.
The assessor’s parcel number for the project site is 5334-024-903. The site is currently developed with the San Marino Center building which has been owned by the City since 2005 for community meetings and events. An aerial photograph of the existing project site is presented in Figure 2-1.
2.2 Proposed Project Description
The proposed project consists of revitalizing and updating the existing San Marino Center (SMC) including rehabilitation of the building interior to include additional offices to accommodate six (6) City Recreation Department staff, optimization of the interior public gathering space, replacement of the heating/air conditioning, plumbing and electrical systems and light fixtures to current building code standards, renovation of the building and grounds for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and building façade similar to that of the adjacent buildings. The SMC building totals 10,832 gross square feet of building floor area.
Vehicular access to the project site is planned to continue to be provided via Huntington Drive and West Drive. The building renovation floor plan is shown in Figure 2-2. The project build-out and occupancy year is anticipated by the year 2023.
2.3 Project Site Access
2.3.1 Vehicular Site Access
Direct vehicular access to the project site is planned to be accommodated by two (2) existing driveways on West Drive and two (2) existing driveways on Huntington Drive as shown in Figure 2-
1. A third existing driveway on Huntington Drive is planned to be closed as part of the proposed project. Descriptions of the project site access points are provided in further detail below:
• Huntington Drive
Two existing driveways along the south side of Huntington Drive will continue to provide access to the on-site parking area/s. The westerly Huntington Drive driveway currently accommodates inbound movements only (i.e., right-turn ingress movements only) from Huntington Drive. The middle and easterly Huntington Drive driveways both accommodate restricted access (i.e., right-turn ingress and egress movements only) due to the existing raised median island on Huntington Drive.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4416-1 San Marino Center Improvement Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4416\report\4416-Rpt3.doc
• West Drive
Two existing driveways along the west side of West Drive will continue to provide access to the on-site parking area/s. The northerly West Drive driveway accommodates outbound movements only (i.e., right-turn and left-turn egress movements). The southerly West Drive driveway accommodates restricted access during School days (i.e., northbound left-turn movement prohibited from 7:45 AM to 8:45 AM, and 2:45 PM to 3:30 PM).
Within the project site, vehicle circulation will be accommodated by the drive aisle situated in an east-west alignment in order for motorists to access the surface parking spaces located south and west of the SMC building.
2.3.2 Non-Vehicular Site Access
The project site is planned to accommodate non-vehicular access to the proposed SMC building.
Pedestrian access within the project site will be accommodated by Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant walkways near the eastern portion of the site. New walkways will be provided to/from Huntington Drive which will interconnect with the building. These walkways will also provide exclusive pedestrian and bicycle access to/from the existing public sidewalk along the project site frontage. The walkways thus minimize the extent of pedestrian and bicycle interaction with vehicles at the site and provide a comfortable, convenient, and safe environment for pedestrians and bicyclists accessing the building from outside the project site.
2.4 Existing Overall Site and Total Parking Supply
Parking for the San Marino Center (SMC) exists on the west and south sides of the building, in the parking lot of the Henry E. Huntington Middle School, through a cooperative agreement with the San Marino Unified School District (SMUSD) for use of up to 48 spaces for both the SMC and the Crowell Public Library. The agreement between the City and the SMUSD was initiated in 2006 after the City purchased the building. In 2019, the shared parking use agreement for non-exclusive use of the 48 spaces was renewed for a 10-year term. The Huntington Middle School, located at 1700 Huntington Drive, is a public middle school in the SMUSD with an enrollment of approximately 650 students in 6th through 8th grades, with approximately 60 faculty/staff/administrators on-site. The regular day bell schedule is from 8:00 AM to 2:50 PM.
Pick-up and drop-off operations for the Huntington Middle School is conducted within the surface parking lot with access via West Drive and Huntington Drive. The Crowell Public Library, located at 1890 Huntington Drive, was renovated in 2006 to enhance the exterior, optimize interior space, and to replace lighting, internet, and other electrical and heating/air conditioning before reopening in 2008. The 33,906 square-foot library provides community meeting space, a conference room, separate young adult and children’s sections, a homework center, a computer training lab with 15 workstations, and room to expand the book collection.
Current hours of operation for the Crowell Public Library are from 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM on Mondays through Thursdays, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Fridays and Saturdays, and 1:00 PM to 5:00 PM on Sundays.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4416-1 San Marino Center Improvement Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4416\report\4416-Rpt3.doc
Figure 2-3 provides an aerial photograph illustration of the overall existing site as well as the various surface parking areas. As shown in Figure 2-3, the surface parking lot for the Huntington Middle School currently provides a total of 171 spaces (i.e., 95 standard spaces, 58 staff/PTA reserved spaces, 10 visitor spaces, 6 handicap accessible spaces, and 2 handicap van accessible spaces). Three (3) handicap accessible parking spaces are provided in close proximity to the SMC building. A surface parking lot located directly south of the Crowell Public Library currently has 18 spaces (i.e., 14 standard spaces, 3 handicap accessible spaces, and 1 handicap van accessible space).
Altogether, the on-site parking supply totals 192 spaces (i.e., 109 standard spaces, 58 staff/PTA reserved spaces, 10 visitor spaces, 12 handicap accessible spaces, 3 handicap van accessible spaces).
In addition to the on-site parking spaces, a total of 12 angled parking spaces are provided along the Crowell Public Library frontage along Huntington Drive and five (5) marked parallel spaces are provided along the west side of West Drive, south of Huntington Drive. For purposes of this parking analysis, when accounting for the 17 on-street spaces, the total on-site and on-street supply consists of 209 spaces.
It should be noted that the SMUSD office parking lot which provides 17 spaces (i.e., 16 standard spaces, 1 handicap accessible space) is not included as part of this parking analysis.
2.5 City Code Parking Requirements
A calculation of the Code parking requirement was prepared in accordance with the City of San Marino Municipal Code off-street parking requirements (Section 23.10.03, Number of Parking Spaces Required). In accordance with the Municipal Code parking regulations, the following parking requirements most applicable to the proposed project are as follows:
• Office buildings For all buildings on Huntington Drive (including commercial areas on Chelsea Road, Granada Avenue, San Gabriel
Boulevard and San Marino Avenue) existing on October 25, 2010:
1 space for every 350 square feet of gross floor area.
_________
Source: City of San Marino Municipal Code (Section 23.10.03).
Through strict application of the Municipal Code parking regulations, the following parking requirement would be calculated for the proposed project if the community center is categorized as an existing office building on Huntington Drive. As noted previously in the project description, the total gross floor area of the building is 10,832 square feet:
• Community Center: 10,832 SF x 1.0 space/350 SF = rounded to 31 spaces Total Code Required Project Parking = 31 spaces
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4416-1 San Marino Center Improvement Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4416\report\4416-Rpt3.doc
As summarized above, the Code parking requirement for the proposed SMC Improvement Project totals 31 spaces.
2.6 Comparison of Industry Standard Parking Ratios
2.6.1 ITE Parking Demand Ratios
In addition to reviewing Code parking requirements, the average peak parking demand for various land uses are often estimated using parking ratios contained in other industry standard parking publications. First, LLG reviewed parking ratios contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Parking Generation Manual4 publication. The Parking Generation Manual presents the state-of-the-practice understanding of the relationship between parking demand and various characteristics associated with individual land use developments, based on parking studies conducted at locations throughout North America. While the Parking Generation Manual does not contain a parking ratio specifically for a community center, the two land uses most applicable are those for a government office building and a recreational community center. Specifically, the ITE Land Use 730 (Government Office Building) and ITE Land Use 495 (Recreational Community Center) average peak parking demand ratios were reviewed so that it could be compared with that expected through application of the Code parking requirements. When utilizing the ITE publication, the parking demand can be calculated through application of the average peak parking demand ratios based on the total building gross floor area. The average weekday parking demand ratios for the two land use types are summarized below:
• ITE Land Use Code 730 (Government Office Building) average weekday peak period parking demand ratio: 2.99 spaces 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (12 study sites, average building size: 113,000 SF)
• ITE Land Use Code 495 (Recreational Community Center) average weekday peak period parking demand ratio: 2.07 spaces 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (10 study sites, average building size: 57,000 SF)
Application of the two ITE published parking demand ratios above to the proposed SMC Improvement project would yield an average weekday peak parking demand of 32 spaces (i.e., 2.99 spaces/1,000 SF x 10,832 SF = 32 parking spaces) as a government office building. When the parking demand ratios for the recreational community center is applied, an average weekday peak parking demand of 22 spaces (i.e., 2.07 spaces/1,000 SF x 10,832 SF = 22 spaces) is forecast. The Code parking requirement for the proposed SMC Improvement project (i.e., 31 spaces) is less than the parking demand forecast utilizing the ITE parking demand ratios for a government office building (i.e., 32 spaces) but more than that forecast for a recreational community center (i.e., 22 spaces).
4 Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington D.C., January 2019.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4416-1 San Marino Center Improvement Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4416\report\4416-Rpt3.doc
2.6.2 ULI Shared Parking Demand Concept and Analysis
LLG also reviewed the parking ratios as published by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) as contained in the third edition of the Shared Parking manual5. The concept of shared parking is widely recognized within the transportation planning industry and accounts for the changes in parking demand over time for different types of land uses within a project. Furthermore, accumulated experience in parking demand characteristics indicates that a mixing of land uses results in an overall parking need that is less than the sum of the individual peak requirements for each individual land use. Due to the multi-use characteristics of the adjacent surrounding uses (i.e., the Huntington Middle School and the Crowell Public Library) with the proposed project, opportunities to share parking can be expected as evident in the shared parking agreement between the SMUSD and the City.
This shared parking analysis has been prepared based on data contained in the Shared Parking and Parking Generation manuals as well as supplemented with site-specific programming information for SMC and Huntington Middle School in order to determine if there will be a sufficient number of parking spaces to adequately accommodate the future peak parking demand of the project in combination with the adjacent uses. The Shared Parking manual provides recommendations with respect to the following characteristics of parking demand:
• Hourly Parking Indices. The Shared Parking manual provides hourly parking indices for various land uses. The ULI hourly parking indices for the public library was utilized. The hourly parking indices for the SMC was based on event programming schedule/s and attendance figures provided for the weekday and weekend time periods. For the Huntington Middle School, it was assumed that the faculty/staff spaces (i.e., 58 spaces) are reserved and not available for shared use during the weekday hours of operation for the School.
Adjustments are made to the weekday late afternoons (i.e., after 3:00 PM) and weekend hourly parking indices due to other regularly scheduled sports activities/classes held at the school campus. The indices also show, for example, that the hourly parking demand for the Huntington Middle School (which generates its peak parking demand concentrated around the afternoon hours) is different than the parking demand associated with SMC (which generates its peak parking demand concentrated around the early evening periods). Thus, under the shared parking principle, a parking space that is used in the daytime by a faculty/staff member could be used again in the late afternoon/early evening period by a community center patron.
• Day of Week Parking Variations. The Shared Parking manual provides recommendations for day of week parking factors. For example, office and institutional uses experience their peak parking demands during weekdays and experience minimal parking demand during the weekends. However, based on the event schedules for the Huntington Middle School and the SMC, minimal weekday and weekend variations are expected as events/classes are contemplated to be scheduled during both weekdays and weekend time periods. The day of 5 Shared Parking, Third Edition, Urban Land Institute, ICSC, and National Parking Association, 2020.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4416-1 San Marino Center Improvement Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4416\report\4416-Rpt3.doc
week parking factors for the public library land use type was utilized for the Crowell Public Library.
The peak parking ratios for the Huntington Middle School, the SMC, and Crowell Public Library are based on the ITE Parking Generation manual, the City of San Marino Municipal Code, and the ULI Shared Parking manual, respectively. Direct application of these peak parking demand ratios yields an unadjusted base parking demand of 203 spaces (84 spaces for the middle school, 43 spaces for the community center, and 76 spaces for the public library). While the library patrons may be expected to generate a significant degree of internal capture from the Huntington Middle School as well as walk-in patronage from surrounding residential uses in the area, no adjustment factor (reduction) was employed so as to provide a conservative analysis. The shared parking analysis essentially only accounts for the variations in demand that occur based on the time of day and/or the day of week fluctuations between the various uses.
In order to determine the peak parking demand for the project, a shared parking demand model for the proposed project use and adjacent uses was developed. The ITE, Code, ULI parking ratios along with the hourly parking accumulation profiles for the middle school, community center, and library uses were applied to determine the forecast shared parking demand site wide. The weekday and weekend parking analyses utilizing the shared parking methodology and assuming the respective parking demand ratios, are summarized in Tables 2-1 and 2-2, respectively. Appendix A contains the weekday and weekend day shared parking analysis calculation worksheets for the individual land use components.
When accounting for shared parking usage between the proposed SMC patrons, along with the school population and library patrons, a peak weekday parking demand of 200 spaces (95.7% utilization of the combined total of 209 spaces) is forecast to occur at 10:00 AM as shown in Table 2-1. The weekend peak shared parking demand for the project is forecast to be less than the weekday peak parking demand. As shown in Table 2-2, a peak parking demand of 176 spaces (84.2% utilization of the combined total of 209 spaces) is forecast to occur at 10:00 AM during a weekend day condition. As a result, the overall peak shared parking demand is forecast to total 200 parking spaces. Consequently, given the review of the shared parking demand analysis and comparisons with the parking supply, it can be concluded that surpluses of 9 and 33 parking spaces are forecast to occur during peak weekday and weekend conditions, respectively. As previously noted, this analysis assumes that the 17 on-street spaces along Huntington Drive and West Drive along the library frontages are available for shared use.
It should be noted that site-specific programming details including the frequency and attendance figures for each of the proposed classes/events were provided and reviewed for the Huntington Middle School and the SMC. It was determined that recurring daily and weekly classes/events would continue to be provided as part of the typical site operations. Less frequent special events/conferences (e.g., monthly and quarterly events) are not accounted for in the parking demand forecast as they do not occur with often regularity.
Land Use
Size 60 Employees 10.8 KSF 33.9 KSF
Peak Pkg Rate[2] 1.40 /Employee 1.0 /350 SF 2.25 /KSF
Weekday Pkg Rate[3] 1.40 /Employee 1.0 /350 SF 2.25 /KSF Gross Spaces 84 Spc. 43 Spc. 76 Spc.
Adjusted Gross 84 Spc. 43 Spc. 76 Spc.
Spaces[4] Shared 209 Spaces
Parking
Time of Day Demand
6:00 AM 0
7:00 AM 62
8:00 AM 85
9:00 AM 168
10:00 AM 200
11:00 AM 181
12:00 PM 160
1:00 PM 154
2:00 PM 155
3:00 PM 170
4:00 PM 166
5:00 PM 164
6:00 PM 109
7:00 PM 103
8:00 PM 93
9:00 PM 31
10:00 PM 19
11:00 PM 0
12:00 AM 0
Notes:
[1] Source: Shared Parking , Third Edition, Urban Land Institute, ICSC, and National Parking Association, 2020. [4] Gross spaces not adjusted to reflect parking demand reduction due to captive market, internal capture, transit, and/or walk-in reduction.
[5] The number of employees (i.e., faculty/staff figures) at the Huntington Middle School consists of 60 employees as provided by the San Marino Unified School District staff.
[8] The total parking supply of 209 spaces consists of parking spaces on-site (i.e.,192 spaces), the angled spaces on the south side of Huntington Drive (i.e., 12 spaces), and west side of West Drive (i.e., 5 spaces) along the Library frontages. For purposes of the shared parking analysis, the District Office parking lot (i.e., 17 spaces) is not included as part of the parking supply available for shared usage.
Spaces Spaces Spaces
Table 2-1
Middle School [5] Community
Center [6] Library [7]
Number of Number of Number of
Comparison w/
Parking Supply [8]
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
Surplus
9 28
49 55
54 (Deficiency)
209
147
124
41 116
178
190
209
209
39 43
45 100
106
0 0 0
58 3 1
84 40 76
70 36 75
63 18 4
74 18 76
83 15 57
112 6 52
62 23 75
70 23 61
43 19 47
22 43 38
104 6 56
103 0 61
0 19 0
0 0 0
21 43 29
11 19 1
0 0 0
[2] Peak parking rates based on the ITE Parking Generation Manual for the middle school component, the City of San Marino Municipal Code off-street parking requirements for the community center, and the ULI Shared Parking manual for the public library. [3] The weekday and weekend parking rates are based on the weekday vs. weekend parking variations for the public library land use for the Crowell Library as summarized in Figure 2-2 of the Shared Parking manual. For the Huntington Middle School and the San Marino Center, the weekend parking rates are assumed to be the same as the peak weekday rates given the various weekend classes, events, sports activities scheduled at these facilities. [6] The square footage includes the renovated San Marino Center totaling 10,832 square feet of gross floor area. [7] The square footage includes the Crowell Library totaling 33,906 square feet of gross floor area.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-20-4416-1 San Marino Center Improvement Project