San Marino City Council
June 8, 2022

CITY OF SAN MARINO

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Susan Jakubowski, Mayor www.cityofsanmarino.org
Steve Talt, Vice Mayor (626) 300-0700 Phone
Steven W. Huang, DDS, Council Member (626) 300-0709 Fax Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Council Member City Hall Council Chamber Ken Ude, Council Member 2200 Huntington Drive
Marcella Marlowe, Ph.D., City Manager San Marino, CA 91108

REGULAR MEETING OF THE

SAN MARINO CITY COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 2022 AT 6:00 P.M.

SAN MARINO CENTER
1800 HUNTINGTON DRIVE
SAN MARINO, CA 91108
The City of San Marino appreciates your attendance. Citizens’ interest provides the Council with valuable information regarding issues of the community.

Regular meetings are held on the 2nd Wednesday of every month at 6:00 p.m. Typically, adjourned meetings are held on the last Friday of every month at 8:30 a.m.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person with a disability who requires a reasonable modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the City Clerk via email at [email protected] or by phone at (626) 300-0705 prior to the meeting for assistance.

PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 361 (AB 361)
Members of the City Council may teleconference into the meeting without noticing each teleconference location from which a member will be participating in a public meeting.

CORONAVIRUS DISEASE (COVID-19) ADVISORY
To protect both staff, our constituents, and elected officials, it is recommended that members of the public wear a mask indoors, per the State and County Health Department’s current Health Officer Orders. Given the seriousness of COVID-19, you are encouraged to provide input electronically if you do not feel comfortable attending in person.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JUNE 8, 2022 PAGE 2 OF 5
How to view or listen to the meeting from home:
1) Via Computer for Video Streaming:

Website: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83986162908
Meeting ID: 839 8616 2908
2) Via Phone for Audio Only:

Phone Number: (669) 900-9128
Meeting ID: 839 8616 2908
How to offer public comment from home:
1) Public comment will be accepted by email to [email protected] until 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting, to be read by the City Clerk during public comment. Lengthy public comment may be summarized in the interest of time. Any comments received after 3:00 p.m. will be included in the public comment record but will not be read at the meeting.
2) Public comment will be accepted electronically via the zoom.us teleconference module during the meeting. Zoom comments will be taken after the in-person comments.

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Council Member Huang, Council Member Shepherd Romey, Council Member Ude, Vice Mayor Talt, and Mayor Jakubowski

POSTING OF AGENDA
The agenda is posted 72 hours prior to each meeting at the following locations: City Hall, 2200 Huntington Drive, the Crowell Public Library, 1890 Huntington Drive, and the Stoneman Building, 1560 Pasqualito Drive. The agenda is also posted on the City’s website:
http://www.cityofsanmarino.org.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
The City welcomes public input. Members of the public may address the City Council by completing a public comment card and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, the public may address the City Council on items that are not on the agenda. Pursuant to state law, the City Council may not discuss or take action on issues not on the meeting agenda (Government Code Section 54954.2). The Mayor reserves the right to place limits on duration of comments. Staff may be asked to follow up on such items.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
This is an opportunity for the City Manager to inform the City Council and the public of any upcoming events or matters of interest to the community.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JUNE 8, 2022 PAGE 3 OF 5

MOTION TO WAIVE FURTHER READINGS
This action permits the City Council to act on ordinances and resolutions without having to read the entire text of the ordinance or resolution. The title of an ordinance on First Reading must be read in its entirety. An ordinance on Second Reading does not require having the title read.

However, the City Council may request that an ordinance or resolution be read in its entirety before taking any action.

NEW BUSINESS

1. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION FROM THE HUNTINGTON LIBRARY, ART MUSEUM, AND BOTANICAL GARDENS OF $100,000 FOR RECEIPT IN THE

CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council accept the donation of $100,000 from the Huntington Library, Art Museum, and Botanical Gardens; authorize the Finance Director to receipt the donation in the Capital Projects Fund; and amend the FY 2021-22 revenue budget to recognize revenue of $100,000 in the Capital Projects Fund (Account # 394-00-3601-0000).

2. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. R-22-25 CERTIFYING THE FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SAN MARINO CENTER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SCH NO. 2022010094), APPROVING
ALTERNATIVE 1 (PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE), ADOPTING FINDINGS

OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

ACT, ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM, APPROVING PROJECT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS; AND

AUTHORIZING THE PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO

ADVERTISE FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR THE SAN MARINO
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT 1800 HUNTINGTON DRIVE
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. R-22-25 Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the San Marino Center Improvement Project (SCH No. 2022010094), Approving Alternative 1 (Preservation Alternative), Adopting Findings of Fact Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Approving Project Plans and Specifications; and Authorizing the Parks and Public Works Director to Advertise for Construction Bids for the San Marino Improvement Project Located at 1800 Huntington Drive.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JUNE 8, 2022 PAGE 4 OF 5

CONSENT CALENDAR

3. RECEIVE AND FILE THE MONTHLY DISBURSEMENTS REPORT FOR MAY 2022
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the Monthly Disbursements Report for the month of May 2022.

4. RECEIVE AND FILE CASH AND INVESTMENT REPORT FOR APRIL 2022 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the Cash and Investment Report for the month of April 2022.

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the special meeting of May 10, 2022, the special meeting of May 11, 2022, the regular meeting of May 11, 2022, the special meeting of May 20, 2022, and the adjourned regular meeting of May 27, 2022.

6. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. R-22-24 TO CONTINUE HYBRID PUBLIC MEETINGS PURSUANT TO AB 361
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. R-22-24 reauthorizing the City Council and the City’s Boards and Commissions to continue teleconference accessibility for conducting public meetings pursuant to AB 361.

7. UPDATE ON CITY RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the June 8, 2022 report on the City’s response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

8. RECEIVE AND FILE THE CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-21
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the California State Library Report for fiscal year 2020-21.

9. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. O-22-1391 (SECOND READING)

AMENDING THE CITY CODE TO UPDATE THE ORDER OF SUCCESSION

FOR THE DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council waive full reading and adopt by title only, Ordinance No. O-22-1391, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Marino Amending the City Code to Update the Order of Succession for the Director of Emergency Services.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JUNE 8, 2022 PAGE 5 OF 5

10. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. O-22-1390 (SECOND READING) AMENDING THE CITY CODE TO IMPLEMENT ASSEMBLY BILL 481 AND

APPROVING A POLICY FOR THE USE OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT BY THE SMPD
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council waive full reading and adopt by title only, Ordinance No. O-22-1390 an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Marino, Implementing AB 481 and Approving a Policy for the Use of Military Equipment by the SMPD.

11. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 1 WITH DUDEK FOR

PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE LIFT STATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM THROUGH JUNE 30, 2023
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve Amendment No. 1 to the professional design services agreement with Dudek, which will extend the agreement through June 30, 2023, for their continued services for the Lift Station Improvement Program, and authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment on behalf of the City.

12. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. O-22-1392 (SECOND READING)

AMENDING THE CITY CODE TO MAKE UPDATES TO THE RECREATION COMMISSION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. R-22-20 CHANGING

THE REGULAR MEETING TIME OF THE RECREATION COMMISSION
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council waive full reading and adopt by title only, Ordinance No. O-22-1392 an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Marino Amending the City Code Making Updates to the Recreation Commission and approve Resolution No. R-22-20.

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS OR PUBLIC WRITINGS DISTRIBUTED
This is an opportunity to announce any written communications pertaining to the City received by members of the City Council. All public writings distributed by the City of San Marino to at least a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available at the Public Counter at City Hall located at 2200 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California 91108, and will also be included in the public agenda packet that will available for review at the City Council meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURNMENT
Dated: June 3, 2022 CHRISTINA BAKER
Posted: June 3, 2022 CITY CLERK

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

City Manager’s Report and
Operational Dashboard
May 2022 Recap

0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
1 0 0 0
0 0 0
1 0 0
1 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb0 Mar 0 Apr 0 May 0 Jun Emergency Medical Services - Return of Spontaneous
Circulation
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
1 0 0
2 3
2 1
1 2
1 1
0 0 0
2 1
0 1
2 0 1 0 0
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Emergency Medical Services - Cardiac Arrests
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
56 62
55 54
56 101
55 58 53 47 55
81 74
60 66
75 55
89 86
75 67 64 62
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Out-of-City Incidents
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
87 77
72 84
95 97
66 63 68 60
89 82
79 79
72 80 85
119
94 69 75
87 92
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
In-City Incidents
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
FIRE
FY Total:
940
YTD:
931
FY Total:
733
YTD:
773
FY Total:
14 YTD:
7 YTD:
2 FY Total:
1

0:06:00
0:06:37 0:06:33
0:05:34 0:05:47 0:05:47 0:06:22
0:05:44
0:06:25 0:05:51
0:05:44 0:06:46 0:06:05
0:05:38 0:05:41 0:05:37 0:05:56 0:06:05 0:06:19
0:06:38 0:06:40 0:06:14
0:05:51
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
90th Percentile Response Time: Overall Response
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
0:01:56
0:01:42 0:01:47
0:01:56
0:01:47 0:01:50
0:01:48
0:01:42
0:01:33
0:01:14
0:01:19 0:01:22
0:01:05 0:01:05
0:00:54
0:01:16 0:01:11
0:01:02 0:00:53
0:01:15
0:00:55
0:01:18
0:01:08
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
90th Perentile Response Time: Fire Turnout
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
0:01:18
0:01:33
0:01:10
0:01:32 0:01:34 0:01:29 0:01:32 0:01:38
0:01:10
0:01:11
0:01:19
0:01:28
0:00:52 0:00:48
0:01:02
0:00:52 0:00:57
0:01:15 0:01:08
0:01:18
0:01:12
0:01:10 0:01:05
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
90th Percentile Response Time: EMS Turnout
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
FIRE
FY Avg:

YTD Avg: 0:01:25
0:01:04
FY Avg:

YTD Avg: 0:01:40
0:01:06
FY Avg:
0:06:02 YTD Avg:
0:06:08

1 0 0
1 1 1
2 0
3 3
1 3
0 3
1 1
0 0 0
0 2 2
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 0 June
Community Engagement Events
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
18 22
11 20
13 23
19 20
17 22
14 15
12 18
28 16
19 18
16 11
8 20
19 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Part 1 Crimes*
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
POLICE
*Part 1 Crimes include homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, auto theft, and arson
May 2022 FY to Date
Speed (1) Speed (40)
Unsafe lane change (1) Unsafe lane change (31)
Failure to yield (1) Failure to yield (12)
Failure to obey a sign (0) Failure to stop at red (9)
Top Causes of Collisions
FY Total:

YTD: 214
185
FY Total:
16 YTD:
9

9 7
8 11
7 6
13 3
4 1
2 4
5 6 1
2 5 5
2 2
4 3
7 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
New Businesses
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
11 20
15 8
9 8 7 9 9
6 4
9 13
7 12
10 3 2
6 3 2 3 1
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Tree Removal Permits Issued
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
74 53
74 63
52 66
54 45 50
70 62
91 93 88 91 77
52 70
76 82
74 67
102
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Building Permits Issued
FY 20-21 FY 21-22

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FY Total:
115
YTD:
872
FY Total:
754
YTD:
62 FY Total:
75 YTD:
42

84 45
68 101
37 75
85 86
110 117
103 101
71 75
78 88
68 41 38
69 49
67 64
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Open Code Enforcement Cases
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
0 1 2 1 1
2 4
0 4
7 1
3 2
5 4 4
1 3
4 3
5 5 3
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
ADU Applications Submitted
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
1 3
1 2
1 2
1 2
0 1
0 2
4 1 1
2 3
2 3
1 4
1 4
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
ADU Permits Issued
FY 20-21 FY 21-22

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FY Total:
26 YTD:
26 FY Total:
16 YTD:
39 FY Avg:
84 YTD Avg:
64

1292 1198 1144
1020 1048
1198 1,159 911 986
921
933 977
1,053 1,000 958 927 928 928 1,030
870 830
1130
985
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Circulation: Digital Catalog
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
2662 2884 2907 2417 2555 2,540
2,398
5,152 4,687 3,708 3,366
10,857
13,667 13,913 13,582 14,406 12,954 12,826
14,677 13387
15691 14826
13125
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Circulation: In Person*
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
3523
424 257
839 249
878
177
715 736 1144
585
867
8,048
1,606
785
3,856
644
412
509
533 1045
4745
764
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Total Participants
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
32 22
27 37
16 11 13
22 24
49 13
52 40
20 58
27 28
17 29
17 36
61 32
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Programs Offered
FY 20-21 FY 21-22

COMMUNITY SERVICES
*In FY 20-21, in-person circulation was via curbside pickup until June 2021, when the Library reopened to visitors and curbside pickup was discontinued.

FY Total:
10,392
YTD:
153,054
FY Total:
12,787
YTD:
10,639
YTD:
365
FY Total:
318
YTD:
22,947
FY Total:
46,133

$4,332,822
$3,755,102 $2,283,740
$1,839,562
$1,695,205
$2,351,836
$2,673,465
$1,610,426
$2,608,028
$2,082,134
$1,575,099
$3,002,962
$5,277,926
$3,974,682
$2,004,400
$2,323,748
$1,662,169
$2,224,713
$1,711,798
$1,958,069
$1,815,968
$2,438,493
$1,660,300
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Expenses
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
$365,175
$951,994 $789,690 $893,919
$882,114
$8,461,707
$3,880,786
$1,696,518
$885,829
$6,891,515
$4,084,349
$1,004,739
$343,813
$959,400
$792,531
$830,473
$1,180,975
$8,837,915
$3,990,941
$2,229,889
$994,811
$6,841,759
$324,738
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Revenues
FY 20-21 FY 21-22

FINANCE
Note: May numbers are preliminary until books are officially closed next month.

FY Total:
$30.8m
YTD:
$27.3m
YTD:
$27m
FY Total:
$29.8m

$69,365
$126,629
$203,120
$115,268
$150,764
$128,802
$151,846
$130,797
$119,911
$195,128
$108,281
$335,197
$95,726
$173,033
$144,289
$191,509
$147,045
$112,783
$131,142 $118,226
$127,680
$175,900
$104,801
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Overtime Expenses
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
$4,625
$33,890
$16,790
$8,459
$6,250
$16,045
$15,065 $11,332
$10,351 $12,451 $12,684 $14,090
$3,346 $4,570
$9,848
$32,477
$8,057
$107,977
$21,356
$22,680
$31,062
$22,934
$8,539
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
COVID-19 Expenses
FY 20-21 FY 21-22

FINANCE
Note: May numbers are preliminary until books are officially closed next month.

FY Total:
$162,032
YTD:
$272,846
YTD:
$1,522,134
FY Total:
$1,835,107

$34,177,850
$31,078,571
$29,819,586
$28,384,905 $27,751,395
$33,701,344
$34,982,443
$35,039,933
$33,784,836
$38,194,608
$40,886,859
$39,918,291
$36,168,260
$35,388,265
$32,098,787
$30,384,198
$29,992,080
$36,414,654
$38,873,966
$39,427,777
$37,844,008
$42,640,801
$45,028,030
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Overall Cash Balance (In Bank)
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
$12,068,456
$10,994,876
$9,305,633
$8,270,093
$7,369,762
$13,353,326
$14,920,377
$11,953,469
$10,850,773
$15,412,645
$17,766,025
$15,363,870
$12,141,237
$11,098,528
$9,977,397
$8,266,637
$7,630,634
$14,185,998
$16,320,709
$16,819,605
$13,591,781
$17,966,866
$16,824,802
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
General Fund Balance
FY 20-21 FY 21-22

FINANCE
Note: May numbers are preliminary until books are officially closed next month.

65% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65%
69%
65% 65%
58% 59%
51%
58%
52% 48%
59% 59%
50% 50% 47% 50% 53% 57%
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Performance Appraisal Completion Rate
FY 20-21 FY 21-22

8.7%

7.8% 7.8%

10.0%

7.8% 7.3%

10.7% 10.7% 10.0%

6.7% 4.8% 4.8%

2.9%

7.7%

3.8%

7.7%

9.0% 8.8%

9.0% 9.0% 8.8%

9.0% 8.7%
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Full-Time Position Vacancy Rate
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
44 44 45 45 46 47 45 45 45 46 52
45 70 64 61 57 56 53 51 52 51
47 54
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Part-Time Employees
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
94 95 95
93 95
97 92
93 94
97 99 99
101
96 100
96 94
92 94
93 92 93
91 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Full-Time Employees
(104 budgeted)
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
44 44 45 45 46 47 45 45 45 46 52
45 70 64 61 57 56 53 51 52 51
47 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Part-Time Employees
FY 20-21 FY 21-22

HUMAN RESOURCES
FY Avg:
95 YTD Avg:
95 FY Avg:
46 YTD Avg:
56 FY Avg:

8.1%
YTD Avg:

7.7%
FY Avg:
63%
YTD Avg:
53%

22 21 22 22 19

10.3 10
14 25 10 10 10 10
2 8 8
48 21
51 35
43 30
36 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Cumulative Workers' Comp Days Off
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
0 1
0 1 1
3 4
2 1 0 0 0 0
5 1 2
9 1
12 5
0 1
8 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Workers' Comp Claims (New)
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
35 35 35 36
35 33
41 40
37 36 36 37 37 40 40 38
45 44
48 47
41 43
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Workers' Comp Claims (Total Open)
FY 20-21 FY 21-22

HUMAN RESOURCES
FY Avg:
36 YTD Avg:
43 FY Total:
12 YTD:
45 FY Total:
180.3 YTD:
307
Note: Numbers for the Cumulate Workers’
Comp Days Off for FY 21-22 have been
corrected based on a correction to the
calculation.

100% 100%
67%
80%
100%
86%
100% 100% 100%
100% 100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
% Customer Survey Rating of Good/Superior
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
0 1 1
3 5 5
7 4
1 1
0 0
7 6
0 0
1 1 1
0 0
0 1
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Customer Service Surveys Received
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
89%
74%
96% 96%
86% 83% 81% 82%
76%
100%
60%
82%
48%
83%
83%
89% 85% 85% 82% 83%
88%
90%
87%
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
% Service Requests Closed Within 5 Business Days
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
35 23 24
37 72 70
57 45
25 35
57 67
55 57
89 82
71 39
55 58
68 61
54 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Maintenance Service Requests Opened
FY 20-21 FY 21-22

PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS
FY Avg:
84%
FY Total:
28 YTD:
17 FY Avg:
93%
YTD Avg:
100%
YTD:
689
FY Total:
547
YTD Avg:
82%

6%
12%
5%
3%
12%
8%
17%
5%
4%
4% 2%
4%
4% 3% 2% 1%
6%
3%
6%
9%
3%
5% 4%
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
% Fleet Out of Service More Than 3 Business Days
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
3 3 2 2
1 2 2 2 2
4 4 4 4 4
2 2
3 2 2 2 2 2 2
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Capital Projects in Construction
FY 20-21 FY 21-22
0 1
2 3 3
2 3 3
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3
3 5
4 5 5 5
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Capital Projects in Design
FY 20-21 FY 21-22

PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS
FY Avg:

6.8%
YTD Avg:

4.2%

STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
• Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services
• Well-Maintained Infrastructure
• Fiscally Responsible and Transparent City Government
• Inviting and Relevant City Facilities

BACKGROUND
The Huntington Library, Art Museum, and Botanical Gardens (Huntington) has made periodic donations to the City: $150,000 each in Fiscal Years 17-18 and 18-19, and $100,000 each in Fiscal Year 19-20 and 20-21, for a total of $500,000 in the last five fiscal years.

DISCUSSION
Honoring this tradition, the Huntington is again interested in making a donation to the City in the amount of $100,000. Given community concerns about the impact of the Huntington on our streets, staff recommends receipting this donation into the Capital Projects Fund where it will be used for infrastructure improvements.

FISCAL IMPACT & PROCUREMENT REVIEW
We will begin the next fiscal year with an estimated available balance in the Capital Projects Fund of $14,534,561. The addition of the $100,000 from the Huntington would render an estimated beginning fund balance of $14,634,561 in the Capital Projects Fund at July 1, 2022.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marcella Marlowe, Ph.D., City Manager
DATE: June 8, 2022
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION FROM THE HUNTINGTON

LIBRARY, ART MUSEUM, AND BOTANICAL GARDENS OF
$100,000 FOR RECEIPT IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Susan Jakubowski, Mayor
Steve Talt, Vice Mayor
Steven W. Huang, DDS, Council Member
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Council Member
Ken Ude, Council Member

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed this report and approved it as to form.

RECOMMENDATION
If the City Council wishes to accept the donation and apply the funds to capital projects, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to accept the donation of $100,000 from the Huntington Library, Art Museum, and Botanical Gardens; authorize the Finance Department to receipt the donation in the Capital Projects Fund; and amend the FY 2021-22 revenue budget to recognize revenue of $100,000 in the Capital Projects Fund (Account # 394-00-3601-0000).”

ATTACHMENTS
None.

STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
• Engaged and Connected Residents
• Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services
• Well-Maintained Infrastructure
• Fiscally Responsible and Transparent City Government
• Inviting and Relevant City Facilities

BACKGROUND
In January 2018, the City conducted extensive outreach regarding re‐envisioning the City’s recreation program. In 2020, the City Council (Council) formed the San Marino Task Force (Task Force) to discuss improvements to the San Marino Center (SMC) located at 1800 Huntington Drive. The primary discussions of the Task Force focused on how to encourage better use of the facility, the need for facility repair and renovation and the desire to create aesthetic continuity with the adjacent public buildings, including the City-owned Crowell Public Library. Through a number of meetings and public hearings, the Task Force recommended the following project objectives:

1. Create architectural, aesthetic continuity along eastbound Huntington Drive between Virginia Road and West Drive by changing the SMC building façade’s architectural features TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marcella Marlowe, Ph.D., City Manager
BY: Isidro Figueroa, Director of Community Development
Robert Newman, Interim Director of Parks and Public Works/City Engineer DATE: June 8, 2022
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. R-22-25 CERTIFYING THE

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SAN
MARINO CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SCH NO.
2022010094), APPROVING ALTERNATIVE 1 (PRESERVATION

ALTERNATIVE), ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT

TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,

ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM, APPROVING PROJECT PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS; AND AUTHORIZING THE PARKS AND

PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO ADVERTISE FOR

CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR THE SAN MARINO IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT LOCATED AT 1800 HUNTINGTON DRIVE
Susan Jakubowski, Mayor
Steve Talt, Vice Mayor
Steven W. Huang, DDS, Council Member
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Council Member
Ken Ude, Council Member

from the existing Modern Colonial Revival to the Spanish-Mediterranean style which contain architectural features noted by the City’s Library on the east and the school campus structures to the west.

2. Replace interior aged electrical and mechanical systems with code compliant systems including replacing light fixtures;

3. Rehabilitate interior space to house the City’s Recreation Division staff;

4. Rehabilitate interior space to optimize community use for large and small public and private events; and

5. Retrofit and update the facility and grounds with ADA-compliant features.

On January 12, 2022, City Council held a public scoping meeting related to the preparation of a focused environmental impact report (EIR) for the renovation of the SMC. Discussed during the public scoping meeting were the preliminary findings from the Initial Study (IS) prepared by ELMT Consulting (the firm contracted by the City to prepare the EIR) that altering the building façade from its original 1952 Modern Colonial Revival architectural style to the Spanish Mediterranean style (thereby matching the Crowell Public Library and other nearby public buildings) could result in potentially significant environmental impacts that could not be mitigated in two of the twenty subject areas evaluated: Cultural Resources and Land Use/Planning. The findings were inclusive of the Chattel Memo (November 2021) provided by Chattel Historic Preservation Consultants (Chattel) which provided the City with a technical memo that outlined concepts of various project design components to ensure consistency with the Secretary’s Standards and still achieve symmetry with the adjacent Crowell Public Library. Chattel is a historic preservation consultant who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in architecture, historic architecture, and architectural history.

For the Council to approve the project as proposed (i.e. the matching Spanish Mediterranean style), the Council would have to make findings that support a statement of overriding considerations, determining that the project benefits of the Spanish Mediterranean style outweighed the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts in the areas of cultural/historic resources and land use and planning. As a result of approving the proposed project over the Preservation Alternative, the Council would be required to: (1) certify the EIR (i.e., findings that the EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and that EIR prepared in compliance with CEQA); and (2) approve the project. If the Preservation Alternative is selected and approved in lieu of the proposed project, no statement of overriding considerations is needed because all potential impacts will be reduced to levels of insignificance.

At the January 12, 2022 Council meeting, the Council directed the City Manager to have the Crane Architectural Group (CAG), project architect, submit for Council approval a cost proposal to modify the 95 percent completed drawings to match the description of the EIR’s Alternative 1 – Preservation (herein after the Preservation Alternative) and thus comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings” (Standards). The intent of modifying the design would be to reduce the cultural/historic resource and land use and planning impacts of the building’s renovation from significant and unavoidable to less than significant, allowing the Council to adopt the EIR and approve the Preservation Alternative without needing to make a statement of overriding considerations.

On January 28, 2022 the Council approved Amendment No. 3 to the professional service agreement with CAG to increase the compensation amount in the agreement, as modified by Amendment No. 2, by an additional $229,200. As a result of the Council’s direction to modify the 95 percent completed drawings to be consistent with the recommendations outlined in the Chattel Memo, the Parks and Public Works Director solicited proposals from qualified historic preservation consultants to work with and advise CAG, ensuring that the revised plans for the Preservation Alternative sufficiently and appropriately retain the building’s original exterior architecture and thus are consistent with the Standards. The Council selected Kelly Sutherlin McLeod Architecture (KSMA) based on its demonstrated experience with historically significant buildings (such as the Huntington’s Japanese House and the Gamble House in Pasadena) and understanding of the role to assist CAG to modify the renovation plans per the Chattel Memo.

KSMA has worked closely with CAG on the changes necessary, including restoring and rehabilitating the character defining features while allowing for subtle changes in massing, color, and landscaping to visually connect it with the Library.

DISCUSSION
Project Overview
The City currently uses the SMC as a public community center for various City recreation programs, include community rental opportunities. The City intends to continue and enhance existing programs after the project is completed. The proposed uses include the ability to hold new types of events and office space for recreation staff. The building improvements and modernization are designed to allow for optimization of existing and proposed uses. The 2022 IS analysis focused primarily on the potential impacts of new/proposed events that were anticipated to have larger attendance.

The project description identified in the EIR proposes to alter the SMC building façade from a “Modern Colonial Revival” to a “Spanish Mediterranean” architectural style, which is similar to that of the adjacent Library and school buildings. Other building improvements include various upgrades and enhancements for Americans with Disability Act (ADA) compliance, rehabilitating the building’s interior to include additional offices to accommodate City Recreation Division staff, optimizing the interior public gathering space, and replacing the heating/air conditioning, plumbing and electrical systems and light fixtures to comply with current building code standards.

However, during the January 12, 2022 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to have CAG modify the project design to match the description of the EIR’s Preservation Alternative and thus be consistent with the Standards in an effort to reduce the cultural resource impact of the building’s renovation from potentially significant to less than significant, allowing the Council to adopt the EIR and approve the redesigned project (Preservation Alternative) without having to make a statement of overriding considerations. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project or to the proposed project location that would feasibly attain most of the proposed project’s objectives while avoiding or lessening any significant environmental impacts. An EIR should evaluate the environmental impacts of the alternatives compared to the proposed project.

Alternative 1- Preservation Alternative
This alternative assumes the preservation/rehabilitation of the SMC would be conducted in a manner consistent with the Standards and designed in consultation with a qualified historic preservation consultant that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in architecture, historic architecture, and architectural history as directed by the Council. As with the proposed project, the Preservation Alternative would also include reconfiguration of the building interior to include offices to accommodate staff optimize the interior public gathering space, replace the heating/air conditioning, plumbing and electrical systems and light fixtures to current building code standards, and various interior and exterior ADA compliance features. And, as with the proposed project, the proposed interior space reconfiguration under the Preservation Alternative would be revised from the existing occupancy of 1,020 to an occupancy rating of 1,083. The Preservation Alternative implements the preservation recommendations identified in the Chattel Memo since the memo was prepared by a preservation consultant that meets Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in architecture, historic architecture, and architectural history. Additionally, the Preservation Alternative design was guided by the Council-created Task Force.

Building Footprint and Façade:

The Chattel Memo noted that overall, the SMC lacks the aesthetic appeal of its original design due to two porch additions that altered its original massing, the removal of the front planter, and the deterioration of the exterior stucco and weathered wood shakes. Restoring the original footprint by removing both porch additions and rehabilitating the character‐defining features would significantly enhance the overall aesthetic appeal of the building. The character‐defining features identified in the Chattel Memo include:
• 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.

In general, under the Preservation Alternative, façade preservation features would include the following:

North Elevation
• Character-defining features will be retained and rehabilitated to greatest extent feasible. • Wood shake roof will be replaced with compatible replacement of asphalt shingle in a dark brown color.
• Existing exterior stucco will be patched, repaired, and repainted as necessary; stucco will be painted to be compatible with the Library. Treatments will comply with NPS Preservation Brief 22: The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco. • Extant square steel porch columns and ornamental ironwork, will be retain and rehabilitated. Missing porch columns will be reproduced to match original. All columns and ornamental ironwork will be painted brown to be compatible with trim of the Library.

• Steel sash windows will be rehabilitated and repaired. Treatments will comply with Preservation Brief 13: The Repair and Thermal Upgrading of Historic Steel Windows • Original paving will be retained and rehabilitated per NPS Preservation Brief 22:

Restoration of Historic Concrete.
• Original planter at north elevation will be restored with new vegetation to match that at Library.
• Two non-original porch additions (east storage addition and west office addition) will be removed.
• The brick chimney will not be damaged in removal of east addition. Non original overpaint on brick will be chemically removed and mortar repointed. Treatments will comply with NPS Preservation Brief 2: Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings. • New exterior structure will be detailed to not touch existing building ensuring reversibility.
• New wall and shade canopy design is subordinate to the existing SMC building, with only minimal metal infill at existing porch to enclose courtyard. • Non-original existing primary north entry door leaves will be replaced to match existing.

East Elevation
• Character-defining features will be retained, and rehabilitated to greatest extent feasible. • Existing exterior stucco will be patched, repaired, and repainted as necessary; stucco will be painted to be compatible with the Library. Treatments will comply with NPS Preservation Brief 22: The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco. • Steel sash and wood grid windows will be rehabilitated and repaired, and all existing glazing will remain, unless damaged and then glazing will be replaced to match existing.

Preservation Brief 13: The Repair and Thermal Upgrading of Historic Steel Windows. • Two non-original porch additions (east storage addition and west office addition) will be removed.
• The brick chimney will not be damaged in removal of east storage addition. Non original overpaint on brick will be chemically removed and mortar repointed. Treatments will comply with NPS Preservation Brief 2: Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings.

South Elevation
• Character-defining features will be retained and rehabilitated to greatest extent feasible. • Existing exterior stucco will be patched, repaired, and repainted as necessary; stucco will be painted to be compatible with the Library. Treatments will comply with NPS Preservation Brief 22: The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco. • Steel sash and wood grid windows will be rehabilitated and repaired, and all existing glazing will remain unless damaged and then glazing will be replaced to match existing. • New exterior structures will be detailed to not touch existing building ensuring reversibility
• Detail wall and shade canopy to not touch existing building ensuring reversibility.

• Design of the screen wall and trellis has been simplified to eliminate round arches and detail to be self-supporting and not attached to the existing building.

West Elevation
• Character-defining features will be retained and rehabilitated to greatest extent feasible. • Existing exterior stucco will be patched, repaired, and repainted as necessary; stucco will be painted to be compatible with the Library. Treatments will comply with NPS Preservation Brief 22: The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco. • Steel sash and wood grid windows will be rehabilitated and repaired, and all existing glazing will remain unless damaged and then glazing will be replaced to match existing.

Preservation Brief 13: The Repair and Thermal Upgrading of Historic Steel Windows. • Extant square steel porch columns and ornamental ironwork, will be retain and rehabilitated. Missing porch columns will be reproduced to match original. All columns and ornamental ironwork will be painted brown to be compatible with trim of the Library. • Non original porch additions will be removed.

Interior improvements are anticipated to be similar to the Proposed Project except it is likely to retain the existing period light fixtures and retain the logo in the floor tiles. • Add two offices (for a total of three offices).
• Install a folding wall in the main room.
• Upgrade the kitchen, bathrooms, ceiling tiles, and electrical and mechanical systems to current code standards.
• Relamp existing period light fixtures (additional lighting may be installed). • Replace plumbing fixtures with current style fixtures. • Retain entryway flooring containing the San Marino Women’s Club insignia. • Various upgrades for ADA compliance, including but not limited to: accessible restrooms; appropriate door hardware, door widths, thresholds; correct access to stage from main floor (from only stairs to stair and personnel lift).
• Update paint and carpet.
• Conduct other deferred maintenance items.

Interior features that are not anticipated to be impacted by Alternative 1 include the following:
• Fireside room fireplace and cabinetry; and
• Stage.

Under the Preservation Alternative, site utility and hardscape improvements are anticipated to be unchanged from the proposed project. Site improvements would also include sidewalk repair, parking lot paving for the purposes of relocating ADA parking/loading, installing ADA signage, parking lot striping, and landscaping enhancement as necessary that will only require surficial disturbance. As with the proposed project, other improvements that will require excavation that will generally vary between 2 to 3 feet wide by 1 to 3 feet deep, include but are not limited to the following:
• Install new domestic water service and sewer lines in the same area as the existing lines. • Replace overhead electrical service with new underground electrical service.

• Replace landscaping with drought‐tolerant plant materials suitable for placement underneath oak trees and provide aesthetic continuity with the Crowell Public Library landscaping.
• Install new landscape irrigation meter, with pipe replacements, as necessary, in the same location as existing.
• Install new, separate water service for the fire sprinkler system. • Install new footings for new patio site walls and pilasters, trash enclosure, building columns.
• Add various upgrades for ADA compliance including but not limited to accessible paths of travel to entry points from parking lot, and correct and relocate parking stalls. • Repair existing building footings and slab where applicable.

Comparison of Effects of Alternative 1 (Preservation Alternative) to the Proposed Project The Preservation Alternative and the proposed project are both located on the same site, and they both have elements of demolition and construction. They both require construction using similar construction equipment, interior improvements. and utility and hardscape improvements.

The main difference between the proposed project and the Preservation Alternative is primarily the demolition, change, or reuse of architectural components.

The DEIR (Table 7‐1) summarizes how the Preservation Alternative would compare to the proposed project based on the environmental subject areas analyzed in the 2022 Initial Study.

Based on the project components as described in DEIR Section 7.2.2, the Preservation Alternative would have no more or similar impacts to the proposed project in the subject areas that were found not significant in the 2022 Initial Study: Aesthetics; Agriculture and Forestry, Air Quality, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning (area of XI(a) Physically Dividing and Community only), Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire.

The Preservation Alternative would have no more or similar impacts to the proposed project in the subject areas that were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated in the 2022 IS: Biological Resources, Cultural Resources (area of V[b] Archaeology only), Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Public Services, and Tribal Cultural Resources.

However, the Preservation Alternative represents a less than significant impact in the areas of Cultural Resources (area V[a] Historical Resources) and Land Use and Planning (area XI[b] Consistent With Policies), which were thresholds that were identified as having Potentially Significant impacts under the Proposed Project.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b) addresses impacts to historical resources and mitigation alternatives as follows:
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.

Therefore, because the Preservation Alternative has been designed and will be conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary’s Standards, the impacts of the project under the Preservation Alternative to Historical Resources would be considered mitigated below a level of significance.

With respect to the Public Services (Schools) and Transportation issues, the Preservation Alternative would have the same impact as the Proposed Project, and all mitigation measures identified for those resource categories would apply to Alternative 1.

Environmental Review Analysis
The Final EIR (hereinafter referred to collectively as the Final EIR) includes the San Marino Draft EIR, dated March 2022, written comments received during the Draft EIR public review period, written responses to those comments, minor modifications to the Draft EIR, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. In conformance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed project. The following is a summary of the City’s environmental review process of this project:
• Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, as amended, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to public agencies, and members of the public who had requested such notice for a 30-day period. The NOP was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and posted at the Los Angeles County Clerk’s office on March 15 2022, with the 30-day review period beginning on March 15, 2020, and ending on April 14, 2022. Copies of the NOP were made available for public review at the City of San Marino City Hall. • To afford interested individuals, groups, and public agencies a forum in which to orally present input directly to the Lead Agency in an effort to assist in further refining the intended scope and focus of the EIR, as described in the NOP, the City held a public scoping meeting on January 12, 2022 at the SMC located at 1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California.
• A Draft EIR was prepared and distributed for a 30-day public review period beginning March 15, 2022 and ending April 14, 2022. A Notice of Availability (NOA) and Notice of Completion (NOC) was filed with the State Clearinghouse on March 15, 2022. The scope of the Draft EIR was determined, in part, on comments received in response to the NOP; refer to Draft EIR Sections 2.5, Summary of Concerns Raised during the NOP. The NOA was sent to interested persons and organizations, to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to public agencies, posted on the City’s website, and published in The San Marino Tribune on March 10, 2022.
• During the public review period, hard copies of the Draft EIR were made available for public review at the City of San Marino Community Development Department and at the Crowell Library.
• A digital copy of the Draft EIR was also made available on the City of San Marino website.

• A Final EIR was prepared in May 2022, which includes comments on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, minor modifications to the Draft EIR, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Response to Comments
The City received two comment letters on the Draft EIR during the Draft EIR public review period, one from Dr. Ghassan Roumani and another from Gretchen Shepherd Romey. Those comments have been included and responded to in the Final EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a), comments that address significant environmental issues have been responded to. Comments that do not require a response include those that (1) do not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; (2) do not raise significant environmental issues; or (3) do request the incorporation of additional information not relevant to environmental issues.

Specifically, Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, Evaluation of and Response to Comments, states:
a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments.
b) The lead agency shall provide a written proposed response, either in a printed copy or in an electronic format, to a public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report.
c) The written responses shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the Lead Agency’s position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail, giving the reasons that specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. The level of detail contained in the response, however, may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment (i.e., responses to general comments may be general). A general response may be appropriate when a comment does not contain or specifically refer to readily available information, or does not explain the relevance of evidence submitted with the comment. d) The responses to comments may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR or may be a separate section in the Final EIR. Where the responses to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the draft EIR, the Lead Agency should either:

1. Revise the text in the body of the EIR; or

2. Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the responses to comments.

Revisions to the Draft EIR have been prepared to make minor revisions to the Draft EIR as a result of comments received during the public review period (refer to Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions, of this document), renderings of the Preservation Alternative have

been included as Appendix C.1, and the KSMA historic compliance memo has been incorporated as Appendix C.2. Therefore, the Response to Comments section, along with the Draft EIR Revisions, renderings of the Preservation Alternative, and the KSMA historic compliance memo are included as part of this Final EIR along with the Draft EIR for consideration by the City of San Marino prior to a vote to certify the Final EIR. The Draft EIR revisions and information presented in the responses to comments do not result in any of the conditions set forth in Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines requiring that the EIR be recirculated prior to its certification.

On April 11, 2022, the City received a comment letter from Dr. Ghassan Roumani. Dr. Roumani’s letter alleged that there were problems with the City’s website links to the IS and that the ADA parking requirements are not included in the shared parking analysis. Neither of Dr. Roumani’s comments require a response because, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a), comments that do not require a response include those that (1) do not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; (2) do not raise significant environmental issues; or (3) do request the incorporation of additional information not relevant to environmental issues. However, staff would like to address the comments raised in Dr. Roumani’s letter by stating that upon receipt of the letter the City staff verified that the City’s website links were operable. Further, the SMC currently has two ADA parking stalls that are not compliant with ADA requirements. However, the project will replace the two existing non-compliant ADA parking stalls with two ADA parking stalls that are compliant.

On April 14, 2022, the City received a comment letter from Gretchen Shepherd Romey which made the following comments:

1. Disagreed with the material choice and design of Open Patio C and specifically the use of “synthetic lawn surfacing.”

2. Alleged that the City did not do an “accessible parking analysis or study” and questioned the number of ADA-compliant stalls available.

3. Requested that the northeast area of the Project be redesigned to accommodate valet parking should that be considered as a future potential solution to potential large event parking conflicts.

4. Requested that Open Patio D be eliminated to avoid harmful effects to the trees and shield the use area from noise and emissions along Huntington Drive.

None of the comments included in the April 14, 2022 letter provided by Ms. Shepherd Romey address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR with respect to CEQA issues. In accordance to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a), comments included in the April 14, 2022 letter do not require a substantive response to be included in the Final EIR. However, staff would like to address the comments in the April 14, 2002 letter by stating that any redesign of Alternative 1 (Preservation) could potentially result in significant impacts that could not be easily mitigated to Cultural Resources and Land Use/Planning issues as reflected in the original project design which altered the building façade from its original 1952 Modern Colonial Revival architectural style. The use of synthetic lawn is no longer being considered as a material choice and instead the use of natural lawn will be incorporated to the Option Patio C design. In terms of design choices, the Alternative 1 (Preservation) design was guided by the Task Force and reflects the Task Force’s recommendation(s). Ms. Shepherd Romey also indicated that the City did not perform an accessible parking analysis or study and questions the number of ADA-compliant stalls available.

The SMC currently has two ADA parking stalls that are not compliant with ADA requirements.

However, the project will replace the two existing non-compliant ADA parking stalls with two ADA parking stalls that are compliant. In regards to the elimination of Open Patio D to avoid harmful effects to the trees, and shield the use area from noise and emissions along Huntington Drive, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires that the City retain an arborist to evaluate all trenching activities including, but not limited to, footings and utilities.

As part of the NOP process, the City received a comment letter from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) regarding the project’s Transportation Impact Study provided in the 2022 Initial Study and NOP. Caltrans agreed that the project meets the criteria to be screened out of the Vehicles Miles Travelled (VMT) analysis as it will serve the local population and is considered a community institution. As a result, the project will be shortening travel distances and reducing VMT. Because of AB 52 (tribal consultation), the City received notification from the Kizh Nation who intend to monitor ground disturbing activities such as trenching.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15097, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the proposed project to ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions identified in the FEIR are implemented. The MMRP for the proposed project will be active through all phases of the proposed project, including design, construction, and operation. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program:
• Identifies each mitigation measure required by the FEIR; • Identifies the City department responsible for monitoring; • Identifies the timing for implementation of the mitigation measure; and • Includes a column for completion verification.

The MMRP is included in the FEIR and includes all of the mitigation measures identified in the CEQA Documents and has been designed to ensure compliance during implementation of the project. The MMRP provides the steps necessary to ensure that the mitigation measures are fully enforceable and identifies mitigation measures to be implemented for Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Waste, Noise, Public Services- Schools, and Tribal and Cultural Resources. The MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of mitigation. The City’s Community Development Director will serve as the MMRP Coordinator.

Construction Bid
Pursuant to Public Contract Code § 20101, public agencies in California are able to pre-qualify contractors for public works construction. Prequalification enables an agency to determine prior to accepting a bid that the bidding contractors have the contractual experience and financial ability to perform the work. As part of this process, a questionnaire based on a format approved by the Department of Industrial Relations is completed and the responses are ranked. Contractors that are rated as qualified are then able to submit a bid after which the lowest of the qualified and responsive bids is recommended to the City Council for an award of contract.

In October 2021, the Parks and Public Works Department received prequalification proposals from six (6) contractors. Based on review of the aforementioned Department of Industrial Relations questionnaire, all six contractors are qualified to submit a bid on the project. As such, should the City Council choose to certify the Environmental Impact Report and approve the

project plans and specifications, a Notice Inviting Bids would be sent to the six pre-qualified contractors. Upon receipt of bids, staff will bring forward a proposed award of construction contract to the lowest qualified bidder for the project at a future City Council meeting, currently expected to be July 29, 2022. Professional construction management services are also recommended so that an experienced construction manager is on site daily to oversee the actual construction for the duration of the project. Staff plans to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for construction management services, and plans to bring that recommendation for award of contract at the same meeting as the award of construction contract.

FISCAL IMPACT & PROCUREMENT REVIEW
The adopted FY 2022-23 capital improvement plan budget includes $6,000,000 in account no. 394-40-4600-1000 (San Marino Center Renovation) for the preparation of plans, construction activities, environmental documentation, and construction management and inspection services.

Bids for construction will be solicited in accordance with the Public Contract Code and the City’s purchasing ordinance.

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney reviewed the staff report and has approved it to legal form.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve Resolution No. R-22-25 to:
1) Certify the final Environmental Impact Report for the San Marino Center Improvement Project, approve the Preservation Alternative (Alternative 1) in lieu of the originally proposed project, and adopt the CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
2) Approve the Preservation Alternative project Plans and Specifications; and 3) Authorize the Parks and Public Works Director to advertise the project for construction bids.

If the Council concurs, the appropriate action would be:
“I move to adopt Resolution No. R-22-25 Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the San Marino Center Improvement Project (SCH No. 2022010094), Approving Alternative 1 (Preservation Alternative), Adopting Findings of Fact Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Approving Project Plans and Specifications; and Authorizing the Parks and Public Works Director to Advertise for Construction Bids for the San Marino Improvement Project Located at 1800 Huntington Drive.”

ATTACHMENTS

1. Final Environmental Impact Report

2. Draft EIR

3. Resolution No. R-22-25

4. Architectural Exhibits

5. San Marino Center Improvement Project Compliance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards Memo - Kelly Sutherlin McLeod, FAIA

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
San Marino Center Improvement Project
SCH No. 2022010094
Prepared for:

City of San Marino
Community Development Department
2200 Huntington Drive
San Marino, CA 91108
Contact: Isidro Figueroa
Prepared by:

ELMT Consulting, Inc.
2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098
Santa Ana, CA 92711
Contact:  Julie Gilbert
May 2022

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California May 2022   ii
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California May 2022 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR AN FINAL EIR .................................................................................... 1

1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE FEIR ........................................................................................................ 2

1.3 PROPOSED PROJECT AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES OVERVIEW................................................... 3

1.4 AREAS OF CONCERN ..................................................................................................................... 3

1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS............................................................................................ 4

1.6 LIST OF DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS ................................................................................................ 5 2 DRAFT EIR COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ....................................................................................... 6

2.1 LIST OF DRAFT EIR COMMENTORS ............................................................................................... 7

2.2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ...................................................................................................... 8 3 DRAFT EIR CLARIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS ................................................................................ 13 4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ............................................................. 19

4.1 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................................... 19 TABLES
Table 7‐1:  Analysis Summary for Alternatives to the Proposed Project.................................................... 14 Table 1 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Proposed Project ............................................ 20 Table 2 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Project Alternative 1 ‐ Preservation ............... 34

APPENDICES
Appendix C‐1 ‐ Architectural Exhibits ‐ Project Alternative 1 ‐ Preservation Alternative Appendix C‐2 ‐ Project Alternative 1 ‐ Historical Compliance Technical Memorandum

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California May 2022   1
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR AN FINAL EIR
The City of San Marino (City), in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the San Marino Center Improvement Project (Project). The City isrequired, after completion of a Draft EIR (Draft EIR), to consult with and obtain comments from public agencies having jurisdiction by law with respect to the proposed Project, and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. In itsrole asthe Lead Agency the City is also required to respond to significant environmental issues raised in the review and consultation process. This Final EIR has been prepared to respond to comments received on the Draft EIR for the Project, which was circulated for public review from March 15, 2022 through April 14, 2022.

California Public Resources Code Section 21091(d) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 require a lead agency to evaluate all comments on environmental issues received on the Draft EIR and prepare written responses for inclusion in the Final EIR. The written response must address and describe the disposition ofsignificant environmental issuesraised. In addition, there must be a good faith and reasoned analysis in the written response. However, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues associated with the project and do not need to provide all the information requested by commenters, as long as a good‐faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR (State CEQA Guidelines §§15088 and 15204).

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 recommends that commenters provide comments which focus on the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 also notes that commenters should provide an explanation and evidence supporting their comments. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21082.2 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence supporting such a conclusion.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 is instructive and provides insight into both the obligation of commenting parties and how the lead agency should review and respond to comments. Section 15204 states in part:
(a)   In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and waysin which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better waysto avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good‐faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California May 2022   2
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 recommends that where a response to comment makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the Draft EIR, that the lead agency either revise the text of the Draft EIR or include marginal notes showing that information. The Final EIR for the Project has been prepared in accordance with CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 indicates that the contents of a FEIR shall consist of:
 “The draft EIR or a revision of the draft;
 Comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR either verbatim or in summary;  A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR;  The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
 Any other information added by the Lead Agency.”
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City has considered the comments received on the Draft EIR and evaluated the issues raised. The City is providing in this document written responses to the issues raised by commenters.

The DEIR, circulated for public review and comment from March 15, 2022 to April 14, 2022, constitutes the first part of the EIR and is incorporated by reference and bound separately. The Final EIR constitutes the second part of the EIR for the Project and is intended to be a companion to the Draft EIR. Unlike the Draft EIR, comments on the Final EIR are not required to be responded to by the City, although the City may respond to comments received on the Final EIR at its discretion. If written comments to the Final EIR are received, they will be included in the case file for the record and will be provided to the decision‐ maker for consideration.

The Final EIR, along with the Draft EIR and public comments, will be submitted to the decision‐maker for the requested certification and action on the Project.

1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE FEIR
The Final EIR is organized into the following chapters so the reader can easily obtain information about the proposed Project and related environmental issues:

Section 1: Introduction – This section provides an introduction to the Final EIR and contents of the Final EIR. Also included in this section are overviews of the Project and Project Alternatives Overview, the environmental review process that was completed for the Project, and areas of concern identified during the environmental review process.

Section 2: Draft EIR Comments and Responses – This section presents a matrix of the parties that commented on the Draft EIR and the issuesthat they raised. This matrix isfollowed by verbatim numbered copies of the comments followed by numbered responses to each of the written comments made regarding the Draft EIR.

Section 3: Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions – This section provides a description of the modifications proposed to the Draft EIR based on work reviewing and responding to comments and on other items requiring updating and/or clarification. This section also includes an analysis demonstrating that the modifications do not require the Draft EIR to be recirculated for additional public review and comment

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California May 2022   3
because those modifications only provide minor clarifications and do not amount to the addition of significant new information.

Section 4: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐  This section provides the full Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project. The MMRP lists project design features and mitigation measures by environmental topic that the City must implement for this Project, as both the Lead Agency and Project Applicant.

1.3 PROPOSED PROJECT AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES OVERVIEW
The Draft EIR evaluated impacts of the Proposed Project and two alternatives:  Alternative 1 ‐ Preservation Alternative and Alternative 2 ‐ No Project.

Proposed Project
The Proposed Project will make both exterior and interior modifications to the San Marino Center (SMC), which is eligible for listing to the National Register of Historic Places, is on the California Register of Historical Resources, and which is a City Landmark under San Marino City Code, Chapter XXIII, Article 18 Section 23.18.03 (A). The exterior upgrades will change the existing architectural style of the building façade from “Modern Colonial Revival” to a “Spanish Mediterranean” architectural style which is similar to that of the adjacent Crowell Public Library to the east and the San Marino Unified School District buildings to the west.

Building interior upgrades include but are not limited to: adding offices to accommodate six City Recreation Department staff; optimizing the interior public gathering space; replacing to current standards the heating/air conditioning, plumbing, and electrical systems; and replacing the period light fixtures and flooring with modern fixtures and flooring. Other updatesinclude various exterior and interior improvements for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Project Alternative 1 ‐ Preservation Alternative
This alternative consists of restoring the SMC in a manner that would provide symmetry with the architectural style of the Crowell Public Library while still following 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 (referred to as “Secretary’s Standards”). The final design must be performed in collaboration with a qualified historic preservation consultant to ensure compliance with the Secretary’s Standards.

Project Alternative 2 ‐ No Project
The No Project Alternative assumesthat the Proposed Project would not be implemented, and the existing conditions would remain.

1.4 AREAS OF CONCERN
The EIR process included a Notice of Preparation (NOP)/scoping process whereby the City solicited comments on a NOP with an Initial Study between January 7 and February 7, 2022 and held a public scoping session on January 12, 2022. The City received emails and public comments on the NOP. The areas

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California May 2022   4
of known controversy associated with the Proposed Project discovered during the NOP/scoping process that are relevant to this Final EIR include the aesthetics of the SMC building, the potential for additional traffic, and potential event parking conflicts within the shared school district parking lot. These are further identified as follows:

Renovation of an Historic Resource: Beginning in January 2018, the City conducted extensive outreach regarding re‐envisioning the City’s recreation program. Between August and September 2020, the City surveyed the community regarding the needs and appearance of the SMC. One of the survey questions asked the community if the City should restore the original 1950s exterior architecture or remodel it to match other City buildings such as the adjacent Crowell Public Library. Of the 209 responses received, there was no clear consensus as to the architectural style for the SMC. Based on the City’s overall vision in its General Plan, the City Council proceeded to prepare renovation plans, which constitutes the Proposed Project.

Transportation and Parking: Commenters raised concerns during the NOP comment period and scoping meeting regarding the potential for increased traffic congestion and conflicts with parking. The Huntington Middle School shares its parking lot with the SMC, Crowell Public Library and San Marino Unified School District office. Additionally, the Huntington Middle School completed the Barth Athletics Complex (BAC) in late 2019 to replace its outdated gym and athletic center, but the BAC has not been utilized to its full capacity due to COVID‐19 pandemic school and community shutdowns. Therefore, it is unknown if the BAC would generate a greater capacity for event traffic and parking demand beyond what the school offered prior to the BAC construction.

1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The City has complied with all applicable provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines regarding the preparation and processing of the Project EIR. A briefsummary of the Project’s CEQA processis asfollows:
 A Notice of Preparation (NOP) informing interested parties and agencies of the Project and the City’s decision to prepare an EIR was distributed on January 7, 2022 together with the Initial Study (IS) for a 30‐day comment period that ended on February 7, 2022.  Written and verbal comments on the NOP and IS were given at a public scoping meeting held for the Project on January 12, 2022 at the San Marino Center, 1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino.  A Notice of Availability of a Draft Focused EIR was mailed to property owners and published in the San Marino Tribune Public Notices section on March 10, 2022.  The Draft EIR was distributed for public review on March 15, 2022. The public review and comment period closed on April 14, 2022.

The Final EIR was prepared following the close of the public comment period for the Draft EIR and includes the responses to the comments raised regarding the Draft EIR.

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California May 2022   5

1.6 LIST OF DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
The Lead Agency for the Project is the City of San Marino. Discretionary approvals for the City would be necessary to implement the Project. City approvals are anticipated to include but not be limited to the following:
 City of San Marino – City Council; Adoption of the CEQA compliance documentation and direction to City staff to pursue bids for project construction;
 City of San Marino – Building Division, Fire Marshall, Parks and Public Works Department, approval of building plans.

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California May 2022   6
2 DRAFT EIR COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Two (2) comment letters were received by the City during the Draft EIR public review period, and have been included and responded to in this Final EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a), comments that address significant environmental issues have been responded to. Comments that do not require a response include those that (1) do not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; (2) do not raise significant environmental issues; or (3) do request the incorporation of additional information not relevant to environmental issues.

Specifically, Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, Evaluation of and Response to Comments, states:
a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments. b) The lead agency shall provide a written proposed response, either in a printed copy or in an electronic format, to a public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report. c) The written responses shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the Lead Agency’s position is at variance with recommendations and objectionsraised in the comments must be addressed in detail, giving the reasons that specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. The level of detail contained in the response, however, may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment (i.e., responses to general comments may be general). A general response may be appropriate when a comment does not contain or specifically refer to readily available information, or does not explain the relevance of evidence submitted with the comment. d) The responses to comments may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR or may be a separate section in the Final EIR. Where the responses to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the draft EIR, the Lead Agency should either:

1. Revise the text in the body of the EIR; or

2. Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the responses to comments.

Revisions to the Draft EIR have been prepared to make minor revisions to the Draft EIR as a result of comments received during the public review period (refer to Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions, of this document). Therefore, this Response to Comments section, along with the Draft EIR Revisions, are included as part of this Final EIR along with the Draft EIR for consideration by the City of San Marino prior to a vote to certify the Final EIR. The Draft EIR revisions and information presented in

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California May 2022   7
the responses to comments do not result in any of the conditions set forth in Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines requiring that the EIR be recirculated prior to its certification.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the following is a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies that submitted comments on the DEIR during the public review period. This section includes all comments received by the City on the DEIR, including written comments, comments submitted online and through emails sent to the City.

2.1 LIST OF DRAFT EIR COMMENTORS
Comments received from the public have been numbered as shown below, with responses to each comment following the respective comment letter. No comments were received on the Draft EIR from any public agencies.

Reference Commenter Date
A Ghassan Roumani   April 11, 2022
B Gretchen Shepherd Romey April 14, 2022

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California May 2022   8

2.2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Comment Letter A ‐ Page 1
A‐1
A‐2

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California May 2022   9
Comment Letter A ‐ Page 2
A‐2
Continued

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California May 2022   10
RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM GHASSAN ROUMANI, DATED APRIL 11, 2022 (COMMENT LETTER A) Response to Comment A‐1
This comment alleges there were/are problems with the City’s website links to the Initial Study and that ADA parking requirements are not included in the shared parking analysis. Upon receipt of the email, City staff verified that the City’s website links provided in the NOA were operable and did connect to the Draft EIR. ADA parking is not an environmental criterion to be evaluated per the CEQA Guidelines (codified in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15387, Appendix G ‐ Environmental Checklist Form). The parking study, which evaluated if enough event parking was available among the three facilities, evaluated all of the parking spaces available between the SMC, the Huntington School and the library, including ADA spaces. ADA spaces do not represent a special class of parking when evaluating the number of spaces to be utilized during events. Therefore, this comment will be forwarded to the City’s SMC design team for consideration. This comment does not addressthe adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR with respect to CEQA issues. No further response is required.

Response to Comment A‐2
This comment identifies that the use of ADA parking spaces should have been analyzed in the shared parking analysis. The shared parking analysisis discussed in Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR, and the fullshared parking analysis was provided in Appendix D of the Draft EIR. The study analyzed scenarios using all 209 spaces in the Huntington School parking lot, including the ADA spaces. ADA compliance and path of travel are not environmental criteria to be evaluated per the CEQA Guidelines (codified in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15387, Appendix G ‐ Environmental Checklist Form). While no further response is required, for informational purposes Comment Letter A was shared with the City’s Interim Public Works Director who indicated that the parking provided under the shared parking agreement is adequate to meet the demands of the Proposed Project; that the two parking spaces provided on the actual project site meet the current California Building Code ADA requirements; and, because the project does not propose any new work or modifications offsite, there is no requirement to consider ADA provisions off site. The Interim Public Works Director also indicated that the City will continue to monitor future parking needs based upon planned future operational needs of the project and ensure ADA compliance.  The comment will therefore be forwarded to the City’s SMC design team for consideration. This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR with respect to CEQA issues. No further response is required.

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California May 2022   11
Comment Letter B ‐ Page 1

B‐1
B‐2
B‐3
B‐4

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California May 2022   12
RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM GRETCHEN SHEPHERD ROMEY, DATED APRIL 14, 2022 (COMMENT

LETTER B)
Response to Comment B‐1
This comment consists of a disagreement with the material choice and design of Open Patio C and specifically “synthetic lawn surfacing.” This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR with respect to CEQA issues. The comment will be forwarded to the City’s SMC design team for consideration. While no further response isrequired itshould be noted that for both the Proposed Project and the Preservation Alternative the lawn surfacing in the Open Patio C area has been changed from the originally proposed synthetic lawn material to natural grass.

Response to Comment B‐2
This comment alleges that the City did not do an “accessible parking analysis or study” and questions the number of ADA‐compliant stalls available. ADA compliance and path of travel are project design factors and not environmental criteria to be evaluated per the CEQA Guidelines (codified in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15387, Appendix G ‐ Environmental Checklist Form). Please also see Response to Comment A‐2 above for more information regarding ADA compliance issues.  Given that the comment is a design question, the comment will be forwarded to the City’s SMC design team for consideration. This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR with respect to CEQA issues. No further response is required.

Response to Comment B‐3
This comment requests that the northeast area of the Project be redesigned to accommodate valet parking should that be considered as a future potential solution to potential large event parking conflicts.

This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR with respect to CEQA issues.

The comment will be forwarded to the City’s SMC design team for consideration. No further response is required.

Response to Comment B‐4
This comment requests that the new landscaping east of the easternmost tree as well as Open Patio D be eliminated, and the area used for valet or pickup and drop‐off. The design placement of landscaping and patios are not environmental criteria to be evaluated per the CEQA Guidelines (codified in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15387, Appendix G  ‐  Environmental Checklist Form). The comment will be forwarded to the City’s SMC Design team for consideration. This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR with respect to CEQA issues. No further response is required.

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California May 2022   13
3 DRAFT EIR CLARIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS
The San Marino Improvement Project (Project) Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) was reviewed, and the following constitute City staff‐initiated revisions that represent clarifications, amplification or non‐substantive typographical corrections to the Draft EIR:
 Table of Contents:  Since the time of the publication of the Draft EIR, the City has completed conceptual architectural renderings for the Project Alternative 1 ‐ Preservation, which are added to the Draft EIR as Appendix C‐1 Architectural Exhibits  ‐  Project Alternative 1  ‐  Preservation Alternative. Additionally, a Historic Preservation Consultant who worked with and advised the architect designing the Preservation Alternative has provided a memo regarding the design of the Preservation Alternative and its compliance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards; this memo is being included in the Draft EIR as Appendix C‐2 ‐ Project Alternative 1 ‐ Historical Compliance Technical Memorandum.  Both Appendix C‐1 and C‐2 are attached to this Final EIR.  Page 79, Section 7.2.1 Alternative Description section. The Draft EIR assumed the preservation alternative would 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) and designed in consultation with a qualified historic preservation consultant that meets Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in architecture, historic architecture, and architectural history. Since the time of the publication of the Draft EIR, the City has completed conceptual architectural renderings for the Project Alternative 1  ‐  Preservation, which are added to the Draft EIR as Appendix C‐1 Architectural Exhibits ‐ Project Alternative 1 ‐ Preservation Alternative. Additionally, a Historic Preservation Consultant has provided a memo regarding the design of the Preservation Alternative and its compliance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards; this memo is being included in the Draft EIR as Appendix C‐2 ‐ Project Alternative 1 ‐ Historical Compliance Technical Memorandum.

Therefore, the following sentence on page 79 in Section 7.2.1 of the Draft EIR is revised to reference the two new appendices. Revisions are reflected in underlined type (underlined) for added language; strikeout type (strikeout) for deleted type.

Alternative 1 would generally consist of the following components as identified in the Chattel Memo and as depicted in Appendix C‐1 Architectural Exhibits ‐ Project Alternative 1  ‐  Preservation and as discussed in Appendix C‐2  ‐  Project Alternative 1  ‐  Historical Compliance Technical Memorandum:
 Page 85, Table 7‐1: Analysis summary for Alternatives to the Proposed Project. In the Draft EIR, the Table 7‐1 legend identified that the acronym “LTS” represented “Less Than Significant.” However, the in the table itself, the letters were inadvertently transposed to “LST.” Therefore, Table 7‐1 of the DEIR has been updated and reproduced in this Final EIR as Table 7‐1: Analysis Summary for Alternatives to the Proposed Project to reflect the correct acronym in the body of the table. The Revised Table 7‐1 is as follows:

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California May 2022 14
Table 7‐1: Analysis Summary for Alternatives to the Proposed Project *Revisions are reflected in underlined type (underlined) for added language; strikeout type (strikeout) for deleted type.

Alternatives
1 2
Issue Area Proposed Project Mitigation Measure
Redesign Project to
be Consistent with
Historic Preservation
Standards
No Project
I. Aesthetics
a. Scenic Vista LTS LST ▬ ▬b. Conflict with Applicable Zoning LTS LST ▬ ▬c. New light sources LTS LST ▬ ▬ II. Agricultural Resources
a. Convert Farmland NS ▬ ▬b. Conflict with zoning or Williamson Act NS ▬ ▬c. Forest Land Conversion NS ▬ ▬d. Convert to non‐forest/non‐ag use NS ▬ ▬ III. Air Quality
a. Conflict with AQ Plan LTS LST ▬ ▼b. Increase criteria pollutant LTS LST ▬ ▼c. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants LTS LST ▬ ▼d. Odors LTS LST ▬ ▼ IV. Biological Resources
a. Endangered species LTS LST ‐M BIO‐1 ▬ ▼b. Riparian habitat NS ▬ ▬c. Wetlands NS ▬ ▬d. Movement of migratory species NS ▬ ▬e. Conflict with preservation policy/ordinance LTS LST ‐M BIO‐2 ▬ ▼f. Conflict with adopted habitat plan NS ▬ ▬ V. Cultural Resources
a. Historical resource SU CUL‐2, CUL‐3, CUL‐4 ▼ ▼b. Archaeological resource LTS LST ‐M CUL‐1 ▬ ▼c. Human remains NS ▬ ▬ VI. Energy
a. Wasteful use of energy LTS ▬ ▬b. Conflict with policies LTS ▬ ▬

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California May 2022 15
Alternatives
1 2
Issue Area Proposed Project Mitigation Measure
Redesign Project to
be Consistent with
Historic Preservation
Standards
No Project
VII. Geology and Soils
a. Alquist‐Priolo fault, seismic, landslides, liquefaction LTS LST to NS ▬ ▬b. Soil erosion NS ▬ ▬c. Unstable geologic unit NS ▬ ▬d. Expansive soil NS ▬ ▬e. Septic system support NS ▬ ▬f. Paleontological resources LTS LST ‐M CUL‐1 ▬ ▼ VIII. Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
a. Generate GHG LTS LST ▬ ▬b. Conflict with policy LTS LST ▬ ▬ IX. Hazards/Hazardous materials
a. Transport LTS LST ▬ ▬b. Upset/Release LTS LST ‐M HAZ‐1 ▬ ▼c. Handling near schools LTS LST ‐M HAZ‐1, HAZ‐2 ▬ ▼d. Haz waste site Proximity LTS LST ▬ ▬e. Airport hazards NS ▬ ▬f. Evacuation plan interference LTS LST ‐M HAZ‐2, HAZ‐3 ▬ ▼g. Wildland fire exposure NS ▬ ▬ X. Hydrology/Water Quality
a. Water quality standards violation LTS LST ▬ ▬b. Decrease groundwater supplies LTS LST ▬ ▬c. Alter site drainage patterns NS ▬ ▬d. Release pollutants in a flood NS ▬ ▬e. Conflict with groundwater management plans NS ▬ ▬ XI. Land Use and Planning
a. Physically divide community NS ▬b. Conflict with policies SU CUL‐2, CUL‐3, CUL‐4 ▼ ▼ XII. Mineral Resources
a. Loss of state resources NS ▬ ▬

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California May 2022 16
Alternatives
1 2
Issue Area Proposed Project Mitigation Measure
Redesign Project to
be Consistent with
Historic Preservation
Standards
No Project
b. Loss of local resource NS ▬ ▬
XIII. Noise
a. Temp or per above established standards LTS LST ‐M NOI‐1 ▬ ▼b. Groundborne vibration LST ▬ ▼c. Airport noise NS ▬ ▬ XIV. Population and Housing
a. Induce growth NS ▬ ▬b. Housing displacement and new NS ▬ ▬ XV. Public Services
a. Fire LTS LST ▬ ▬b. Police LTS LST ▬ ▬c. Schools LTS LST ‐M PS‐1, PS‐2, PS‐3, PS‐4, PS‐5 ▬ ▼d. Parks LTS LST ▬ ▬e. Other LTS LST ▬ ▬ XVI. Recreation
a. Increase use of other facilities LTS LST ▬ ▲b. Build new or expand other rec facilities LTS LST ▬ ▲ XVII. Transportation/Traffic
a. Conflict with plans LTS LST ▬ ▬b. Vehicle miles traveled LTS LST ▬ ▬c. Hazardous design feature NS ▬ ▬d. Inadequate emergency access LTS LST ▬ ▬ XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
a. Listed resource LTS LST ‐M TCR‐1 ▬ ▬b. Local known resource LTS LST ‐M TCR‐1, TCR‐2, TCR‐3 ▬ ▬ XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
a. Require new or expanded services LTS LST ▬ ▬b. Available water LTS LST ▬ ▬c. Adequate wastewater LTS LST ▬ ▬d. Solid waste LTS LST ▬ ▬

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California May 2022 17
Alternatives
1 2
Issue Area Proposed Project Mitigation Measure
Redesign Project to
be Consistent with
Historic Preservation
Standards
No Project
e. Solid waste policies NS ▬ ▬
XX. Wildfire
a. Impair emergency evacuation LTS LST ▬ ▬b. Exacerbate wildfire spread NS ▬ ▬c. Installation of fire breaks NS ▬ ▬d. Expose people to post‐fire effects NS ▬ ▬ Notes:SU = Potentially significant and unavoidable;
LTS‐M = Less than significant with mitigation incorporated; LTS = Less than significant;
NS = Not significant or Less Than Significant Without Mitigation. ▲ Alternative is likely to result in greater impacts to issue when compared to Proposed Project. ▬ Alternative is likely to result in similar impacts to issue when compared to Proposed Project. ▼ Alternative is likely to result in reduced impacts to issue when compared to Proposed Project.

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California May 2022   18
These revisions to the Draft EIR represent non‐substantive changes and clarifications and the modifications to the Table of Contents, text references to the two appendices, typographical error corrections to Table 7‐1 and the addition of the appendices do not preclude Draft EIR reviewers from making meaningful comments because these minor changes do not disclose any new or more severe impacts and the various Less Than Significance findingsreflected in the table were otherwise documented and substantiated in the text of the Draft EIR and Initial Study.

CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 describes when an EIR requires recirculation prior to certification, stating in part:
(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information.

New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1)   A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2)   A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3)   A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to apply it.
(4)   The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043).
(b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.

Because the above‐referenced revisionsto the Draft EIR represent minor clarifications, amplifications, and insignificant modifications, no recirculation pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 is required or warranted.

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California May 2022   19
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.1 GENERAL
CEQA requires the adoption of feasible mitigation measures to reduce the severity and magnitude of significant environmental impacts associated with Plan or Project implementation. The Draft EIR for the proposed San Marino Improvement Project includes mitigation measures to reduce the potential environmental effects of the Project.

CEQA also requires reporting on and monitoring of mitigation measures adopted as part of the environmental review process (Public Resources Code section 21081.6). This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is designed to aid the City of San Marino in itsimplementation and monitoring of measures adopted from the Proposed Project.

The mitigation measures are taken from the San Marino Center Improvement Project Draft EIR. Mitigation measures in this MMRP are assigned the same number they had in the EIR. The MMRP is presented in table format and it describes the actions that must take place to implement each mitigation measure, the timing of those actions, the entities responsible for implementing and monitoring the actions, and verification of compliance.

Implementation of the MMRP will be the responsibility of the City. The City will assign a project manager to oversee all aspects of implementation of the Proposed Project and ensure that the mitigation and monitoring commitments made in the EIR are carried out in a timely and effective manner. In implementing the MMRP, the City will often rely on the expertise of outside consultants and contractors.

An MMRP has been developed for both the Proposed Project and the Project Alternative 1 (Preservation Alternative). They are the same in all categories, except that implementation of the Proposed Project would require several additional measures in the Cultural Resources category. The MMRP for the Proposed Project is provided in Table 2, and the MMRP for the Preservation Alternative is provided in Table 3.

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 1 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Proposed Project May 2022 20
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Project would have a
substantial adverse
effect, either directly or
through habitatmodification, on any
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, orspecial status speciesin local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the
California Department
of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.

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.

Prior to
construction
mobilization
Report
submitted to
City of San
Marino Public
Works
Department
City of San
Marino Public
Works
Department or
Contractor

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 1 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Proposed Project May 2022 21
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes Project would conflictwith any local policiesor ordinancesprotecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservationpolicy or ordinance
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.

Prior to ground
disturbance,
and during all
trenching
activities near
trees.

Contract with
certified arborist
that includes
assessment and
construction
monitoring.

City of San Marino
Public Works
Department or
Contractor

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Project would cause asubstantial adverse
change in the
significance of an
archaeologicalresource pursuant to
§15064.5
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 areas 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 archaeologist and offered to a qualified repository for curation. Any resulting reports will be submitted to the South Central Coastal Information Center.

During
construction
Provision
included in
construction
contract
documents
City of San
Marino Public
Works
Department
Project would cause asubstantial adverse
change in the
MM CULT‐2: Documentation. Prior to the issuance of demolition or site permits, the project sponsors shall undertake Historic Prior to
construction
Report
submitted to
City of San
Marino Public

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 1 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Proposed Project May 2022 22
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes significance of a
historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5
American Building Survey (HABS) documentation of the subject property, structures, objects, materials, and landscaping. The documentation shall be undertaken by a qualified professional who meets the standards for history, architectural history, or architecture (as appropriate), as set forth by the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR, Part 61).

The documentation shall consist of the following:
• Measured Drawings: A set of measured drawings that depict the existing size, scale, and dimension of the subject property.

The Planning Department Preservation staff will accept the original architectural drawings or an as‐ built set of
architectural drawings (plan, section, elevation, etc.). The Planning Department Preservation staff will assist the
consultant in determining the appropriate level of measured drawings;
• HABS‐Level Photography: Digital photographs of the interior and the exterior of subject property. Large format negatives are not required. The scope of the digital photographs shall be reviewed by Planning Department Preservation staff for concurrence, and all digital photography shall be conducted according to the latest National Park Service Standards. The photography shall be undertaken by a qualified professional with demonstrated experience in HABS photography; and
• HABS Historical Report: A written historical narrative and report, per HABS Historical Report Guidelines.
• Video Documentation: Video footage of the exterior and interior of contributing elements of the subject property.

The professional shall prepare the documentation and submit it for review and approval by the Planning Department Preservation staff prior to Project construction. The documentation shall be City of San
Marino
Community
Development
Department
Works
Department

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 1 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Proposed Project May 2022 23
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes deposited to local historical repositories including but not limited to Pasadena Museum of History.

Project would cause asubstantial adverse
change in the
significance of a
historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5
CUL‐3: Interpretation. The City shall provide a permanent displayof interpretive materials within the SMC concerning the history and architectural features of the original SMC building and its relationship with the City of San Marino’s history. Interpretation of the site’s history and relationship with the City shall be supervised by an architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards and may engage additional consultants to develop the display. The interpretative materials (which may include, but are not limited to, a display of photographs, news articles, memorabilia, and/or video) shall be placed in a prominent setting within the SMC, such as the lobby or Fireside Room of improved building. A proposal describing the general parameters of the interpretive program shall be approved by the City of San Marino Community Development Department staff prior to occupancy.

Prior to
construction;
Installation
after
construction
Installation
after
construction
City of San
Marino Public
Works
Department
Project would cause asubstantial adverse
change in the
significance of a
historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5
CUL‐4: Salvage. Prepare an in‐depth salvage document for the character‐defining features of the SMC. The City shall work with a professional who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Standards to develop a salvage report that documents the building’s character‐ defining features for conservation and assesses the feasibility of reinstallation at the SMC or in other City facilities. The salvage report shall include documentation of interior and exterior historic character‐defining features that would not be retained by the Project. The professional shall prepare the salvage report and submit it for review and approval by the Community Development Department staff prior to the initiation of Project construction.

Prior to
construction;
report
submitted
after
construction
Report
submitted to
City of San
Marino
Community
Development
Department
City of San
Marino Public
Works
Department

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 1 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Proposed Project May 2022 24
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS RESOURCES
Project would create asignificant hazard to
the public or the
environment through
reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident
conditions involving
the release of
hazardous materialsinto the environment
Project would emit
hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous oracutely hazardous
materials, substances,
or waste within one‐quarter mile of an
existing or proposed
school
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.

During
Construction
Contract
management
documentation
City of San
Marino Public
Works
Department /
Contractor
The Project would the
project impairimplementation of or
physically interfere
with an adopted
emergency responseplan or emergency
evacuation plan
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.

Prior to
Construction
Report
submitted to
City of San
Marino
Community
Development
Department
City of San
Marino Public
Works
Department /
Contractor

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 1 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Proposed Project May 2022 25
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes 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.

Project would impair
implementation of or
physically interfere
with an adopted
emergency responseplan or emergency
evacuation plan
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.

Prior to
construction,
completion
at end of
construction
Report
submitted to
City of San
Marino
Community
Development
Department
City of San
Marino
Community
Development
Department
NOISE
Would the project
result in generation ofa substantial
temporary orpermanent increase in
ambient noise levels inthe vicinity of the
project in excess of
standards established
in the local general
plan or noise
ordinance, orapplicable standards ofother agencies
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 equipmentshould have proper mufflersinstalled, 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 Prior to
construction
Construction
compliance
documents
City of San
Marino Public
Works
Department /
Contractor

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 1 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Proposed Project May 2022 26
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes 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 ‐ SCHOOLS
The Project would
result in substantialadverse physical
impacts associated
with the provision of
new or physicallyaltered governmental
facilities, need for new
or physically alteredgovernmentalfacilities, the
construction of which
could cause significantenvironmentalimpacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, responsetimes or otherperformance objectivesfor any of the public services: Schools
PS‐1 Shared Event Calendar. The City shall work with the Huntington Middle School to maintain a joint 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. 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 drop‐off and afternoon pick‐up peak time periods at the Huntington Middle School.

Fall 2022 to
Spring 2023
Status and
completion
reports
submitted to
City of San
Marino
Community
Development
Department
City of San
Marino
Community
Development
Department
and City of San
Marino Public
Works
Department
PS‐2: Managed Parking Collaboration. Prior to the completion of Project construction, the City shall initiate collaborative discussions with the Huntington Middle School to develop a managed parking plan to be implemented whenever concurrent Prior to
completion
of
construction
Status reports
submitted to
City of San
Marino
City of San
Marino
Community
Development

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 1 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Proposed Project May 2022 27
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes events are anticipated to exceed the total number of parking spaces available within the school parking lot. Managed parking strategies to be implemented in such circumstances include but are not limited to valet parking, tandem parking, dedicated ride share areas and special event parking permit requirements.

Community
Development
Department
Department and
City of San
Marino Public
Works
Department
PS‐3: Additional Parking Study for Huntington Drive. The City shall study the installation of additional parking spaces along the south side of Huntington Drive along the SMC frontage and implement as feasible.

Within one
year of
construction
completion
Report
submitted to
City of San
Marino
Community
Development
Department
City of San
Marino Public
Works
Department
PS‐4: Encourage Alternative Transportation. The City shall encourage users and employees of the SMC and Crowell Public Library to utilize alternative modes of transportation including but not limited to: bicycle, transit, ride‐share, and other ride service opportunities to events where appropriate. Implementation of this method includes but is not limited to public awareness in the form of a statement on the City’s website, a statement on recreational class schedules, and a statement in contracts for private events.

Start at the
beginning of
construction;
effort would
be on‐going
in perpetuity
Status reports
submitted to
City of San
Marino
Community
Development
Department
City of San
Marino
Community
Development
Department
PS‐5: Conduct Future Parking Study. The City shall conduct a parking utilization monitoring study one year from issuance of the Project’s Certificate of Occupancy. The parking utilization monitoring study must assess whether on‐site parking is adequate to meet Project demand during both weekday and weekend
conditions, as well as the effectiveness of measures PS‐1 and PS‐2.

If the study shows that Project parking demand exceeds the supply of parking within the Project, the study shall identify additional available parking reduction strategies, and the City shall select and implement measures to reduce or otherwise address parking demand, subject to review and approval by the Director Within one
year of
certificate of
occupancy
Report
submitted to
City of San
Marino
Community
Development
Department
City of San
Marino Public
Works
Department

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 1 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Proposed Project May 2022 28
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes of Public Works. The additional parking reduction strategies mayinclude but are not limited to: 1) preparation of a Valet Parking Plan, 2) provision of shuttles from off‐site locations for high‐ attendance events; 3) provision of transit passes and/or ride‐ share subsidies for employees, and/or 4) subsidized off‐site parking options in order to minimize on‐site employee parking demand.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Project would
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 isgeographically definedin 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 theCalifornia Register of
Historical Resources, or
in a local register of
historical resources asdefined in PublicResources Code section5020.1(k).

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 “ground‐disturbing activity” for thesubject 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, Prior to start
of ground‐
disturbing
activities
Monitoring
Contract
City of San
Marino Public
Works
Department

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 1 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Proposed Project May 2022 29
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes The Project would
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 isgeographically definedin terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object
with cultural value to aCalifornia Native
American tribe, and
that is a resource
determined by the lead
agency, in its discretionand supported bysubstantial evidence,to be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c)
of Public ResourcesCode Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall
consider thesignificance of the
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 siteor 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.

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 1 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Proposed Project May 2022 30
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes resource to a California
Native American tribe 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

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 1 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Proposed Project May 2022 31
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes resuming construction activities at that distance is
acceptable and provides the project manager express
consent of that determination (along with any othermitigation 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.

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.

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 1 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Proposed Project May 2022 32
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes 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 mayresume on the project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 1 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Proposed Project May 2022 33
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes 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 scientificstudy or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 2 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Project Alternative 1 ‐ Preservation May 2022 34
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Project would have a
substantial adverse
effect, either directly or
through habitatmodification, on any
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, orspecial status speciesin local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the
California Department
of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.

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.

Prior to
construction
mobilization
Report
submitted to
City of San
Marino Public
Works
Department
City of San
Marino Public
Works
Department or
Contractor

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 2 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Project Alternative 1 ‐ Preservation May 2022 35
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes Project would conflictwith any local policiesor ordinancesprotecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservationpolicy or ordinance
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.

Prior to ground
disturbance,
and during all
trenching
activities near
trees.

Contract with
certified arborist
that includes
assessment and
construction
monitoring.

City of San Marino
Public Works
Department or
Contractor

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Project would cause asubstantial adverse
change in the
significance of an
archaeologicalresource pursuant to
§15064.5
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 areas 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 archaeologist and offered to a qualified repository for curation. Any resulting reports will be submitted to the South Central Coastal Information Center.

During
construction
Provision
included in
construction
contract
documents
City of San
Marino Public
Works
Department

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 2 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Project Alternative 1 ‐ Preservation May 2022 36
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS RESOURCES
Project would create asignificant hazard to
the public or the
environment through
reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident
conditions involving
the release of
hazardous materialsinto the environment
Project would emit
hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous oracutely hazardous
materials, substances,
or waste within one‐quarter mile of an
existing or proposed
school
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.

During
Construction
Contract
management
documentation
City of San
Marino Public
Works
Department /
Contractor
The Project would the
project impairimplementation of or
physically interfere
with an adopted
emergency responseplan or emergency
evacuation plan
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 Cityand School staff.

Prior to
Construction
Report
submitted to
City of San
Marino
Community
Development
Department
City of San
Marino Public
Works
Department /
Contractor

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 2 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Project Alternative 1 ‐ Preservation May 2022 37
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes 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.

Project would impair
implementation of or
physically interfere
with an adopted
emergency responseplan or emergency
evacuation plan
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.

Prior to
construction,
completion
at end of
construction
Report
submitted to
City of San
Marino
Community
Development
Department
City of San
Marino
Community
Development
Department
NOISE
Would the project
result in generation ofa substantial
temporary orpermanent increase in
ambient noise levels inthe vicinity of the
project in excess of
standards established
in the local general
plan or noise
ordinance, orapplicable standards ofother agencies
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 Prior to
construction
Construction
compliance
documents
City of San
Marino Public
Works
Department /
Contractor

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 2 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Project Alternative 1 ‐ Preservation May 2022 38
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes 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 ‐ SCHOOLS
The Project would
result in substantialadverse physical
impacts associated
with the provision of
new or physicallyaltered governmental
facilities, need for new
or physically alteredgovernmentalfacilities, the
construction of which
could cause significantenvironmentalimpacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, responsetimes or otherperformance objectivesfor any of the public services: Schools
PS‐1 Shared Event Calendar. The City shall work with the Huntington Middle School to maintain a joint 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. 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 drop‐off and afternoon pick‐up peak time periods at the Huntington Middle School.

Fall 2022 to
Spring 2023
Status and
completion
reports
submitted to
City of San
Marino
Community
Development
Department
City of San
Marino
Community
Development
Department
and City of San
Marino Public
Works
Department
PS‐2: Managed Parking Collaboration. Prior to the completion of Project construction, the City shall initiate collaborative discussions with the Huntington Middle School to develop a managed parking plan to be implemented whenever concurrent events are anticipated to exceed the total number of parking spaces available within the school parking lot. Managed parking strategies to be implemented in such circumstances include but Prior to
completion
of
construction
Status reports
submitted to
City of San
Marino
Community
Development
Department
City of San
Marino
Community
Development
Department and
City of San

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 2 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Project Alternative 1 ‐ Preservation May 2022 39
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes are not limited to valet parking, tandem parking, dedicated rideshare areas and special event parking permit requirements.

Marino Public
Works
Department
PS‐3: Additional Parking Study for Huntington Drive. The City shall study the installation of additional parking spaces along the south side of Huntington Drive along the SMC frontage and implement as feasible.

Within one
year of
construction
completion
Report
submitted to
City of San
Marino
Community
Development
Department
City of San
Marino Public
Works
Department
PS‐4: Encourage Alternative Transportation. The City shall encourage users and employees of the SMC and Crowell Public Library to utilize alternative modes of transportation including but not limited to: bicycle, transit, ride‐share, and other ride service opportunities to events where appropriate.

Implementation of this method includes but is not limited to public awareness in the form of a statement on the City’s website, a statement on recreational class schedules, and a statement in contracts for private events.

Start at the
beginning of
construction;
effort would
be on‐going
in perpetuity
Status reports
submitted to
City of San
Marino
Community
Development
Department
City of San
Marino
Community
Development
Department
PS‐5: Conduct Future Parking Study. The City shall conduct a parking utilization monitoring study one year from issuance of the Project’s Certificate of Occupancy. The parking utilization monitoring study must assess whether on‐site parking is adequate to meet Project demand during both weekday and weekend conditions, as well as the effectiveness of measures PS‐ 1 and PS‐2. If the study shows that Project parking demand exceeds the supply of parking within the Project, the study shall identify additional available parking reduction strategies, and the City shall select and implement measures to reduce or otherwise address parking demand, subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works. The additional parking reduction strategies may include but are not limited to: 1) preparation of a Valet Parking Plan, 2) provision of shuttles from off‐site locations Within one
year of
certificate of
occupancy
Report
submitted to
City of San
Marino
Community
Development
Department
City of San
Marino Public
Works
Department

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 2 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Project Alternative 1 ‐ Preservation May 2022 40
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes for high‐attendance events; 3) provision of transit passes and/or ride‐share subsidies for employees, and/or 4) subsidized off‐site parking options in order to minimize on‐site employee parking demand.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Project would
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 isgeographically definedin 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 theCalifornia Register of
Historical Resources, or
in a local register of
historical resources asdefined in PublicResources Code section5020.1(k).

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 “ground‐disturbing activity” forthe 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.

Prior to start
of ground‐
disturbing
activities
Monitoring
Contract
City of San
Marino Public
Works
Department

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 2 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Project Alternative 1 ‐ Preservation May 2022 41
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes The Project would
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 isgeographically definedin 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 discretionand supported bysubstantial evidence,to be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c)
of Public ResourcesCode Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall
consider thesignificance of the
resource to a California
Native American 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 assessedby 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.

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 2 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Project Alternative 1 ‐ Preservation May 2022 42
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes 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

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 2 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Project Alternative 1 ‐ Preservation May 2022 43
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes resuming construction activities at that distance is
acceptable and provides the project manager express
consent of that determination (along with any othermitigation measures the Kizh monitor and/or archaeologist deems necessary). (CEQA GuidelinesSection 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.

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.

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 2 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Project Alternative 1 ‐ Preservation May 2022 44
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes 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 activitiesmay resume on the project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of

Final Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California Table 2 ‐ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ‐ Project Alternative 1 ‐ Preservation May 2022 45
Impact/Threshold Mitigation Measure Timing Action Indicating Compliance Implementing Party Verification/ Notes 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.

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
San Marino Center Improvement Project
SCH No. 2022010094
APPENDIX C-1
ARCHITECTURAL EXHIBITS - PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 1 - PRESERVATION

Proposed Southeast View (Rear View)
San Marino Center Improvement Project
Project Alternative 1 - Preservation

Proposed Northwest View (Adjacent to School Parking Lot) San Marino Center Improvement Project
Project Alternative 1 - Preservation

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
San Marino Center Improvement Project
SCH No. 2022010094
APPENDIX C‐2
PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 1

HISTORICAL COMPLIANCE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

3827 Long Beach Blvd. | Long Beach, CA 90807 | 562.427.6697 tel | 562.427.0527 fax | [email protected] | www.ksmarchitecture.com

MEMORANDUM
May 31, 2022
To: Robert Newman
Interim Parks & Public Works Director
2200 Huntington Drive
San Marino, California 91108
sent via email: [email protected]
From: Kelly Sutherlin McLeod, FAIA, President
Kelly Sutherlin McLeod Architecture, Inc.

Re: San Marino Center Improvement Project
1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California
Compliance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Robert,
Kelly Sutherlin McLeod Architecture, Inc. (KSMA), is under contract with the City of San Marino to consult as the Historic Preservation Architect for the San Marino Center (SMC) Improvement Project.

KSMA has been working closely with Crane Architectural Group (CAG), the San Marino SMC Project Architect, to advise on the compliance of the current SMC project design with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) 1 . The SMC project has been
redesigned in alignment with the “Preservation Alternative” as defined in the SMC Initial Study, presented by EMLT Consulting, Inc., in January 2022. This memorandum reports that, it is the professional opinion of KSMA the current design proposed for the San Marino Center Improvement Project, as prepared by CAG and dated 5/19/22, meets the criteria of the “Preservation Alternative”, and is in compliance with the Standards.

Background
The San Marino Center is located at 1800 Huntington Drive in San Marino, California. 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. The building is composed of a large auditorium, dining room, meeting room and office.

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. 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 highvolume auditorium exterior walls and bevel frames at some windows.

1 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.

2 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 window sill 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.2 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 Marino Historic Landmark. The subject property is significant for social history under National Register/California Register criterion A/1.3 San Marino Center Improvement Project Initial Design
The City of San Marino acquired the SMC property in 2005. In 2020, the City Council embarked on a renovation project to bring the building to current ADA standards, update all the mechanical systems, keep it as a community center and home for the City’s community services department staff. In 2020, the City surveyed the community regarding the needs and appearance of the SMC. One of the survey questions asked the community if the City should restore the original 1950s exterior architecture or remodel it to match other City buildings such as the adjacent Crowell Public Library. Of the 209 responses received, there was no clear consensus as to the architectural style for the SMC. Based on the City’s overall vision in its General Plan, the City Council proceeded with renovation plans. CAG was selected as the project architect to prepare plans and specifications to improve the interior and at City Council direction, based on community input, modify the building’s exterior from its current midCentury style to a Spanish revival style matching that of the library and nearby school district buildings.

In 2021, the City contracted historic preservation consultant, Chattel, Inc. to review the proposed SMC project design, as prepared by CAG, and evaluate the proposed design’s compliance with the Standards. Based on an onsite review of the existing property and CAG’s 11/2020 drawings, Chattel prepared a 11/15/21 Memorandum, reporting the proposed SMC project design did not conform with the Standards. As recommended by Chattel, the City hired KSMA, a qualified historic preservation consultant with qualifications that exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in architecture, historic architecture, or architectural history.

In January 2022, EMLT Consulting, Inc. presented the “Initial Study, San Marino Improvement Project” (SCH No. 2022010094), (Initial Study), to use as the basis for determining whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration (ND), or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) would be appropriate for providing the necessary environmental documentation and clearance for the Proposed Project. The CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G ‐ Environmental Checklist Form, criteria were used in the Initial Study evaluation. The 2022 Initial Study identified that Potentially Significant Impacts would occur in the areas of Cultural Resources and Land Use and Planning. CEQA Guidelines Sections 15006(d) and 15063(c)(3) also allow Lead Agencies to use the Initial Study to

2 Chattel, Inc., November 15, 2021, Memorandum re: San Marino Center, addressed to Marcella Marlowe, Ph.D., City Manager, City of San Marino page 2
3 op. cit. pages 1 and 2

3 identify significant environmental issues and to narrow the scope of an EIR, if required, by focusing the EIR on only those effects determined to be significant. Therefore, pursuant CEQA Guidelines Section 15126, the Initial Study evaluated all phases of the proposed Project.4 The Initial Study was prepared pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines as a first step in the evaluation of the environmental consequences of the Proposed Project, to determine whether the Proposed Project could result in significant impacts and to define the scope of any additional analyses needed to fully assess such impacts and to develop measures to avoid or reduce the impacts to below a level of significance. For each issue evaluated, the Initial Study indicated that the project would have: a) no impact or a less than significant impact; b) a less than significant impact with the imposition of specified mitigation measures; or c) a potentially significant impact.

The results of the 2022 Initial Study determined that for two criteria in two evaluations categories, the Proposed Project could result in potentially significant impacts that could not be easily mitigated.

One of the two categories requiring further evaluation in the DElR was Cultural Resources (area of V.a ‐ Historic Resources only). CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(2) requires that an EIR identify areas of controversy, including issues raised by other agencies and the public. The areas of known controversy associated with the Proposed Project that are relevant to the EIR include the aesthetics of the SMC building.

Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Project or to the Proposed Project location that would feasibly attain most of the Proposed Project objectives but would avoid or lessen any significant environmental impacts.

The Initial Study summarizes how the alternatives compare to the Proposed Project based on the analysis in the Initial Study and [the] DEIR. Section 7 of [the] DEIR describes and evaluates alternatives to the Project and is intended to implement the requirements set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. Additionally, the Initial Study identifies the Environmentally Superior Project Alternative as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2). With respect to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(1), if the Project is consistent with the Secretary’s Standards, the impact to historical resources would be less than significant.5
The Initial Study identified the Preservation Alternative as an Environmentally Superior Alternative as it meets most of the Project Objectives, and impacts would be less than significant.6 In November 2021, Chattel Historic Preservation Consultants (Chattel) provided the City with a technical memo (Chattel Memo). The Chattel Memo outlines concepts of various project design components to ensure consistency with the Standards. The Initial Study listed the following components, as needed to ensure the SMC Project is consistent with the Standards while “achieving symmetry with adjacent public library and school buildings”:
 Remove the physical additions to the building (date unknown) to return the building symmetry to its original design;
 Replace the landscape planter that was removed;
 Repaint the building to the color of the library;
 Replace the wood shake roof with a red asphalt shingle similar to the tile color on the library, or use a specific type of tile provided the building could support the weight;  Replace the windows with a specific window type that is compliant with the original type yet would complement the window style used in the library.
4 ELMT Consulting, Inc., March 2022, Draft Environmental Impact Report San Marino Center Improvement Project SCH No. 2022010094, pages 1 and 2.
5 op. cit.
6 supra note 4

4 Additionally, the Initial Study:
 encourages the period chandelier light fixtures, located inside the SMC building, to be preserved and re‐lamped;
 requires the San Marino Women’s Club emblem in the floor must be preserved in its original location;
 requires that any final design must be performed in collaboration with a qualified historic preservation consultant to ensure compliance with the Secretary’s Standards;  the identified “Preservation Alternative” would meet most of the project objectives in that it would provide the aesthetic symmetry desired between the Crowell Public Library, SMC and the school buildings. However, while this alternative will provide symmetry between the Spanish architectural features of the Crowell Public Library and school buildings, this alternative will not contain all of the same architectural components of the library and school buildings.

Preservation Alternative: San Marino Center Improvement Project Alternative Design The San Marino City Council serves as the decision‐making body for the Proposed Project. During the City Council hearings held in January 2022, the City Council received the SMC Project Task Force’s recommendation to revise the project design per the “Preservation Alternative”, and in compliance with the Standards. The City Council authorized the City to enter into contracts with CAG for the redesign of the SMC Improvement Project, and with KSMA to consult as the Historic Preservation Architect7
for the Project to entire compliance of the revised design with the Standards.

As noted in the Chattel Memo, the SMC 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”. Chattel further recommended referencing NPS 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.

Chattel’s recommendations have been incorporated into the revised exterior design for the SMC project, grouped by building elevation as follows:

At the north elevation:
 Character-defining features will be retained and rehabilitated to greatest extent feasible.  Wood shake roof will be replaced with compatible replacement of asphalt shingle in a dark brown color.
 Existing exterior stucco, will be patched, repaired and repainted as necessary; stucco will be painted to be compatible with the library. Treatments will comply with NPS Preservation Brief 22: The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco.
 Extant square steel porch columns and ornamental ironwork, will be retain and rehabilitated.

Missing porch columns will be reproduced to match original. All columns and ornamental ironwork will be painted brown to be compatible with trim of the library.  Steel sash windows will be rehabilitated and repaired. Treatments will comply with Preservation Brief 13: The Repair and Thermal Upgrading of Historic Steel Windows

7 As recommended by Chattel KSMA is a qualified historic preservation consultant with qualifications that exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in architecture, historic architecture, or architectural history.

5  Original paving, will be retained and rehabilitated per NPS Preservation Brief 22: Restoration of Historic Concrete.
 Original planter at north elevation, will be restored with new vegetation to match that at library.  Two non original porch additions (east storage addition and west office addition) will be removed.
 The brick chimney will not be damaged in removal of east addition. Non original overpaint on brick will be chemically removed and mortar repointed. Treatments will comply with NPS Preservation Brief 2: Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings.  New exterior structure will be detailed to not touch existing building ensuring reversibility.  New wall and shade canopy design is subordinate to the existing SMC building, with only minimal metal infill at existing porch to enclose courtyard.  Non-original existing primary north entry door leaves will be replaced to match existing.

At the east elevation:
 Character-defining features will be retained and rehabilitated to greatest extent feasible.  Existing exterior stucco, will be patched, repaired and repainted as necessary; stucco will be painted to be compatible with the library. Treatments will comply with NPS Preservation Brief 22: The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco.
 Steel sash and wood grid windows will be rehabilitated and repaired, and all existing glazing will remain, unless damaged and then glazing will be replaced to match existing. Preservation Brief 13: The Repair and Thermal Upgrading of Historic Steel Windows.  Two non original porch additions (east storage addition and west office addition) will be removed.
 The brick chimney will not be damaged in removal of east storage addition. Non original overpaint on brick will be chemically removed and mortar repointed. Treatments will comply with NPS Preservation Brief 2: Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings.

At the south elevation:
 Character-defining features will be retained and rehabilitated to greatest extent feasible.  Existing exterior stucco, will be patched, repaired and repainted as necessary; stucco will be painted to be compatible with the library. Treatments will comply with NPS Preservation Brief 22: The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco.
 Steel sash and wood grid windows will be rehabilitated and repaired, and all existing glazing will remain, unless damaged and then glazing will be replaced to match existing.  New exterior structures will be detailed to not touch existing building ensuring reversibility  Detail wall and shade canopy to not touch existing building ensuring reversibility.  Design of the screen wall and trellis has been simplified to eliminate round arches and detail to be self-supporting and not attached to the existing building.

At the west elevation:
 Character-defining features will be retained and rehabilitated to greatest extent feasible.  Existing exterior stucco, will be patched, repaired and repainted as necessary; stucco will be painted to be compatible with the library. Treatments will comply with NPS Preservation Brief 22: The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco.
 Steel sash and wood grid windows will be rehabilitated and repaired, and all existing glazing will remain, unless damaged and then glazing will be replaced to match existing. Preservation Brief 13: The Repair and Thermal Upgrading of Historic Steel Windows.  Extant square steel porch columns and ornamental ironwork, will be retain and rehabilitated.

Missing porch columns will be reproduced to match original. All columns and ornamental ironwork will be painted brown to be compatible with trim of the library.  Non original porch additions will be removed.

6 Notes:
i. The scope of work proposed for the SMC property, as defined in the 5/19/22 documents, is to be performed in strict compliance with the Standards and Guidelines, and in alignment with the NPS Preservation Briefs. In addition to the NPS Preservation Briefs, included in the above list of design elements, all NPS Briefs that are applicable to the SMC Project will be referenced for guidance with the development of preservation treatments. ii. The extant original exterior windows will not be replaced, as noted in the Initial Study. The extant original exterior windows will be restored. This treatment is in compliance with the Standards.
iii. The Initial Study encourages the period chandelier light fixtures, located inside the SMC building, to be preserved and re‐lamped. At this time, the City does not plan to salvage the period light fixtures. It is KSMA’s professional opinion that the removal of the period light fixtures will not impact the integrity of SMC property. iv. The San Marino Women’s Club emblem in the floor will be preserved, or a reproduction installed, in its original location.
v. The extant exterior metal window awnings are not original, per the Chattel Memo, and will not be retained.

In addition to incorporating the recommendations listed in the Initial Study (with the exception of note iii, above), CAG has incorporated additional treatments for further compliance with the Standards, including the restoration of all original exterior windows. It is the professional opinion of KSMA that the current design proposed for the San Marino Center Improvement Project, as prepared by CAG and dated 5/19/22, is in compliance with the Standards. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this memorandum.

Thank you,
Kelly Sutherlin McLeod Architecture, Inc.

Kelly Sutherlin McLeod, FAIA
President
KSM/nj
attachments: KSMA Firm Profile
KSM Resume

FIRM PROFILE
KELLY SUTHERLIN MCLEOD ARCHITECTURE, INC.

Kelly Sutherlin McLeod Architecture, Inc. is an award-winning architectural firm, founded in 1988 by Kelly Sutherlin McLeod, FAIA. The office is located in Long Beach, California, with projects located throughout the greater Southern California region and across the country. KSM Architecture, Inc. has earned a strong reputation based on professionalism, providing innovative designs and effective administration of well-coordinated, complete architectural services.

KSM Architecture, Inc. provides design services from the initial concept through construction administration phases.

The professional experience of the firm is diverse and includes institutional, light commercial, civic, high-end custom residential, and cultural planning projects for public and private sector clientele. The firm provides architectural services for both new construction and for projects with the specialized interest of adaptive reuse, historic preservation and renovation of existing non-historic and significant historic landmark buildings.

KSM Architecture, Inc. has been involved with the conservation, adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of numerous existing buildings throughout Southern California, several of which are locally and nationally designated historic properties, including the internationally renowned Gamble House located in Pasadena, California designed by Charles and Henry Greene; the USC Pacific Asia Museum in Pasadena; the Japanese House at the Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens; and the Virginia Robinson Gardens estate in Beverly Hills. The scope of services provided by KSM Architecture, Inc., has included architectural integration of seismic strengthening and revitalization of historic structures, while working closely with owners and city agencies through extensive review and approval processes.

Kelly Sutherlin McLeod, FAIA, serves as principal-in-charge/project architect for all KSM Architecture projects. Ms.

McLeod personally manages and oversees work produced by office staff and consultants through all phases of projects, serves as primary contact with client and agencies and directs the design work required for the firm’s projects. The firm’s in-house architectural staff assists Ms. McLeod with project management, design development and technical production services.

The work of Kelly Sutherlin McLeod Architecture, Inc. has been recognized by the Chicago Athenaeum Museum of Architecture, Docomomo, the American Institute of Architects with awards including multiple AIA Honor Awards for Excellence in Design, in addition to awards presented by the California Preservation Foundation, the Los Angeles Conservancy, the Cities of Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Pasadena and Long Beach.

Kelly Sutherlin McLeod Architecture, Inc. is a California Corporation and a certified one hundred percent Woman Business Enterprise and a certified Small Business Enterprise. The KSMA team has ten members comprised of LEED certified licensed architects and interior designers, project management and technical support.

Kelly Sutherlin McLeod, FAIA
President
Ca State License #19921 Kelly Sutherlin McLeod, FAIA, has four decades of experience in the architectural design of institutional, commercial, residential and cultural projects. Ms. McLeod founded Kelly Sutherlin McLeod Architecture, Inc. (KSMA) in 1988 and serves as principal-in-charge and project architect for all projects. Ms. McLeod personally manages and oversees work produced by office staff and consultants through all phases of projects, serves as primary contact with client and agencies, and directs the firm’s project design work. KSMA’s strong reputation and satisfied clientele can be attributed to a high degree of professionalism, personal attention to design, and to meeting clients’ needs.

EDUCATION
University of Southern California –
Los Angeles, California
Bachelor of Architecture | 1983
Magna Cum Laude
Bachelor of Science in Architecture | 1982
Magna Cum Laude

REGISTRATIONS & AFFILIATIONS
Huntington Library, Art Museum, and
Botanical Gardens
Building & Grounds Committee – Chair
Los Angeles Conservancy BOD/Member
California Preservation Foundation (CPF)
Past President/Trustee Emeritus
Association of Preservation Technology
International (APTi)
At large Board Director/Member
Association of Preservation Technology
International (APTi) Co-chair Technical
Committee – Modern Heritage
Pasadena Heritage
Past BOD/Advocacy
Past Vice-Chair/Member
City of Long Beach Redevelopment Agency
Board Past Chair/Appointed Member
Cultural Heritage Commission City of
Long Beach
Past Appointed Member
Economic Development Commission
City of Long Beach
Past Appointed Member
Storrier Stearns Japanese Garden BOD
USC School of Architecture Board
of Councilors
North American Japanese Garden Association
Association for Women in Architecture + Design

QUALIFICATIONS
The Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards: Historic
Architecture and Historic Preservation

PROJECT EXPERIENCE
• GAMBLE HOUSE – PASADENA, CA: The internationally celebrated 1908 Gamble House is the most renowned architectural work by Charles and Henry Greene.

KSMA served as project architect for the first comprehensive conservation project for this National Historic Landmark. The objectives of this meticulous conservation effort were met, mitigating the effects of 95 years of exposure while preserving all of the original historic wood features. The roof was replaced honoring the original design. Seismic strengthening was designed and implemented, subterranean water intrusion was addressed, drainage and building systems were upgraded. • usc pacific asia museum – pasadena , CA: Architects Marston, Van Pelt and Maybury designed this 33,000 SF two-story courtyard concrete framed building in 1924. This landmark building has served as a center for art, culture and learning in Pasadena since it was constructed by pioneering collector and entrepreneur Grace Nicholson (1877–1948). The Pacific Asia Museum has occupied the historic Nicholson building since 1971. In 2014 KSMA led a multidisciplinary project team in developing a preliminary Master Plan for Rehabilitation for the museum building. The Master Plan was a first step in studying programmatic uses for the building, and addressing repair and restoration required to ensure that this unique treasure services the mission of the institution and remains available to the public for future decades. • REID-BALDWIN ADOBE – ARCADIA, CA: Rehabilitation/restoration of c.1841 California Historic Landmark adobe residence located in the Los Angeles County Arboretum and Botanic Garden.
• HUNTINGTON JAPANESE HOUSE - SAN MARINO, CA: Award winning restoration of 1903 Japanese House located in the historic Japanese Garden at The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens.

SELECTED HONORS AND AWARDS
• 2017 CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION AWARD The Gamble House Cultural Landscape Report • 2017 CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION AWARD Cultural Landscape Report and Treatment Plan for the Los Angeles County Arboretum & Botanic Garden • 2016 THE CHICAGO ATHENAEUM MUSEUM OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN AMERICAN ARCHITECTURAL AWARD Restoration of the Olan and Aida Hafley House designed by Richard Neutra in 1953 • 2016 THE CHICAGO ATHENAEUM MUSEUM OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN AMERICAN ARCHITECTURAL AWARD The Killingsworth Office Building Restoration • 2016 LONG BEACH HERITAGE PRESERVATION AWARD Restoration of the Olan and Aida Hafley House designed by Richard Neutra in 1953
• 2015 LOS ANGELES CONSERVANCY PRESERVATION AWARD/ DOCOMOMO 2015 MODERNISM IN AMERICA AWARD Olan and Aida Hafley House 2015
• 2015 UNIVERIST Y OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTINGUISHED ALUMNI AWARD • 2013 CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION DESIGN AWARD-RESTORATION CATEGORY / GOVERNOR’S HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARD The Japanese House and Garden at the Huntington Library, Art Collections and Botanical Gardens
• 2008 USC DELEGATE UNESCO World Heritage Preservation site, Lijiang, China • 2006 AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS CALIFORNIA COUNCIL 2006 DESIGN AWARD The Gamble House Conservation Project
K E L LY S U T H E R L I N M c L E O D
A R C H I T E C T U R E, I N C.
3827 Long Beach Blvd. | Long Beach, CA 90807 | 562.427.6697 tel | 562.427.0527 fax | [email protected] | www.ksmarchitecture.com KELLY SUTHERLIN McLEOD
architecture, inc.

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
San Marino Center Improvement Project
SCH No. 2022010094
Prepared for:

City of San Marino
Community Development Department
2200 Huntington Drive
San Marino, CA 91108
Prepared by:

ELMT Consulting, Inc.
2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098
Santa Ana, CA 92711
March2022

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022   ii
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022   iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 AUTHORITY ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 LEAD AGENCY ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 INITIAL STUDY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE............................................................................ 1

1.4 REVIEW OF DRAFT EIR .................................................................................................................. 2 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 4

2.3 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES........................................... 5

2.4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS..................................................................... 5

2.5 SUMMARY OF CONCERNS RAISED DURING NOP ......................................................................... 6

2.6 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY ............................................................................................................. 6

2.7 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED BY THE DECISION‐MAKING BODY......................................................... 6

2.8 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................... 7

2.9 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................. 9 3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES, DESCRIPTION, LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING........................ 13

3.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................................. 13

3.2 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................................................................... 13

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................................................ 14

3.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 15 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOUND NOT SIGNIFICANT ................................................................ 26

4.1 AESTHETICS................................................................................................................................. 27

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY.................................................................................................... 28

4.3 AIR QUALITY................................................................................................................................ 28

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ 29

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES – ARCHAEOLOGY AND HUMAN REMAINS............................................ 29

4.6 ENERGY ....................................................................................................................................... 30

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................................. 30

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS ...................................................................................................................... 31

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................................................... 31

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY............................................................................................ 32

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING – PHYSICALLY DIVIDE A COMMUNITY............................................. 33

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................. 33

4.13 NOISE .......................................................................................................................................... 33

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING...................................................................................................... 34

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES – POLICE, FIRE, LIBRARY ................................................................................. 35

4.16 RECREATION ............................................................................................................................... 35

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022   iv

4.17 TRANSPORTATION...................................................................................................................... 36

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES................................................................................................... 37

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................... 37

4.20 WILDFIRE .................................................................................................................................... 38 5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ANAYSIS........................................................................................... 39

5.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 40

5.2 LAND USE AND PLANNING ......................................................................................................... 50

5.3 PUBLIC SERVICES: SCHOOL FACILITIES........................................................................................ 57

5.4 TRANSPORTATION...................................................................................................................... 62 6 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................... 75

6.1 GROWTH‐INDUCING IMPACTS ................................................................................................... 75

6.2 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS............................................................................... 75

6.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES.......................................................... 76

6.4 AREAS OF KNOWN CONTROVERSY............................................................................................. 76 7 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION ......................................................................................... 78

7.1 RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................... 78

7.2 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 – PRESERVATION......................................................................... 79

7.3 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 – NO PROJECT ............................................................................. 83

7.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................... 84 8 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 89 9 LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED ....................................... 91

9.1 DEIR PREPARERS ......................................................................................................................... 91

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2‐1: Significant Effects Comparison Summary ‐ Project vs Alternatives*......................................... 10 Table 3‐1: Example of Existing and Proposed Uses of the SMC.................................................................. 18 Table 4‐1: CEQA Checklist Subject Areas and Initial Study Matrix – Non‐Significant Effects.....................26 Table 5‐1: CEQA Checklist and Initial Study Matrix – Significant Effects.................................................... 39 Table 5‐2:  General Plan Consistency Analysis – Land Use ......................................................................... 54 Table 5‐3: City of San Marino VMT Thresholds .......................................................................................... 64 Table 5‐4:  Level of Service Descriptors...................................................................................................... 65 Table 5‐5: Project Intersection Study Times............................................................................................... 69 Table 5‐6: Summary of Delays and Levels of Service Weekday AM and PM Peak Hours...........................70 Table 7‐1:  Analysis Summary for Alternatives to the Proposed Project.................................................... 85

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022   v

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 2‐1:  Regional Vicinity...................................................................................................................... 11 Exhibit 2‐2:  Project Site.............................................................................................................................. 12 Exhibit 3‐1:  Existing Site – Northwest Elevation ........................................................................................ 19 Exhibit 3‐2:  Proposed Northwest View (Adjacent to Parking Lot)............................................................. 20 Exhibit 3‐3:  Proposed Southeast (Building Rear) ....................................................................................... 21 Exhibit 3‐4:  Proposed Northeast View (Adjacent to Library)..................................................................... 22 Exhibit 3‐5:  Existing Floor Plan................................................................................................................... 23 Exhibit 3‐6:  Proposed Floor Plan................................................................................................................ 24 Exhibit 3‐7:  Approximate Excavation Locations......................................................................................... 25

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A ‐ Notice of Preparation and NOP Comments
Appendix B ‐ Chattel Historic Preservation Architect Technical Memo, November 15, 2021 Appendix C ‐ Proposed Site Plan, Layout and Landscape Plans Appendix D ‐ Traffic Impact Study ‐ San Marino Improvement Project, February 23, 2022 Appendix E ‐ Traffic Circulation Review of Huntington Middle School, July 31, 2018 Appendix F ‐ Initial Study ‐ San Marino Center Improvement Project, January 2022 Appendix A Parking Agreement – City of San Marino and SMUSD Appendix B Air Quality / Greenhouse Gas / Energy Analysis Appendix B‐1 Energy Analysis
Appendix C Cultural Resources Report
Appendix C‐1 Recommendations Memo, Chattel Historic Preservation Consultants Appendix D Noise Analysis
Appendix E Traffic Impact Analysis

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022   vi

LIST OF ACRONYMNS
Acronym Definition
AB 32 Assembly Bill 32
AB 52 Assembly Bill 52
ADA American Disabilities Act
AFY Acre Feet Per Year
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
APE Area of Potential Effect
APN Assessor Parcel Number
BERD Built Environment Resource Directory
BMPs Best Management Practices
CARB California Air Resources Board
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of San Marino
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO Carbon Monoxide
CRHR California Register of Historic Places
dBA A-Weighted Decibels
DIF Development Impact Fees
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DPR California Department of Parks and Recreation
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERRP Enhanced Recharge and Recovery Program
ESA Endangered Species Act
FAR Floor Area Ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FMMP Farmland Mapping Management Program
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
gpd/acre Gallons per Day per Acre
HABS Historic American Buildings Survey
HAER Historic American Engineering Record
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS Level of Service
LST Localized Significance Threshold
MLD Most Likely Descendent
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MRZ Mineral Resources Zone
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Water Sewer System
MTCO2e Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
MWD Metropolitan Water District
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
ND Negative Declaration
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OHP California Office of Historic Preservation

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022   vii
PM-2.5 Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Microns in Diameter PM-10 Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns in Diameter PRIMMP Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Monitoring Program RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
Secretary’s
Standards 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
SGMA the Sustainability Groundwater Management Act
sf Square Feet
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SLF Sacred Lands File
SMC San Marino Center
SRA State Responsibility Area
SSC Species of Special Concern
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022   1
1 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), codified in the Public Resources Code (PRC), Section 21000 et seq., and the “CEQA Guidelines,” codified in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15387, were established to require public agencies to consider and disclose the environmental implications of their actions before deciding to approve or carry out a project subject to CEQA.

As required by CEQA, this Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR):   (1) assesses   the potentially significant direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the Proposed Project; (2) identifies potential feasible means of avoiding or substantially lessening significant adverse impacts; and (3) evaluates a range of reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Project, including the required No Project Alternative.

1.1 AUTHORITY
The City of San Marino (City) is the lead agency for the Proposed Project and has the principal responsibility for preparing this DEIR. Approval of the Proposed Project requires discretionary actions by the City of San Marino including but not limited City Council approval of Project construction plans and award of construction contract.

1.2 LEAD AGENCY
As the agency with primary land use authority, the City of San Marino is the Lead Agency under CEQA for this project; as such, the City is responsible for ensuring that the EIR has been prepared in conformance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The DEIR and associated technical studies were reviewed by the various City departments and the City's DEIR consultant to ensure that the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency.

1.3 INITIAL STUDY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
In January 2022, the City prepared “Initial Study, San Marino Improvement Project” (SCH No. 2022010094), herein referred to as 2022 Initial Study, to use as the basis for determining whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration (ND), or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) would be appropriate for providing the necessary environmental documentation and clearance for the Proposed Project. The CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G ‐ Environmental Checklist Form, criteria were used in the Initial Study evaluation.

The 2022 Initial Study identified that Potentially Significant Impacts would occur in the areas of Cultural Resources and Land Use and Planning. CEQA Guidelines Sections 15006(d) and 15063(c)(3) also allow Lead Agencies to use the Initial Study to identify significant environmental issues and to narrow the scope of an EIR, if required, by focusing the EIR on only those effects determined to be significant.

Therefore, pursuant CEQA Guidelines Section 15126, the Initial Study evaluated all phases of the Proposed Project.

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022   2
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.), this DEIR consists of an evaluation of the effects of the entire Proposed Project. In the evaluation of all impacts of the Proposed Project for this EIR, the analysis contained in the 2022 Initial Study is incorporated by reference and forms the basis for summarizing information where appropriate in this DEIR (refer to Appendix F Initial Study ‐ San Marino Center Improvement Project, January 2022).

1.4 REVIEW OF DRAFT EIR
The City will use this Project DEIR to inform the public and City decision makers of the significant environmental effects of the Proposed Project; identify ways to minimize significant effects; and describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the Proposed Project.

On January 7, 2022, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2022010094) for the Proposed Project for a period of 30 days, ending on February 7, 2022. A public scoping meeting was held to explain the environmental review process for the Proposed Project and to provide opportunity to take public comment related to the scope of the Project’s environmental review.

The scoping meeting was held before the City Council on January 12, 2022. Appendix A  ‐ Notice of Preparation and NOP Comments contains a copy of the NOP and comments received during the scoping meeting and NOP comment period. The 2022 Initial Study was made available on the City’s website as part of the NOP notice.

The NOP served to elicit comments from governmental agencies and interested parties regarding the scope and content of issues germane to the DEIR. The baseline for the Project is established by the physical condition that exists at the time the NOP was published.

After the DEIR is complete, the lead agency will file a Notice of Completion (NOC). At that time, there will be a 45‐day review period for agencies and interested parties to comment on the DEIR.

1.4.1 Submitting Comments on the DEIR
The review period for this DEIR will be 30 days, beginning on March 15, 2022 and ending on April 14, 2022.

Written comments on the DEIR may be submitted by email, fax or mail to:

City of San Marino ‐ Community Development Department
Attention:  Isidro Figueroa, Community Development Director 2200 Huntington Drive, San Marino, CA 91108
Phone: (626) 300‐0710
Fax: (626) 300‐0716
E‐mail: [email protected]
Comments may also be submitted after the end of the formal review period; however, it is possible that they may not be responded to in writing and included in the Final EIR. No comments on the Draft EIR will be responded to outside of the CEQA process, and commenters will not be sent individual responses to their comments. The responses will be contained in the Final EIR. Comments that are received too late for inclusion in the Final EIR will nonetheless be made available to the City Council during its deliberations.

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022   3

1.4.2 Making Effective Comments
The CEQA process encourages public involvement. Comments on the Draft EIR can be submitted in writing (including as an email). Written comments can be submitted during the draft EIR review period, as discussed below. Verbal comments may also be made at any public meetings held to consider Proposed Project and this EIR.

Written comments are often the most effective method of commenting. They accurately describe the commenter’s concerns and can be accompanied by specific references. Whereas the opportunity for verbal comments may be limited to a few minutes at a public hearing, a written comment can be more extensive.

In commenting on this DEIR and the attached Initial Study, commenters should address whether they adequately identify and analyze significant environmental impacts and how they may be avoided or reduced. Comments are most helpful when they specifically address impact conclusions, alternatives, or mitigation measures, or the methods of analysis used by the lead agency to evaluate these issues.

Commenters should explain the basis for their comments and include supporting evidence such as data, expert opinion, or other facts. This includes providing the City with copies of any references used as the basis for the comments.

If the reference is available on a website, commenters should provide the City with the specific web address where the reference can be accessed.

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022   4
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This chapter is a summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the San Marino Center Improvement Project (Proposed Project) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The San Marino Center (SMC), owned and operated by the City of San Marino, is located at 1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, which is the south side of Huntington Drive, between West Drive on the east and Virginia Road on the west (Exhibit 2‐1:  Regional Vicinity and Exhibit 2‐2:  Project Site) located at the end of this section.

The San Marino Women’s Club (Club), which constructed the SMC in 1951/52, used the SMC for its Club meetings, its charitable community events and for private functions such as wedding receptions and sorority events. The City purchased the building from the Club in 2005 and plans to use as a public community center and for various City recreation programs. Following a 2011 historical evaluation of the building, the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) found the SMC eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places for its social connection to the community as the City’s first community center. Therefore, the SMC was automatically placed on the California Register of Historic Places, and, by City Code Section 23.18.03 (A), the SMC is considered a City landmark.

2.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
In 2020, the City formed a working group to discuss how to revitalize and improve the SMC. The primary discussions of the working group focused on how to encourage better use of the facility, the need for facility repair and renovation and the need to create aesthetic continuity with the adjacent public buildings. Through a number of meetings and public hearings, the City working group recommended the following Project objectives:
 Create architectural, aesthetic continuity along eastbound Huntington Drive between Virginia Road and West Drive by changing the SMC building façade’s architectural features from the existing Modern Colonial Revival to the Spanish‐Mediterranean style which contain architectural features noted by the City’s library on the east and the school campus structures to the west.  Replace interior aged electrical and mechanical systems with code compliant systems including replacing light fixtures;
 Rehabilitate interior space to house City recreational staff;  Rehabilitate interior space to optimize community use for large and small public and private events; and
 Retrofit and update the facility and grounds with ADA‐compliant features.

2.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Proposed Project will make both exterior and interior modifications to the San Marino Center (SMC), which is eligible for listing to the National Register of Historic Places, is on the California Register of Historical Resources, and which is a City Landmark under San Marino City Code, Chapter XXIII, Article 18 Section 23.18.03 (A). The exterior upgrades will change the existing architectural style of the building façade from “Modern Colonial Revival” to a “Spanish Mediterranean” architectural style which is similar

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022   5
to that of the adjacent Crowell Public Library to the east and the San Marino Unified School District buildings to the west.

Building interior upgrades include but are not limited to: adding offices to accommodate six City Recreation Department staff; optimizing the interior public gathering space; replacing to current standards the heating/air conditioning, plumbing, and electrical systems; and replacing the period light fixtures and flooring with modern fixtures and flooring. Other updatesinclude various exterior and interior improvements for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

2.3 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Initial Study was prepared pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines as a first step in the evaluation of the environmental consequences of the Proposed Project, to determine whether the Proposed Project could result in significant impacts and to define the scope of any additional analyses needed to fully assess such impacts and to develop measures to avoid or reduce the impacts to below a level of significance. The 2022 Initial Study is provided in Appendix F.

For each issue evaluated, the Initial Study indicated that the project would have: a) no impact or a less than significant impact; b) a less than significant impact with the imposition of specified mitigation measures; or c) a potentially significant impact.

The Initial Study was prepared using the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist as a guide. The analysis in the 2022 Initial Study determined that the Proposed Project would have: a) no impact or a less than significant impact; or b) a lessthan significant impact with the imposition ofspecified mitigation measures for the following issues.
 Aesthetics  Mineral Resources
 Agriculture and Forestry  Noise
 Air Quality  Population and Housing
 Biological Resources  Public Services
 Energy  Recreation
 Geology and Soils  Transportation
 Greenhouse Gas  Tribal Cultural Resources
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials  Utilities and Service Systems  Hydrology and Water Quality  Wildfire

2.4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
The results of the 2022 Initial Study (Appendix F) determined that for two criteria in two evaluation categories, the Proposed Project could result in potentially significant impacts that could not be easily mitigated. Therefore, these categories required further evaluation in the DElR:
 Cultural Resources (area of V.a ‐ Historic Resources only)  Land Use and Planning (area of XI.b ‐ Conflicts with plans and policies only)

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022   6

2.5 SUMMARY OF CONCERNS RAISED DURING NOP
Comments received during the Scoping Meeting and NOP Comment Period requested that the DEIR provide additional analysis in the following categories:
 Transportation (traffic circulation and vehicle miles traveled); and,  Public Services (area of Schools only)
The results of the 2022 Initial Study determined that the impacts in these two categories were either less than significant, or less than significant with mitigation incorporated. However, in response to the commentsreceived during the Notice of Preparation process and scoping meeting, the request for further evaluation is provided for the specific threshold criteria to which the requests relate.

2.6 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(2) requires that an EIR identify areas of controversy, including issues raised by other agencies and the public.

The areas of known controversy associated with the Proposed Project that are relevant to the EIR include the aesthetics of the SMC building, the potential for additional traffic, and potential event parking conflicts within the shared school district parking lot. These are further identified as follows:

Renovation of an Historic Resource: Beginning in January 2018, the City conducted extensive outreach regarding re‐envisioning the City’s recreation program. Between August and September 2020, the City surveyed the community regarding the needs and appearance of the SMC. One of the survey questions asked the community if the City should restore the original 1950s exterior architecture or remodel it to match other City buildings such as the adjacent Crowell Public Library. Of the 209 responses received, there was no clear consensus as to the architectural style for the SMC. Based on the City’s overall vision in its General Plan, the City Council proceeded to prepare renovation plans, which constitutes the Proposed Project.

Transportation and Parking: Commenters raised concerns during the NOP comment period and scoping meeting regarding the potential for increased traffic congestion and conflicts with parking. The Huntington Middle School shares its parking lot with the SMC, Crowell Public Library and San Marino Unified School District office. Additionally, the Huntington Middle School completed the Barth Athletics Complex (BAC) in late 2019 to replace its outdated gym and athletic center, but the BAC has not been utilized to its full capacity due to COVID‐19 pandemic school and community shutdowns. Therefore, it is unknown if the BAC would generate a greater capacity for event traffic and parking demand beyond what the school offered prior to the BAC construction.

2.7 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED BY THE DECISION‐MAKING BODY
The San Marino City Council serves as the decision‐making body for the Proposed Project. Issues to be resolved by the City Council include: (1) how to mitigate the significant effects of the Proposed Project;

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022   7
(2) whether to reject or approve one of the alternatives to the Proposed Project and other environmental findings; and (3) whether to reject or approve the Proposed Project.

If the City Council approves the Proposed Project it must also adopt detailed findings regarding each of the project’s significant environmental impacts (see Public Resources Code § 21081 and CEQA Guidelines § 15091) and if the project will result in a significant and unmitigated or unavoidable impact the City Council would also have to state in writing the reasons to support the approval in an additional finding known as a statement of overriding considerations (see CEQA Guidelines § 15093).

2.8 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Project or to the Proposed Project location that would feasibly attain most of the Proposed Project objectives but would avoid or lessen any significant environmental impacts. An EIR should also evaluate the environmental impacts of the alternatives compared to the Proposed Project.

Table 2‐1 Significant Effects Comparison Summary Project vs Alternatives, located at the end of this section, summarizes how the alternatives compare to the Proposed Project based on the analysis in the Initial Study and this DEIR. Section 7 of this DEIR describes and evaluates alternatives to the Project and is intended to implement the requirements set forth in the CEQA Guidelines.

This chapter also identifies the Environmentally Superior Project Alternative as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2).

2.8.1 Alternative 1 – Preservation Alternative
The 2011 cultural resources report that was considered by the SHPO during its historic resource determination review, defines the architectural style of the SMC as a “Modern Colonial Revival.” The SMC is situated adjacent to the Crowell Public Library on the east and the Huntington Middle School on the south and west, both of which have elements of a “Spanish Mediterranean” architecturalstyle. Aside from the SMC being in an overall deteriorated condition, noticeably different features that are inherent to the specific architecture styles include:
 Tile Roof (library) versus wood shake roof (SMC); and  Stucco porch columns and trellises (library) versus decorative metal porch posts and no trellises (SMC)
This alternative consists of restoring the SMC in a manner that would provide symmetry with the architectural style of the Crowell Public Library while still following 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 (referred to as “Secretary’s Standards”).

With respect to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(1), if the Project is consistent with the Secretary’s Standards, the impact to historical resources would be less than significant.

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022   8
In November 2021, Chattel Historic Preservation Consultants (Chattel) provided the City with a technical memo (Chattel Memo) that outlined concepts of various project design componentsto ensure consistency with the Secretary’s Standards and still achieve symmetry with the adjacent Crowell Public Library (Appendix B ‐ Chattel Historic Preservation Architect Technical Memo, November 15, 2021). Chattel is a historic preservation consultant who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in architecture, historic architecture, and architectural history.

In summary, the Chattel Memo in Appendix B identified the following components needed to ensure the Project is consistent with the Secretary’s Standards while achieving symmetry with adjacent public library and school buildings:
 Remove the physical additions to the building (date unknown) to return the building symmetry to its original design;
 Replace the landscape planter that was removed;
 Repaint the building to the color of the library;
 Replace the wood shake roof with a red asphalt shingle similar to the tile color on the library, or use a specific type of tile provided the building could support the weight;  Replace the windows with a specific window type that is compliant with the original type yet would complement the window style used in the library.

Within the interior, the Chattel Memo encouraged the period chandelier light fixtures to be preserved and re‐lamped; the San Marino Women’s Club emblem in the floor must be preserved in its original location. All safety and HVAC improvements can be completed as planned.

The Chattel Memo also noted that the any final design must be performed in collaboration with a qualified historic preservation consultant to ensure compliance with the Secretary’s Standards.

This alternative would meet most of the Project Objectives in that it would provide the aesthetic symmetry desired between the Crowell Public Library, SMC and the school buildings. However, while this alternative will provide symmetry between the Spanish architectural features of the Crowell Public Library and school buildings, this alternative will not contain all of the same architectural components of the library and school buildings.

2.8.2 Alternative 2 – No Project
CEQA requires an evaluation of the No Project Alternative so that decision makers can compare the impacts of approving the Proposed Project with the impacts of not approving the Proposed Project.

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e), the No Project Alternative must include the assumption that conditions at the time of the NOP (i.e., baseline environmental conditions) would not be changed because the Proposed Project would not be implemented. The No Project Alternative must also describe the events or actionsthat would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Proposed Project were not approved.

The No Project Alternative assumesthat the Proposed Project would not be implemented, and the existing conditions would remain. Because no improvements would occur on the Proposed Project site, this alternative would not meet any of the Proposed Project objectives.

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022   9

2.9 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b) indicatesthat a list of reasonable alternatives must be developed and considered by the lead agency. Elimination of potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project should be considered when developing potential alternatives. As evaluated in Chapter 5 of this DEIR, the potentially significant impacts of the Proposed Project are: Cultural Resources and Land Use.

As shown in Table 2‐1, the No Project Alternative would be environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, based on the minimization or avoidance of most of the Proposed Project’s significant environmental impacts. The No Project alternative, however, could cause further deterioration of the building, which is a prominent feature on Huntington Drive, a main City thoroughfare and a gathering place used by the general public. Further, the No Project Alternative does not meet any of the basic Project Objectives. Additionally, CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(2) requires that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.

The Environmentally Superior Alternative is Alternative 1  ‐  Preservation Alternative. This alternative meets most of the Project Objectives, and impacts would be less than significant.

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 10
Table 2‐1: Significant Effects Comparison Summary ‐ Project vs Alternatives* Alternatives
Issue Area and DEIR Section Discussion Proposed
Project
1 2
Preservation No Project
Significant Effects of Proposed Project

5.1 Cultural Resources – Historical Resources SU ▼ ▼

5.2 Land Use and Planning ‐ Policies SU ▼ ▼
Effects Found Not Significant or Less Than Significant as Part of the Initial Study and DEIR Process

4.1 Aesthetics NS ▬ ▬

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry NS ▬ ▬

4.3 Air Quality NS ▬ ▼

4.4 Biological Resources LTS‐M ▬ ▼

4.5 Cultural Resources (Archaeology, Human Remains) LTS‐M ▬ ▬

4.6 Energy NS ▬ ▬

4.7 Geology and Soils NS ▬ ▼

4.8 Greenhouse Gas NS ▬ ▬

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTS‐M ▬ ▼

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality NS ▬ ▬

4.11 Land Use – Physically Divide Community NS ▬ ▬

4.12 Mineral Resources NS ▬ ▬

4.13 Noise LTS‐M ▬ ▼

4.14 Population and Housing NS ▬ ▬

4.15 Public Services LTS‐M ▬ ▼

4.16 Recreation NS ▬ ▲

4.17 Transportation   LTS ▬ ▼

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources LTS‐M ▬ ▼

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems NS ▬ ▬

4.20 Wildfire NS ▬ ▬
Notes:
*Refer to Table 7‐1 for a detailed significance determination. Section 7 of this DEIR provides the detailed evaluation of the Project alternatives.

SU = Potentially significant and unavoidable.

LTS‐M = Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

NS = Not significant or Less Than Significant Without Mitigation. ▲ Alternative is likely to result in greater impacts to issue when compared to Proposed Project. ▬ Alternative is likely to result in similar impacts to issue when compared to Proposed Project. ▼ Alternative is likely to result in reduced impacts to issue when compared to Proposed Project.

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 11
Exhibit 2‐1: Regional Vicinity
~~,IM
West
Hollywood
c:o ~1 11111,('
W I non/14•
Inglewood

2.5 5
Source: 1/Vortd Street Map. Los Angeles County
An s
h n
Fer t
Alhawa~~ _!_·__!_! e
0 l Lynwood I
10 Miles
ijj.1.1.itraw,._ ....
rey Par11
An
Azus:i
Vincent
B:ildwln
Park
West Cov fna
Covina
Glendor.i
(

SAN MARINO CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Regional Vicinity
Exhibit 2-1

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 12
Exhibit 2‐2: Project Site
Legend
125 250
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery, Los Angeles County
500
Feet

SAN MARINO CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Project Site
Exhibit 2-2

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 13
3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES, DESCRIPTION, LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

3.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Beginning in January 2018, the City conducted extensive outreach regarding re‐envisioning the City’s recreation program and formed a working group in 2020. The primary discussions of the working group focused on how to encourage better use of the facility, the need for facility repair and renovation and the need to create aesthetic continuity with the adjacent public buildings.

Through a number of meetings and public hearings, the City working group recommended the following Project Objectives:
 Create architectural, aesthetic continuity along eastbound Huntington Drive between Virginia Road and West Drive by changing the SMC building façade’s architectural features from the existing Modern Colonial Revival to the Spanish‐Mediterranean style that are present on the Crowell Public Library, east and adjacent to the SMC and the school campusstructuresto the west of the SMC;
 Replace interior aged electrical and mechanical systems with code compliant systems including replacing light fixtures;
 Rehabilitate interior space to house City recreation department staff;  Rehabilitate interior space to optimize community use for large and small public and private events; and
 Retrofit and update the facility and grounds with ADA‐compliant features.

3.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project is located at 1800 Huntington Drive, San Marino, on the south side of Huntington Drive, between West Drive on the east and Virginia Road on the west (Exhibits 2‐1 and 2‐2) and is identified as Los Angeles County Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 5334‐024‐903. The Projectsite is adjacent to and east of the Huntington Middle School and west of and adjacent to the Crowell Public Library and contains the SMC building and associated landscaping.

The Projectsite iszoned R‐1, Residential. According to Section 23.02.01 of the San Marino Municipal Code, recreational and childcare activities may be conducted on properties in residential zones that are owned by the City. Residential land uses are located east of West Drive and on the north side of Huntington Drive in proximity to the Project site.

The SMC is an approximately 10,832 square‐foot‐building with a concrete foundation, flat roof and raised parapet along the rear and side elevations. The building is two stories, with the primary meeting spaces on the first floor and limited space and mechanical/electrical rooms on the second floor. In its existing configuration, the SMC has a current occupancy rating of 1,020.

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 14

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The SMC building was originally constructed in 1951/1952 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.

The SMC building was studied in 2011 to determine the building’s historical significance. The 2011 study described the architectural style as “Modern Colonial Revival,” which is not recognized as a unique style of architecture. Designed by architect Marion Varner as one of his earlier designs, the SMC 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. There were two additions in 1958.

Adjacent to the SMC is the Crowell Library (to the east) which was originally constructed in 1951/52, at about the same time asthe construction of the SMC, but it was demolished and completely reconstructed in 2006. The Henry E. Huntington Middle School (constructed in 1918) is located directly west of the SMC.

The Valentine Elementary School (west of the middle school) was constructed in 1938. The San Marino Unified School District offices are located within the middle school grounds. These buildings were constructed in a “Spanish Mediterranean” architectural style notably with tile roofs, wood accents, and stucco columns.

3.3.1 Site Access and Parking
Vehicle access to the SMC is located on Huntington Drive and West Drive. The SMC can also be accessed by public transit service, provided by Los Angeles Metro (Metro).Bus stops are located within walking distance of the SMC, including at Huntington Drive/West Drive and Huntington Drive/Cambridge Road both of which are approximately 500 feet to the east of the SMC, and one at Huntington Drive/Virginia Road approximately 1,100 feet to the west of the SMC.

Parking for the SMC is designated as 48 spaces near the south side of the building in the parking lot of the Henry E. Huntington Middle School, as well asin the parking lot of the adjacent Crowell Public Library. The 48 spaces on the south side of the building in the school parking lot is provided through a cooperative agreement with the San Marino Unified School District (SMUSD) for use by the City for both SMC parking and overflow parking for the Crowell Public Library. The 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 (refer to Appendix A in the 2022 Initial Study, located in Appendix F of this DEIR). The shared parking arrangement with the SMUSD appears to be a traditional feature for the SMC and the Crowell Library. The 1952 SMC site plansindicate “school parking area” on the west and south sides of the building footprint, and historical articles in the Los Angeles Times indicate that the San Marino Women’s Club historically used the “school parking area” for club parking and for community events.

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 15

3.3.2 Historical Status
In June 2011, the SMC underwent a required federal historical review as part of a project to install an ADA compliant door and other features, which wasfunded through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development through the County of Los Angeles Community Development Block Grant program. The 2011 study stated that the integrity of the building appeared sufficient for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places for its association as being San Marino’s first community center.

The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) agreed with the federal assessment and also formally listed the SMC 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 OHP identifies the SMC as listed on the California Register through its listing on the State’s Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD). The SMC is also a City landmark pursuant to the San Marino City Code, Chapter XXIII, Article 18 Section 23.18.03 (A) “Automatic Designation” because a property within the City that is listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Places is automatically designated as a historic landmark.

3.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City currently uses the SMC as a public community center and for various City recreation programs.

Table 3‐1 ‐ Example of Existing and Proposed Uses of the SMC, located at the end of thissection, identifies existing and proposed uses for the SMC. Existing programs will continue after the Project is completed, although the City desires to improve upon the existing services offered at the SMC. The proposed uses include the ability to hold new types of events and office space for recreation staff. Table 3‐1, which was included in the 2022 Initial Study, formed the basis of the analysis of the 2022 Initial Study and this DEIR.

The building improvements and modernization are designed to allow for optimization of existing and proposed uses. The 2022 Initial Study analysisfocused primarily on the potential impacts of new/proposed events that were anticipated to have larger attendance.

The Proposed Project would also change the SMC building façade from a “Modern Colonial Revival” to a “Spanish Mediterranean” architectural style, which is similar to that of the adjacent library and school buildings. Other building improvements include various upgrades and enhancements for Americans with Disability Act (ADA) compliance, rehabilitating the building’s interior to include additional offices to accommodate six City Recreation Department staff, optimizing the interior public gathering space, and replacing the heating/air conditioning, plumbing and electrical systems and light fixtures to comply with current building code standards. The specific improvements for the SMC building are described in the following sections. Detailed site plans are also provided in Appendix C ‐ Proposed Site Plan, Layout and Landscape Plans.

The existing building design occupancy rating is 1,020. The proposed interior space reconfiguration will allow for a design occupancy rating of 1,083.

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 16

3.4.1 Exterior Improvements – Façade Features
Exterior improvements include the following. Refer to Exhibit 3‐1: Existing Site ‐ Northwest Elevation for the existing view and Exhibit 3‐2 through Exhibit 3‐4 for proposed views of the northwest, southeast and northeast.
 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;
 Remove asbestos containing materials  in accordance with applicable laws and regulations;  Add wood accents where appropriate and complimentary such as around windows and the entry door consistent with features of architectural style;
 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; and,
 New paint and stucco repair that will match the color of the library.

Exterior features that are anticipated to remain intact or will not be impacted by the Proposed Project improvements include the following:
 The cornerstone of the building inscribed with “San Marino Women’s Club” near the building entry and,
 The two large oak trees in the front yard adjacent to the front entry.

3.4.2 Interior Improvements
The interior components/spacesto be renovated are intended to optimize the use for events, office space, recreational classrooms and provide ADA compliance. Refer to Exhibit 3‐5:  Existing Floor Plan for the existing interior layout and Exhibit 3‐6:  Proposed Floor Plan for the proposed interior layout (also refer to Appendix C). The interior renovations include but are not limited to the following:
 Add two offices (for a total of three offices);
 Install a folding wall in the main room;
 Upgrade the kitchen, bathrooms, ceiling tiles, and electrical and mechanical systems to comply with current code standards;
 Remove asbestos containing materials in accordance with applicable laws and regulations;  Remove and replace light and plumbing fixtures with current style fixtures;  Replace entryway flooring containing the San Marino Women’s Club insignia (insignia to be preserved as a plaque inside the facility);
 Perform various upgrades for ADA compliance, including but not limited to: retrofit of the restrooms with features that include but are not limited to appropriate door hardware and door threshold widths; retrofit the main floor access to the from only stairs to stair and personnel lift;

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 17
 Remove, replace and update paint and carpet; and,
 Conduct other deferred maintenance items.

Interior features that are not anticipated to be impacted by the Proposed Project improvements include the following:
 Fireside room fireplace and cabinetry; and
 Stage.

3.4.3 Utility/Hardscape/Landscape Improvements
Some improvements will occur outside of the building envelope. Detailed landscape and utility plans are provided in Appendix C. The landscape plans identify that the larger trees on site will be preserved.

Some excavation will be required and incudes surficial disturbance for site preparation for new ADA parking and loading, sidewalk repair, parking lot paving, and landscaping enhancement, as well as deeper excavation for new utility installation where utility trenches will generally vary between 2 to 3 feet wide by 1 to 3 feet deep, depending on the activity (refer to Exhibit 3‐7:  Approximate Excavation Locations).

The activities that require excavation include but are not limited to the following:
 Install new domestic water service and sewer lines in the same area as the existing lines;  Replace overhead electrical service with new underground electrical service;  Replace landscaping with drought‐tolerant plant materialssuitable for placement underneath oak trees and provide aesthetic continuity with the Crowell Public Library landscaping;  Install new landscape irrigation meter, with pipe replacements, as necessary, in the same location as existing;
 Install new, separate water service for the fire sprinkler system;  Install new footings for new patio site walls and pilasters, trash enclosure, building columns;  Add various upgrades for ADA compliance including but not limited to: accessible paths of travel to entry points from disabled parking in the parking lot; and,  Repair existing building footings and slab where applicable.

3.4.4 Project Timing
Construction is expected to last approximately 12 to 18 months, beginning in late fall/early winter 2022, with facilities opening as available in spring/summer 2023.

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 18
Table 3‐1: Example of Existing and Proposed Uses of the SMC Classes   Existing (E) or
Proposed (P)
No. of
Users/
Participants
Frequency
Bridge Club   E/P 40 Mondays 12‐4pm, Wednesdays 11am‐2pm.

Wednesdays 7:15‐10:45pm
Tai Chi Class E/P 10 Mondays & Wednesdays 7‐9pm
Gentle Yoga Class E/P 75 Tuesdays & Thursdays 10‐11am
Safe & Steady Class E/P 7 Thursdays 12:30‐1:30pm
Adult Line Dance Class   E/P 12 Thursdays 7:30‐9pm
Fit & Fabulous Class   E/P 7 Fridays 8‐9am
Chair Fitness Class   E/P 7 Fridays 9‐9:45am
Intro to Piano Class   E/P 6 Tuesdays 3‐5pm
Musical Theater Camp   E/P 25 2 weeks in July 9‐3pm
Civic Club/Charitable Group
Events/Meetings
Existing (E) or
Proposed (P)
No. of
Users/
Participants
Frequency
City Club   E/P 150 3rd Tuesday of every month 3‐10pm
Unit Bridge   E/P 60 1st Sunday of each month 9am‐3pm
Rotary Club   E/P 100 Once a year ‐ Weekday 5‐10pm
PTA   E/P 250 Twice a year ‐ Weekday & Weekend, 8am 4‐(8 hours) NCL   E/P 50 Once a year ‐ Weekend 10am‐2pm 4 hours
Civic Club/Charitable Group
Events/Meetings (Large Group)
P 200 Sat PM, 1 per quarter
Private Event Usage Existing (E) or
Proposed (P)
No. of Users/
Participants Frequency
Church Service   E/P 250 2 Saturdays each year ‐ 5‐9pm
Private Industry Conferences P 100 2 times per year
Weekday & Weekend 8am – 4pm (varies)
Private Celebrations E/P 75‐125 12 rentals on random weekends throughout year (approx.: 6 hours each)
City Administration Uses   Existing (E) or
Proposed (P)
No. of
Users/
Participants
Frequency
City Council Meetings E/P 20‐40 24 times per year
Recreation Staff P 7 M‐Th  7 am‐5 pm
Friday 7 am‐11am
Guest Speaker Series’ E/P 30 12 times per year ‐ Weekday 12‐3pm Recreation Commission Meetings E/P 15 6 times per year ‐ Weekday 6‐9pm Town Hall Meetings E/P 30 12 times per year
Human Resources FD/PD Training E/P 30‐50 6 times per year ‐ Weekday & Weekend 8am (Varies 4‐8 hours)
Human Resource Testing E/P 30 6 times per year ‐ Weekday 8am (Varies 4‐8 hours) Notes:

E/P = existing use that is proposed to continue after the Project.

The2022 Initial Study analysis focused primarily on new, Proposed events, primarily with anticipated larger attendance.

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 19
Exhibit 3‐1: Existing Site – Northwest Elevation

SAN MARINO CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
~~ ELMT &NottoScale
~ ~ U)l'J'·,lJI l f'.r; Existing Northwest View (facing Huntington Drive) Exhibit 3-1

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 20
Exhibit 3‐2: Proposed Northwest View (Adjacent to Parking Lot)

SAN MARINO CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
E LMT IA Notto Scale (y][y] C..O N ':,UI l 'J (:i Proposed Northwest View (Adjacent to School Parking Lot) Source: Crane Architecture Group Exhibit 3-2

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 21
Exhibit 3‐3: Proposed Southeast (Building Rear)

SAN MARINO CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Proposed Southeast View (Rear View)
Source: Crane Architecture Group Exhibit 3-3

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 22
Exhibit 3‐4: Proposed Northeast View (Adjacent to Library)

SAN MARINO CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
E LMT & Not to Scale [i)[y] C O '-.S , JITI N G Proposed Northeast View (Adjacent to Library) Source: Crane Arch itecture Group Exhibit 3-4

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 23
Exhibit 3‐5: Existing Floor Plan
t , H,<'l1.J M'1 k ~ 1 V . ~ ... - : ·ta,)'
- -;,~ " ,O, ;'f.'" ....,.,: ..
- · ,;; --;: :, r r;,<..~ I;'
,,."! "-~vu-. . -i=i<: ; r:: 1 ·.: : ~ ~~
- - ~~~~-· 1.~~ ~! ! :.: ·. :;?~~~ ::· + ~: ;: : /;-::~ '
~;:,; .•. ::~ :.·ir.;:fi,~',.';~1~
.
·
. ,,· ·; ·

SAN MARINO CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
,& Not to Scale Existing Floor Plan (per original plans) Source: Crane Architecture Group Exhibit 3-5

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 24
Exhibit 3‐6: Proposed Floor Plan
ELMT
CU N'.:;l_l l I IN\ j
(i)
' --t,
I / (i.) I
__ . ¢, I
I ,
I
I
I
I I
I
I
L
_
I
I
, .. ·r ....
[ _______ L_ __
'0
_....,l'i-:,-'-----1.;,-,---=========.==si-~~--~--{,__~) ,->-ear----i--:
,f1\._ l~,~ ..lli...
,--~ --1,- ___--",,•~,_, _____ f._,8"':-7~~0
...: \") 0
L
_
~l LI IPU~ J;OO~
l
L_
..,,,----~t-------
Lr---"1-+---r~-.,_-+'
0 (i) (2) (3)

RENOVATION FLOOR PLAN
& Not to Scale
Source: Crane Architecture Group
¢ /
'ill. I 1- . ~l'J'A.
1 ·1; 1
-~
SCALE 1/ll'=1'-0''
"~"'"',""""'
It),, .. ,., , ......... ···~
f,, »•m ••
....
~-
,_,, " _
<ff ;~,i~" .,~ "'~"II'. ~,i::u'ro ~•-•.;c ••· , •. ,.. ,,. , ,u, i i~r: ..... ., .. i ~i~If '.::\,:'.:"· .. .. -. 1----.. I !~ r;; .. :.:-·= I .: .. ~···· .,, , .... --~- --- ii ,n:,,.,.·.1,~,,-a,i <'@>,,co,.,.,,..,,.,, , .. ,., . ,. :,ri::: - :1 i$> .,.,..,,.., .,. ~~• . -,.
::1 1i-.,u @ ~;'::tt,.".!.:t,'" """"••"''"""' •/
~>Jll,. ~ I· '1 • 1·1<• q_)-1 ;~:. .. lilM~••"• ••l;OJrV 1, co , ~ n ~" .. ••=n,uu m ..
? ,,. <, "-""'""'"' .........
zz Q:S !;:12. >a:
00 zo
W..J
a:u.
! Yi~E:': .. i !~
_~.~:_,:i~_Itit~!~~~~:, 1-----1 lt:O--"«:~ n•": , -
''''"
I "
A-1

SAN MARINO CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Proposed Floor Plan
Exhibit 3-6

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 25
Exhibit 3‐7: Approximate Excavation Locations
HJNl IN& TO\ :;;<1- VE
- - - - - - ~ - ----,...<»- --- ___,_,-4_ ---fl"- _-<ll..._ I rn~ (

PROPOSED SITE PLAN
GCtlER,~. '!OTE S:
1 1c r t x,:,:--,,:s lll"•:'l'l111JTV1(!,c1·1, •• ,10 :u; .,,c c-:>11:ro,;1 1111 ntl r1a:n ~u;• ... II) ..... , 0 """'"' 0. 'IU."tl" .. t;.• .,,..._ ... ..>I.~ WJ.., · • '"-"- ~ IIU.I C"f"C.~1'.JI "'"'""""""-'"'-.'•"'"""'"'"-"'"' r1 x,rn,c-::«<.,. rs.< ,, «• ..., .. ,...,, ,_.__,.,.,.,.,.,.,,. ,.,,.; " ,,.- o,,, ,_,,., H,." " '""-"' "'"- ,.,, ,,.,,c C d i O:::t'l"•' l\le<IO'., •~\ ., ... ~lot, ,n.:,.c= r• '"""" J.![ ,~ .... :i r:• I ;t,,~_,,.c "l<atlM""-':tlO. ·
• , ~,-.... , ... , ... .. ,- ....... ,, ' "' .,,,, • ..,,,,. .. .,, ... .. ::r::;::1:-:t .. :.:~~: :::~::~· ::::,:~ ux',~'Jt ,,,
& Not to Scale
Source : Crane Arch itecture Group
GE1'£R.\L l\:lES (CONTINLED):
•- llt~:11111UXl(l"~l.: r:r. 1 1».t'('<'.CW l " t •• !X'O'.'ll."IIJO )l)(.•N~l'l'IC'"l: IIUJ;-"'IJ/'(I ~, . .. or cu,;.·iX"ll• .. 1 ~- .OT! I ( 11>:!Tltf ,.u; .. m• I.< ... U!Cl[' ..0--'r., :lll"S'-"~ >1•»-s"~ · •I.>< ~,e,._.,,.,.,,,, """'""' •• .,.. ,. ;, rn :<'.lf'l>"l~• •1,u,_ ~= ,~'O..,u "" e:,,, .,,,i; "'" ..u r 111t u,:11 , .. ,r...._r ,111:1, 1ru<,<[1 t rtGl.t,,"ll "l. n:n ~,:< r=t• -'1"" • ,.JI
t.. PIIOIT~•,111~•--·0ll .. :OON'I ors ••Jt.>,
,. mo,, ,..c,.,,,.,,u.,r:1.s:on,..._..,..,,.,,.
1~. ,nu fl M •JN1,UI P ... •II< ,o, f3"" Nf"'~""'
,,. r:rn t) !IC co:n, ,c1:t (f, ~ltt , ii,. t< «,,1,..:m -'TU• l:l~~Oll.C rCJ 0::00""1"' •ll ,11u r~9 >t,;,,1•1~ ,.(t,;~ 1/>1( ·,.;,,,u,.1 l>(r- '$ ..:;1.

Ii, r :rc1 IOIJl!:,CO .. U-Y"91U .> ,:11 1 u:: "ll:W<!l>.;'"Qlll"U 1:.,,-,;u n;r x<11-.:, ,-..,; .. , .,., ..... ,,.,,ic.,.n.1~~•'Tlll'..,,n:t1,•!..,..t,'f//t.

1., • •ll 4 ,0 '"'- ,o,;.,~IOjU r. "'-' l'1 >0UI ._H>. l•t 00- ;,, ... 10,, (.u.,OAl-0:.

1.IJ. -,,u.,u.! l!Q\ !h!>fl ~•1111.J <Ol:n::w• l ol! .. Cl tt:f ,., ,:ro tu no; ,,i . :.,u<.;o., ~ ~>ti• uu;i•:; ~.oc Hu.r,;,::,.i,,,;,, \ l(:t, ,-u , 1't:l./l. .i--:•• -. c <t,tt-:1\'11 1"'- I! O!S'<:•UU ·~ en•:-••~ OU .>"U:JJ<l •P.•1>1:•>, •'€'><It 1-'::,nt,u.1 !> <•• - ~
!I ! ./,---
SCALE 1N 8"= 1'-0'
"' " c"""''"' ~ao•1tu/,._ • ..,
~~~~:1f',.;~,it~ .. ::--.. ·~~,
c11rnl'O <»s:t:CTC .. AL\ le
~, .. ~""'""'" •'"/1-1'" .,, ·-- 14~•~,
[(o!Tl,O::OO•~~CTC('I.Oll9a~•f0
(9 e:•l+':~IC ·.,;..,.._ . , .... u
<1} (•n•1<..:ro'ti' >J.'J
~: J}~hc:f.i rpt-JJ,.~nr; -.oo;
<) · : ,.... ..... , ,._.,,,,. ., <) :;-;~:· _ _, "' --,,. • ~.ui1-c~N-1J •v•·•· ct. ,,,,;-,.i,n
"-1! ;~ ;( !1£C.!~·~"{;~,~
,nvc;i,.,-:i,1
llel"'-',.-f~',.1'11.!'ll'<-lltWl/,l'I'
~:•,; .. ;;~ " ... ,
'"""""' "'·""'"'""'"" ,$-
fl "' "·•=•,r,,•>,""'"'
;'t:~~~::~;'~!{t=-..:...•~ i~~"' I
............. ..
""·•,~•=•••o ""
~'"'"'"""' ...
... ~'"'""~·-··""" •t• C'$1 < f,.,( COt>CIUI ~l'< .. ("I S(> if' ,, ,j,'.llh.O. _-u-;c; 7' w •~tl: D ~r. ~1:1wr: 'O , :. ~•-
,r, ,:i:,..•\>:'"': .. ,n,>;rc-,.n,,:,
.. : -~ ,;~;'4,~< ., .. ~, ,.,.,),. '" 01-.m<i<x,.-,~
!!! I II = i ,,
I -S !I
-1 li I ,,i
Oz
~:3 Oa.
a. w Ot- a: -a. en
i
;~i~ l!i~
. ~!!. ·i~ ! .
~l!,l! !,l! !M ~d
,
~mim
SP-1

SAN MARINO CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Excavation Locations
Exhibit 3-7

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 26
4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOUND NOT SIGNIFICANT
Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, this DEIR consists of an evaluation of the effects of the entire Proposed Project. For this DEIR analysis, the analysis contained in the 2022 Initial Study is incorporated by reference and forms the basis for summarizing information where appropriate in this DEIR.

The criteria from the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G ‐ Environmental Checklist Form, were used in the Initial Study evaluation. CEQA also identifies individual threshold criteria within each evaluation subject where, through analysis, project impacts are determined to have no impact, a less than significant impact, a less than significant impact after mitigation measures are applied, or a potentially significant impact.

The results of the 2022 Initial Study (Appendix F) analysis determined that the Proposed Project would have no impacts, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts after mitigation measures were applied in most evaluation subjects. Thissection summarizesthe analysisfor each evaluation subject as addressed in the 2022 Initial Study. Detailed analysis can be found in the 2022 Initial Study (Appendix F). Table 4‐1: CEQA Checklist and Initial Study Matrix  ‐  Non‐Significant Effects identifies the CEQA Checklist evaluation subjects and the corresponding 2022 Initial Study sections.

In the evaluation subjects of V. Cultural Resources and XI. Land Use and Planning, some individual threshold criteria were found to have potentially significant effects; it is only those individual benchmark criteria that are further evaluated in Section 5 of this DElR.

All threshold criteria in the evaluation subjects of XVII. Transportation and XV. Public Services were also determined to have either no impact, less than significant impact, or less than significant impacts after mitigation measures were applied. However, comments received during the NOP comment period and scoping meeting requested that an additional evaluation be provided for two threshold criteria for these evaluation subjects. Therefore, for the evaluation subject categories of XVII. Transportation and XV. Public Services only the two threshold criteria relevant to the NOP comments are discussed in Section 5 of this DEIR.

Table 4‐1: CEQA Checklist Subject Areas and Initial Study Matrix – Non‐Significant Effects CEQA Guidelines Checklist Section Initial Study
Section
Mitigation
Measures DIER Section
I. Aesthetics 4.1   4.1
II. Agricultural and Forestry 4.2   4.2
III. Air Quality 4.3   4.3
IV. Biological Resources 4.4 BIO‐1, BIO‐2 4.4
V. Cultural Resources 4.5 CUL‐1 4.5 and 5.1
VI. Energy 4.6   4.6
VII. Geology and Soils 4.7   4.7
VIII. Greenhouse Gas 4.8   4.8
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.9 HAZ‐1, HAZ‐2,
HAZ‐3

4.9 X. Hydrology and Water Quality 4.10   4.10
XI. Land Use and Planning 4.11   4.11 and 5.2
XII. Mineral Resources 4.12   4.12

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 27
CEQA Guidelines Checklist Section Initial Study
Section
Mitigation
Measures DIER Section
XIII. Noise 4.13 NOI‐1 4.13
XIV. Population and Housing 4.14   4.14
XV. Public Services 4.15 PS‐1, PS‐2, PS‐3,
PS‐4, PS‐5

4.15 and 5.3
XVI. Recreation 4.16   4.16
XVII. Transportation   4.17   4.17 and 5.4
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources 4.18 TCR‐1, TCR‐2, TCR‐ 3 4.18
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems 4.19   4.19
XX. Wildfire 4.20   4.20

4.1 AESTHETICS
Potential impacts to Aesthetics were fully evaluated in Section 4.1 of the 2022 Initial Study in accordance with the Section I of the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G  ‐ Environmental Checklist Form. The thresholds addressed are as follows:
 I.a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?  I.b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
 I.c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and itssurroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
 I.d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The Project is located along Huntington Drive in the Project area which is not considered a “scenic vista.” However, motorists traveling along Huntington Drive in the Project vicinity can enjoy an aesthetically pleasing driving experience offered by the wide, grassy, tree‐lined median, the tall trees and shrubs that hide residential uses on the north side, and the residential and commercial uses on the south side that are partially obscured by mature trees in the sidewalk. The Crowell Library and Huntington School, which are adjacent to the SMC on the east and west, are both similar architectural styles of Spanish Mediterranean with stucco and wood accents that complement the mature trees within the landscape.

The SMC, however, is clearly architecturally different than the adjacent buildings, therefore, there is a visible variation in the continuity of the aesthetically pleasing driving experience in the immediate area of the Project.

The façade updates proposed by the Project seek to reduce the visual variation along the south side of Huntington Drive by modifying the SMC exterior to create a similar look and feel as that of the Crowell Library and Huntington School. The views of the south side of Huntington Drive will be temporary disrupted during construction.

The Proposed Project Site is located in an urbanized area and is zoned R‐1 (very low density residential), and the adjacent public buildings (library and school) are within the same zoning designation. The site’s

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 28
zoning and use are consistent with the City’s applicable zoning and other regulations. The Project would not increase the height or density of development in the area.

The Project will only upgrade existing exterior lighting, and no new lighting is proposed.

All impacts were determined to be less than significant, and no further analysis or any mitigation is required.

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
Potential impacts to Agriculture and Forestry Resources were fully evaluated in Section 4.2 of the 2022 Initial Study in accordance with the Section II of the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G ‐ Environmental Checklist Form.

There are no agricultural uses on the Project site, nor is the site zoned for agricultural use. There are no impacts, and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

4.3 AIR QUALITY
Potential impacts to Air Quality were fully evaluated in Section 4.3 of the 2022 Initial Study in accordance with the Section III of the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G ‐ Environmental Checklist Form. The benchmark criteria addressed are as follows:
 III.a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?  III.b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?  III.c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?  III.d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The Air Quality analysisin Appendix B of the 2022 Initial Study (located in Appendix F of this DEIR) modeled construction emissions for demolition (which primarily includes roof replacement, window removal and replacement, porch post replacement, and exterior stucco removal and replacement), building construction and architectural coating application based on the overall scope of the proposed Project and construction phasing which is expected to commence in fall/winter 2022 and extend through mid‐2023.

The total area disturbed as a result of the Project would be limited to the building interior and exterior landscape and hardscape. For modeling purposes, it was assumed the Project would comply with SCAQMD Rules. The results of the modeling found that SCAQMD pollution thresholds would not be exceeded during construction or operations.

Potential sources of odor during construction activities include equipment exhaust. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process would occur periodically and end when construction is completed.

All impacts were determined to be less than significant, and no further analysis or any mitigation is required.

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 29

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potential impacts to Biological Resources were fully evaluated in Section 4.4 of the 2022 Initial Study in accordance with the Section IV of the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G ‐ Environmental Checklist Form. The thresholds addressed are as follows:
 IV.a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive, orspecialstatusspeciesin local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?  IV.b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
 IV.c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means
 IV.d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
 IV.e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
There are no sensitive species, riparian areas or wetlands on the Project site.

The Project site contains a number of trees, several of which are considered heritage trees under the City of San Marino tree preservation ordinance as contained in Chapter 23, Article 19 of the City Municipal Code. The trees also serve as potential habitat for nesting birds, protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Proposed Project will not remove the trees, but some tree trimming and utility trenching may occur around the trees. As such Mitigation Measures BIO‐1 and BIO‐2 are required to conduct nesting bird surveys prior to tree trimming, and for the City to work with an arborist during construction to assist in reducing impacts to the tree roots during trenching. Implementation of these measures reduces potential impacts to less than significant.

All impacts were determined to be less than significant with Mitigation Measures BIO‐1 and BIO‐2, and no further analysis is required.

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES – ARCHAEOLOGY AND HUMAN REMAINS
Potential impacts to Cultural Resources were fully evaluated in Section 4.5 of the 2022 Initial Study in accordance with the Section V of the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G ‐ Environmental Checklist Form. The thresholds addressed are as follows:
 V.a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5?  V.b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?
 V.c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? For threshold V.a, the 2022 Initial Study identified a Potentially Significant impact which could not be easily mitigated. Therefore, this specific threshold is further analyzed in this DEIR in section 5.1 below.

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 30
With respect to threshold V.b, the 2022 Initial Study identified that there were no known archaeological resources within or underlying the Project site. However, to accommodate for the potential for the unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during utility trenching, Mitigation Measure CUL‐1 would be implemented to reduce this specific impact to less than significant.

With respect to threshold V.c, the Project contractor is required to comply with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (b), which requires that remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and their disposition has been made; therefore, there impacts were identified as less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

4.6 ENERGY
Potential impacts to Energy Resources were fully evaluated in Section 4.6 of the 2022 Initial Study in accordance with the Section VI of the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G ‐ Environmental Checklist Form. The thresholds addressed are as follows:
 VI.a) Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?  VI.b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? The 2022 Initial Study quantified energy usage during construction and operations. It determined that the energy usage during construction would be temporary, and construction equipment used would be typical of similar‐sized construction projects in the region. In the interest of cost efficiency, construction contractors are not anticipated to utilize fuel in a manner that is wasteful or unnecessary. Therefore, Project construction would not result in a potential impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and no construction‐related energy impact would occur. The Project upgrades include installation of energy efficient components, such as light fixtures and energy‐efficient heating and air conditioning, to reduce energy usage during operations.

All impacts were determined to be less than significant, and no further analysis or any mitigation is required.

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Potential impacts to Geology and Soils were fully evaluated in Section 4.7 of the 2022 Initial Study in accordance with the Section VII of the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G ‐ Environmental Checklist Form. The thresholds addressed are as follows:
 VII.a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Alquist Priolo fault, seismic shaking, liquefaction, landslides.  VII.b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?  VII.c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on‐ site or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
 VII.d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
 VII.e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 31
 VII.f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The Project is located in Southern California, a seismically active area and susceptible to the effects of seismic activity include rupture of earthquake faults. The Project is not located on or near a Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake fault, although the Raymond Fault Zone is documented approximately 0.5 mile to the north, in Lacy Park. All proposed improvements would comply with the latest seismic provisions of all applicable building codes designed to reduce impacts from earthquakes.

The City of San Marino’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (CSM, Feb 2019) identifies that the City is not subject to liquefaction, and the surrounding area is flat, and there is no potential for landslides.

The Project does not require earth moving, except for shallow utility trenches, therefore, soil susceptible to erosion would not occur.

With respect to paleontological features, none are anticipated to be discovered during utility trenching.

However, Mitigation Measure CUL‐1 which addresses procedures for discovery of unanticipated buried resources, was determined to be sufficient to reduce any potential impacts to less than significant.

All impacts were determined to be less than significant with Mitigation Measure CUL‐1, and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS
Potential impactsto Greenhouse Gas emissions were fully evaluated in Section 4.8 of the 2022 Initial Study in accordance with the Section VIII of the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G ‐ Environmental Checklist Form.

The thresholds addressed are as follows:
 VIII.a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
 VIII.b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The 2022 Initial Study identified that the applicable plan for the proposed Project is the SCAQMD's Tier 3 thresholds which used Executive Order S‐3‐05 goal as the basis for deriving the screening level. Both construction and operational levels were identified to not exceed the SCAQMD 3,000 metric ton annual threshold.

All impacts were determined to be less than significant, and no further analysis or any mitigation is required.

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potential impactsto Greenhouse Gas emissions were fully evaluated in Section 4.9 of the 2022 Initial Study in accordance with the Section IX of the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G ‐ Environmental Checklist Form. The thresholds addressed are as follows:
 IX.a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 32
 IX.b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?  IX.c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?  IX.d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
 IX.e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
 IX.f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
 IX.g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
The Projectsite is not located within or near a hazardous waste site. It is however situated adjacent to the Huntington Middle School and shares a parking lot with that school. The Valentine Elementary School is adjacent to the west of the middle school.

Construction activities will include the removal of asbestos and various construction activities during school hours. Mitigation Measure HAZ‐1 was identified to stop work if additional asbestos materials are found after abatement.

Mitigation Measures HAZ‐2 and HAZ‐3 require the development of safety plans during construction and operations to ensure student safety during construction, as well as during a potential evacuation of either the SMC or the school during operations because of the shared parking lot arrangement.

All impacts were determined to be less than significant with Mitigation Measures HAZ‐1, HAZ‐2 and HAZ‐ 3, and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potential impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality were fully evaluated in Section 4.10 of the 2022 Initial Study in accordance with the Section X of the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G  ‐ Environmental Checklist Form. The thresholds addressed are as follows:
 X.a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?  X.b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?  X.c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
increase erosion, increase surface water runoff, contribute runoff that exceeds existing storm drain capacity or contributes to polluted runoff.
 X.d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation??  X.e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The 2022 Initial Study identified that the Proposed Project is not located within or near a stream that or a 100‐year floodplain. The Project does not involve mass grading, therefore, water quality would not be

Draft Environmental Impact Report
San Marino Center Improvement Project – San Marino, California March 2022 33
affected. Water usage for operations after completion is anticipated to be similar to existing operations, therefore, the Proposed Project will not impact groundwater supplies.

All impacts were determined to be less than significant, and no further analysis or any mitigation is required.

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING – PHYSICALLY DIVIDE A COMMUNITY Potential impacts to Land Use and Planning were fully evaluated in Section 4.11 of the 2022 Initial Study in accordance with the Section XI of the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G ‐ Environmental Checklist Form. The thresholds addressed are as follows:
 XI.a) Physically divide an established community?
 XI.b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? With respect to XI.a), the 2022 Initial Study identified no impacts because there are no physical or zoning features of the Proposed Project that would divide the community. No impacts were identified, and no further analysis is required.

However, for XI.b), which analyzes Project conflicts with land use plans and policies, the 2022 Initial Study identified a Potentially Significant impact that could not be easily mitigated. Therefore, further analysis for this topic is provided in this DEIR in Section 5.2.

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Potential impacts to Mineral Resources were fully evaluated in Section 4.12 of the 2022 Initial Study in accordance with the Section XII of the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G ‐ Environmental Checklist Form. The Projectsite is not located within an area of important mineralsources, nor would any aspect of the Project involve mining or use of mineral resources. No impacts were identified, and no further analysis or any mitigation is required.

4.13 NOISE
Potential impacts to Land Use and Planning were fully evaluated in Section 4.13 of the 2022 Initial Study in accordance with the Section XIII of the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G ‐ Environmental Checklist Form.

The thresholds addressed are as follows:
 XIII.a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
 XIII.b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?  XIII.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? The primary main noise source during construction activities would be associated with demolition and construction of the proposed improvements. Exterior improvements requiring removal of concrete or