South El Monte City Council
January 25, 2022

Gloria Olmos, Mayor/Chair
Manuel Acosta, Mayor Pro Tem/
Vice Chair
Richard Angel, Councilmember/
Boardmember
Hector Delgado, Councilmember/
Boardmember
Gracie Retamoza, Councilmember/
Boardmember
Rachel Barbosa, City
Manager/Executive Director
Donna G. Schwartz, City
Clerk/Secretary
Anthony R. Taylor, City
Attorney/General Counsel

CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE

REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTH EL MONTE CITY COUNCIL AND THE

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE SOUTH EL MONTE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AGENDA
January 25, 2022, 6:00 PM
1415 Santa Anita Avenue, South El Monte, CA 91733
(Via Zoom Webinar Only; Due to Covid-19 Pandemic and AB 361, City Council Chambers is Temporarily Closed to the Public)
***SPECIAL NOTICE REGARDING COVID-19***
On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed AB 361, which modified the Brown Act to allow for teleconferencing participation at local legislative body public meetings during a proclaimed state of emergency. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e) as amended by AB 361, City Council is authorized to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically available to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the local legislative body. Public participation will be allowed via the information below.

TO VIEW LIVE MEETING, USE ZOOM LINK BELOW
Join Zoom Meeting (View and/or Participate ONLY during PUBLIC COMMENT) Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86581711880
Webinar ID: 865 8171 1880
Or Call In: 1 669 900 6833, when prompted, enter 86581711880# Each speaker will be limited to five minutes. Time limits may not be shared with other speakers and may not accumulate from one period of public comment to another or from one meeting to another. This is the only opportunity for public input except for scheduled public hearing items. All comments or queries shall be addressed to the Council as a body and not to any specific member thereof. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2.(3), the Ralph M. Brown Act, no action or discussion by the City Council shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except to briefly provide information, ask for clarification, provide direction to staff, or schedule a matter for a future meeting.

GENERAL COMMENT
Members of the public wishing to submit a general comment or a comment on an agenda item, can email [email protected] or call (626) 579-6540 ext. 3280 to leave a voicemail message. All comments received an hour before the scheduled meeting will be read during public comment and made part of the record.

MEETINGS
The City Council holds regular meetings on the second and fourth Tuesday of every month. Regular meetings start at 6 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1415 Santa Anita Avenue, South El Monte, California. Special and Adjourned Regular meetings start time are to be determined.

POSTING LOCATIONS OF AGENDA AND/OR CANCELLATION NOTICES Regular meeting agendas will be posted at least 72 hours before the meeting (GC 54954(a)(1)).

Agenda and Cancellation Notices can be viewed online and are also posted at the following three (3) locations: City Hall located at 1415 Santa Anita Avenue, Senior Center located at 1556 Central Avenue and the Community Center located at 1530 Central Avenue, South El Monte, California.

VIEWING OF AGENDA PACKETS
Full agenda packet can be viewed either at www.cityofsouthelmonte.org/129/CityCouncil-Agendas-Minutes or in the City Clerk’s Office during normal business hours Monday through Thursday 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Closed on Fridays and major holidays.

ISSUES RELATED TO AGENDA
For issues related to the agenda, including a disability-related accommodation necessary to participate in this meeting, please contact:

Donna G. Schwartz, CMC, City Clerk
Ph (626) 579-6540 ext. 3280
Cell (626) 274-4842
Paola Lara, Deputy City Clerk
Ph (626) 579-6540 ext. 3220
Cell (626) 374-1998

AGENDA BEGINS ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE

1. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers: Angel, Delgado, Retamoza, Mayor Pro Tem Acosta and Mayor Olmos

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Gracie Retamoza

3. INVOCATION
Paola Lara, Deputy City Clerk, City of South El Monte

4. PRESENTATIONS

4.a. Presentation of Years of Service Awards to City Employees

4.b. Certificates of Recognition, Presented to the 2021 Holiday Home Decorating Contest Winners

4.c. Certificate of Recognition, Presented to Retired Chief Coronne Jacob on Her Years of Service with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

4.d. Sheriff's Department Report for the Month of December

4.e. Code Enforcement and Public Safety Department Report for the Month of December

5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AND WAIVER OF FULL READING OF

ORDINANCES
By motion of the City Council, this is the time to notify the public of any changes to the agenda, remove items from the consent calendar for individual consideration and/or rearrange the order of the agenda.

6. PUBLIC COMMENT
Speakers may provide public comments on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council, including items on the agenda. Each speaker may speak up to five minutes. Unless a majority of the Council objects, the Mayor may provide speakers more or less time to speak. With respect to non-public hearing items, speakers shall provide their comments at this time. During public hearing, speakers are encouraged to speak at the time the public hearing item is presented. Any documents for review should be presented to the City Clerk for distribution.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and customary and are enacted by a single motion with the exception of items previously removed by a member of the City Council during "Approval of the Agenda" for individual consideration. Any items removed shall be individually considered immediately after taking action on the Consent Calendar.

CONSENT CALENDAR (CONTINUED)

7.a. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR CITY
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 11, 2022

Staff is requesting approval of Minutes for the January 11, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of January 11, 2022.

7.b. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 22-07, APPROVING WARRANTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 12, 2022,
THROUGH JANUARY 25, 2022

Authorizing payment of City expenditures for the period of January 12, 2021 through January 25, 2021 totaling $1,178,920.23
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-07, authorizing payment of City expenditures.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS

8.a. CONTINUED FROM THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2022 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF
RESOLUTION NO. 22-05, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM, AND GENE,RAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND APPROVE
ORDINANCE NO. 1255 FOR A PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT; AND RESOLUTION NO 22-09

AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT

REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS

Wilson Ye/Mye Plaza LLC (“Applicant”) is proposing the development of a 106,137 square foot commercial and residential mixed-use building. The development requires a Zone Change ("ZC") from CommercialManufacturing ("C-M") to Commercial-Residential ("C-R") and a General Plan Amendment ("GPA") from Commercial-Manufacturing to Mixed Use (“proposed Project” or “Project”). The proposed Project will include 8 commercial ground floor units and 73 residential units, 67 will be market rate and 8 will be affordable units.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-05, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and General Plan Amendment. Staff also recommends City Council waive first reading and introduce Ordinance No. 1255, amending the zoning designation for properties located at 2727 Rosemead Boulevard and 9340-9352 Mabel Avenue. Finally, staff recommends City Council adopt Resolution No. 22- 09, authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement regarding 8 affordable housing units.

9. GENERAL BUSINESS

9.a. UPDATE ON HOMELESSNESS SERVICES

Discuss the current state of the City's homeless prevention and diversion program and recent discussions with the County's Blue Ribbon Commission on Homelessness.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council receive and file the report.

9.b. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF 2022 CITY SPECIALS EVENTS

CALENDAR

The 2022 City Specials Events Calendar includes recommended dates and locations for the City-sponsored events held by the Community Services Department. All scheduled events are subject to modifications, date change, or cancellation due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council consider and approve the 2022 City Special Events Calendar.

9.c. FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 MID-YEAR BUDGET UPDATE

On June 22, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-42 which approved a budget for fiscal year 2021-22. During the meeting, the Council instructed staff to closely monitor the actual results of the adopted budget and keep them properly informed of any material variances that may arise resulting in an amendment to the budget in order for the Council to carry out its policies and goals. The staff conducted a mid-year budget review of all revenues and expenditures, of all funds, departments, divisions, and identified variances that were not significant enough to warrant a budget amendment and that the City is forecasted to be under budget this fiscal year.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council receive and file the report.

10. COMMITTEE REPORTS, INCLUDING AB 1234 REPORTS
AB 1234 requires councilmembers briefly report, orally or in writing, on meetings attended at City expense (i.e. League of California Cities Conferences, ICSC conferences, etc.) at City Council meetings following the meeting.

11. CORRESPONDENCE

11.a. LETTER FROM SOUTH EL MONTE NATIONAL LITTLE LEAGUE

REQUESTING A FACILITY RESERVATION FEE WAIVER FOR THE

USE OF NEW TEMPLE PARK FIELDS AND SNACK BAR, MARY VAN

DYKE COMMUNITY ROOM, AND COMMUNITY CENTER GYMNASIUM

The South El Monte National Little League (SEMNLL) is requesting a reservation fee waiver for the use of New Temple Park fields and snack bar to host their 2022 baseball and softball season's practices, games, and clinics from February 5, 2022 to July 31, 2022. Additionally, SEMNLL is requesting to use the Mary Van Dyke Community Room to host board meetings from February 8, 2022 to May 31, 2022 and the South El Monte Community Center on May 28, 2022 to host their annual fundraising dance.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council discuss and consider the facility reservation fee waiver requested by SEMNLL in the amount of $53,000.00.

12. COUNCILMEMBERS’ AGENDA

12.a. Mayor Gloria Olmos

1. Create a City Commission for Women and Girls through the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls (CCSWG) Women's Recovery Response Grant.

13. CLOSED SESSION - None

14. RECESS COUNCIL MEETING

15. ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CITY CLERK (PRIOR TO CONVENING THE

SUCCESSOR AGENCY MEETING)
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54952.3, Board Members do not receive any compensation or stipend for attending the Successor Agency meeting.

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE SOUTH EL MONTE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

16. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Board Members: Angel, Delgado, Retamoza, Vice Chair Acosta, and Chair Olmos

17. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
This is the time for the Board to remove any items from the consent calendar for individual consideration, table, continue, add items, or to make a motion to rearrange the order of this agenda.

18. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Persons wishing to address the Board on any item on the agenda, or any other matter, are invited to do so at this time. Pursuant to the Brown Act, the Board cannot discuss or take action on items not on the agenda. Matters brought before the Board that are not on the agenda may, at the Board's discretion, be referred to staff or placed on the next agenda.

19. CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and customary and are enacted by a single motion with the exception of items previously removed by a member of the Board during "Approval of the Agenda" for individual consideration. Any items removed shall be individually considered immediately after taking action on the Consent Calendar.

19.a. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 26, 2021

Staff is requesting approval of the Minutes of the October 26, 2021 Successor Agency Meeting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Board approve the Successor Agency Meeting Minutes of October 26, 2021.

20. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S AGENDA - None

21. ADJOURNMENT OF SUCCESSOR AGENCY MEETING

22. RECONVENE AND ADJOURN COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 6:00 p.m.

I Donna G. Schwartz, hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted not less than 72 hours at the following locations: City of South El Monte City Hall, Senior Center and Community Center and made available at www.cityofsouthelmonte.org on this 20th day of January 2022.

City Clerk, CMC

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a.

DATE: January 25, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rachel Barbosa, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Diana Lopez , Human Resources/Risk Manager SUBJECT: Presentation of Years of Service Awards to City Employees SUMMARY: The Mayor and City Council to present service awards to City employees for 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 years of service to the City of South El Monte.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

FISCAL IMPACT:

DISCUSSION:

ATTACHMENT(S):

None

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.b.

DATE: January 25, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rachel Barbosa, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Rene Salas, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT: Certificates of Recognition, Presented to the 2021 Holiday Home Decorating Contest Winners
SUMMARY:

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

FISCAL IMPACT:

DISCUSSION:

ATTACHMENT(S):

None

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.c.

DATE: January 25, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rachel Barbosa, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Donna Schwartz, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Certificate of Recognition, Presented to Retired Chief Coronne Jacob on Her Years of Service with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
SUMMARY:

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

FISCAL IMPACT:

DISCUSSION:

ATTACHMENT(S):

None

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.d.

DATE: January 25, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rachel Barbosa, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Rene Salas, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT: Sheriff's Department Report for the Month of December SUMMARY:

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

FISCAL IMPACT:

DISCUSSION:

ATTACHMENT(S):

A. December Crime Statistics

South El Monte
December 2021
Crime Statistics

South El Monte
Part I Crime Statistics – December 2021

South El Monte
Part I Crime Statistics – December 2021

South El Monte
Part I Crime Statistics – Monthly Breakdown 2021
& Arrests
South El Monte 2020 2021
Arrests 2039 1433
YTD 12/31
South El Monte
Res Burg 6
Other Burg 70
Petty Theft 43
Grand Theft 54
Theft from Vehicle 50
South El Monte
Res Burg 6
Other Burg 103
Petty Theft 70
Grand Theft 87
Theft from Vehicle 76
South El Monte January February March April May June July August September October November December Total Homicide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rape 2 1 1 0 -1 2 5
Aggravated Assault 13 15 7 3 5 12 55
Robbery 5 1 4 3 3 6 22
Burglary 10 14 19 19 14 20 96
Theft 36 32 38 15 26 43 190
Grand Theft Auto 17 22 13 21 15 20 108
Arson 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 83 85 82 61 62 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 477
South El Monte January February March April May June July August September October November December Total Homicide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rape 2 1 1 0 -1 1 2 6
Aggravated Assault 13 15 7 3 5 11 9 63
Robbery 5 1 4 3 3 6 5 27
Burglary 10 14 19 19 14 21 12 109
Theft 36 32 38 15 26 47 39 233
Grand Theft Auto 17 22 13 21 15 20 25 133
Arson 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 83 85 82 61 62 107 92 0 0 0 0 0 572
South El Monte January February March April May June July August September October November December Total Homicide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rape 2 1 1 0 -1 1 2 0 6
Aggravated Assault 13 15 7 3 5 11 9 7 70
Robbery 5 1 4 3 3 6 5 3 30
Burglary 10 14 19 19 14 21 12 12 121
Theft 36 32 38 15 26 47 42 24 260
Grand Theft Auto 17 22 13 21 15 20 25 13 146
Arson 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Total 83 85 82 61 62 107 95 59 0 0 0 0 634
South El Monte
Res Burg 8
Other Burg 113
Petty Theft 78
Grand Theft 99
Theft from Vehicle 83
South El Monte
Res Burg 13
Other Burg 207
Petty Theft 103
Grand Theft 122
Theft from Vehicle 133
South El Monte January February March April May June July August September October November December Total Homicide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rape 2 1 1 0 -1 1 2 0 -1 5
Aggravated Assault 13 15 7 3 5 11 9 7 8 78
Robbery 5 1 4 3 3 6 5 3 2 32
Burglary 10 14 19 19 14 21 12 13 24 146
Theft 36 32 38 15 26 47 42 24 20 280
Grand Theft Auto 17 22 13 21 15 20 25 13 17 163
Arson 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3
Total 83 85 82 61 62 107 95 60 72 0 0 0 707
South El Monte January February March April May June July August September October November December Total Homicide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rape 2 1 1 0 -1 1 2 0 -1 0 5
Aggravated Assault 13 15 7 3 5 11 9 7 8 10 88
Robbery 5 1 4 3 3 6 5 3 2 1 33
Burglary 10 14 19 19 14 21 12 13 24 24 170
Theft 36 32 38 15 26 47 42 24 20 27 307
Grand Theft Auto 17 22 13 21 15 20 25 13 17 15 178
Arson 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 4
Total 83 85 82 61 62 107 95 60 72 78 0 0 785
South El Monte January February March April May June July August September October November December Total Homicide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rape 2 1 1 0 -1 1 2 0 -1 1 0 6
Aggravated Assault 13 15 7 3 5 11 9 7 8 10 7 95
Robbery 5 1 4 3 3 6 5 3 2 1 4 37
Burglary 10 14 19 19 14 21 12 13 24 26 29 201
Theft 36 32 38 15 26 47 42 24 20 31 18 329
Grand Theft Auto 17 22 13 21 15 20 25 13 17 15 13 191
Arson 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 4
Total 83 85 82 61 62 107 95 60 72 85 71 0 863
South El Monte January February March April May June July August September October November December Total Homicide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rape 2 1 1 0 -1 1 2 0 -1 1 0 0 6
Aggravated Assault 13 15 7 3 5 11 9 7 8 10 7 3 98
Robbery 5 1 4 3 3 6 5 3 2 1 4 4 41
Burglary 10 14 19 19 14 21 12 13 24 26 29 19 220
Theft 36 32 38 15 26 47 42 24 20 31 19 28 358
Grand Theft Auto 17 22 13 21 15 20 25 13 17 15 13 15 206 Arson 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 4
Total 83 85 82 61 62 107 95 60 72 85 72 69 933

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.e.

DATE: January 25, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rachel Barbosa, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Colby Cataldi, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Code Enforcement and Public Safety Department Report for the Month of December
SUMMARY:

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

FISCAL IMPACT:

DISCUSSION:

ATTACHMENT(S):

A. Code Enforcement Report

City of South El Monte
Public Safety Report
December 2021 Recap
Colby Cataldi, Director
Community Development/Public Works

Code Cases by Location
December - 59
Illegal Dumping………..…………………..   5
Building Code.………………………………. 3
Property Maintenance.………………… 2
Parking Citations…………………........... 12
Health and Safety / Public Nuisance.. 8
Graffiti (Private Prop).…………………… 7
Vehicle/Traffic….…………………………… 9
Business……………………………………….. 4
Bulk………………...…………………………… 4
Homeless………………………………..…… 3
Zoning …………………………………………    2

Parking Citations
December - 303
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
NO PARKING/STOPPING ZONE
80" W PARKED OVER 30 MIN
STREET SWEEPING
POSTED SIGNS
DISCONNECTED TRAILER
FOR SALE
LAWN PARKING
RED
BLOCKING DRIVEWAY
ON SIDEWALK
DOUBLE PARK
18' FROM CURB
15FT FROM HYDRANT
NO CURRENT TAGS
OTHER
1 19
161
26 9
0 5
20 3
7 4
6 9
22 11

Parking Citations
Annual Citation - Month

JANUARY

FEBRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
438
712
625
696
728
690
566
545
487
430
470
303

Residential Street Sweeping
Citation Grace Period
Extended through Jan 31
**********************
Parking Enforcement to
Resume on Feb 1, 2022

New Trash Service Update
NEW
Athens Customer Service
Hotline  (626) 723-3733
Customer Service Calls 170
(as of January 1st )
NEW Customer Service Flyer released to Residents Jan 18th

Business License Process

1. Go online: https://southelmonte.hdlgov.com or
call (626) 332-5797 HDL Business License
Department

2. Complete an application

3. HDL verifies information/process application

4. City staff verifies zoning and provides clearance

5. HDL provides license fee amount

6. Complete AQMD (Air Quality Management
District) and Fire Department forms

7. Open an account with Athens Services

8. Conduct property inspection (City Inspector)

9. Business License Certificate of Registration
issued within 2 weeks of Inspection

Business License Enforcement Procedures
Ensure all businesses within the jurisdiction of the City of South El Monte maintain a valid and current business registration and adhere and abide by all State, County and City laws.  (S.E.M.M.C 5.06.040  BUSINESS ACTIVITY WITH OUT A LICENSE IS PROHIBITED) Ø Review current Business License Delinquency Report
with enforcement team (720 items)
Ø Current approximate number of delinquent licenses
(461)
Ø Assign officers a balanced case load
Ø Each Officer can perform approximately 20 business
license site visits per week (5 officers)
Ø Timeframe businesses are given to comply (5 days)
Ø Non-compliance is subject to an Administrative Citation Ø Ongoing, staff will receive a quarterly delinquency report from HDL
HDL provides
business license
information to city
staff (Code
Enforcement)
Code Enforcement
Officer inspects
location
If violation found,
Notice of Violation
issued
Compliance
date set
(Re-Inspection)
If compliance not
met,
Administrative
citation issued
City Case
closed- HDL
records are
updated

Warehouse Fire
(9422 Rush Street)
Dec. 31, 2021

ADU
11009 Farndon St.

Crane Operation
Street Closure
Jan 19, 2022

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 7.a.

DATE: January 25, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rachel Barbosa, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Donna Schwartz, City Clerk
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 11, 2022
SUMMARY: Staff is requesting approval of Minutes for the January 11, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of January 11, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT: None.

DISCUSSION: None.

ATTACHMENT(S):

A. January 11, 2022 Minutes

CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2022 - 6:00 PM

1. ROLL CALL
Mayor Olmos called the meeting to order at 6:02 PM
PRESENT (via zoom): Councilmember(s): Acosta, Delgado, Retamoza, Mayor Pro Tem Angel, and Mayor Olmos
STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Barbosa, City Manager; Anthony R. Taylor, City Attorney; Rene Salas, Deputy City Manager; Colby Cataldi, Community Development Director; and Paola Lara, Deputy City Clerk. STAFF ABSENT:

Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk.

Zoom was provided for the Public to participate during public comment via teleconference.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Councilmember Hector Delgado led the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. INVOCATION – Pastor Patricia Garrett, Faith Dominion Church, offered the Invocation.

4. PRESENTATIONS: None.

5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AND WAIVER OF FULL READING OF

ORDINANCES
A motion was made by Councilmember Acosta, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Angel to approve the agenda. Motion carried 5-0, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s): Acosta, Delgado, Retamoza, Mayor Pro Tem Angel and Mayor Olmos
NAYS: Councilmember(s): None

6. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Olmos opened public comment, there being none, closed public comment.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion was made by Councilmember Acosta, seconded by Councilmember Delgado to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s): Acosta, Delgado, Retamoza, Mayor Pro Tem Angel, and Mayor Olmos
NAYS: Councilmember(s): None

7.a. Approved Minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting held December 14, 2021.

7.b. Adopted Resolution No. 22-01, approving warrants for the period of December 15, 2021, through January 11, 2022, totaling $1,297,414.42.

7.c. Adopted Resolution No. 22-02, proclaiming a local emergency persists and authorizing the use of alternative meeting procedures by the City’s legislative bodies, such as utilizing a virtual platform (e.g., Zoom) for the period of January 11, 2022, through February 9, 2022.

7.d. Adopted Resolution No. 22-03, approving a three-year agreement with a two-year renewal option with Vasquez & Company LLP for Auditing Services.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS

8.a. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 22-04,

APPROVING THE PROGRAMMING OF THE ANNUAL COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR
(FY) 2022-2023
Mayor Olmos announced the item.

Mayor Olmos opened the public hearing, there being no public comment, closed the public hearing.

A motion was made by Councilmember Delgado, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Angel to:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 22-04 and authorize City Manager and/or designee to execute an agreement for the Fiscal Year 2022 - 2023 CDBG project with the Los Angeles County Development Authority (LACDA), subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney;

2. Approve reprograming $123,000 from the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Public Facilities and Improvements - City Hall Restroom ADA Upgrade project to the FY 2022 - 2023 "2022 Pavement Rehabilitation Project” and

3. Authorize City Manager and/or designee to adjust the project amounts, as necessary, to reconcile LACDA's final CDBG allocations and any amounts unexpended at the close of FY 2021 - 2022.

Motion carried 5-0, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s): Acosta, Delgado, Retamoza, Mayor Pro Tem Angel, and Mayor Olmos
NAYS: Councilmember(s): None

8.b. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 22-05,

ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 1256 FOR A

PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE
Mayor Olmos announced the item. City Attorney Anthony R. Taylor noted the correct Ordinance number is 1255 and read the title of the ordinance.

Mayor Olmos opened the public hearing, there being no public comment, closed the public hearing.

Community Development Director Colby Cataldi introduced David Gutierrez, Platinum Connections, Wilson Ye, Applicant/Developer, and Simon Lee, Architect of Record, who presented a PowerPoint overviewing the project.

Discussion ensued among City Council, staff, and Mr. Gutierrez regarding the amount of affordable housing units that were going to be designated for low and very low income and whether they were to be one, two, or three, bedroom units.

Councilmember Delgado requested the item be continued to negotiate increasing the amount of affordable housing units and to bring back an agreement specifying the number of units and their bedroom designation.

Council concurred.

A motion was made by Councilmember Delgado, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Angel to continue the item to the January 25, 2022, Regular City Council meeting, to bring back an agreement specifying the amount of affordable housing units to be made available and their bedroom designation. Motion carried 5-0, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s): Acosta, Delgado, Retamoza, Mayor Pro Tem Angel, and Mayor Olmos
NAYS: Councilmember(s): None

9. GENERAL BUSINESS

9.a. SELECTION OF MAYOR PRO TEM
Mayor Olmos announced the item.

A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Angel, seconded by Councilmember Delgado to appoint Councilmember Acosta as Mayor Pro Tem. Motion carried 5-0 by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s): Acosta, Delgado, Retamoza, Mayor Pro Tem Angel, and Mayor Olmos
NAYS: Councilmember(s): None

9.b. APPOINTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSIONERS
Mayor Olmos announced the item and recommended Ingrid Aguilar, Israel Alacio, Gerardo Diaz, Cesiah Romo, and Hortencia Vasquez be appointed to the Community Services Commission. Council concurred.

Mayor Olmos and Councilmember Retamoza noted that Hortencia Vasquez applied for the commission, but her name was not listed on the staff report.

A motion was made by Councilmember Angel, seconded by Councilmember Delgado, to appoint Ingrid Aguilar, Israel Alacio, Gerardo Diaz, Cesiah Romo, and Hortencia Vasquez to the Community Services Commission. Motion carried 5-0 by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s): Angel, Delgado, Retamoza, Mayor Pro Tem Acosta, and Mayor Olmos
NAYS: Councilmember(s): None

9.c. APPOINTMENT OF PATRIOTIC COMMISSIONERS
Mayor Olmos announced the item and recommended Alejandro Miramontes De Andy, Blanca M. Figueroa, Naomi Lopez, Rudy Lopez, and Mirna Ivette Sanchez be appointed to the Patriotic Commission. Council concurred.

A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Acosta, seconded by Councilmember Angel, to appoint Alejandro Miramontes De Andy, Blanca M. Figueroa, Naomi Lopez, Rudy Lopez, and Mirna Ivette Sanchez to the Patriotic Commission. Motion carried 5-0 by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s): Angel, Delgado, Retamoza, Mayor Pro Tem Acosta, and Mayor Olmos
NAYS: Councilmember(s): None

9.d. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
Mayor Olmos announced the item and recommended Leo Barreras, Jeff Ortiz, and Larry Rodriguez be reappointed to the Community Services Commission. Council concurred.

Mayor Olmos recommended Vincent Diaz and Kenneth Tang be appointed.

Councilmember Angel and Mayor Pro Tem Acosta concurred.

Councilmember Delgado and Councilmember Retamoza abstained.

A motion was made by Councilmember Angel, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Acosta to reappoint Leo Barreras, Jeff Ortiz, Larry Rodriguez, and appoint Vincent Diaz, and Kenneth Tang to the Planning Commission. Motion carried 5-0 by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s): Angel, Delgado, Retamoza, Mayor Pro Tem Acosta, and Mayor Olmos
NAYS: Councilmember(s): None

9.e. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 1256-U, AMENDING CHAPTER 10.16 (“STOPPING, STANDING, AND PARKING”) TO TITLE 10 (“VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC”) OF THE SOUTH

EL MONTE MUNICIPAL CODE, INCLUDING AN EXEMPTION

THEREFORE FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT; AND RESOLUTION NO. 22-06 ESTABLISHING NEW STREET

SWEEPING SCHEDULES
Mayor Olmos announced the item, City Attorney Anthony R. Taylor read the title of the ordinance.

Community Development Director Colby Cataldi presented the staff report.

A motion was made by Councilmember Angel, seconded by Councilmember Delgado to adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 1256-U, amending Chapter 10.16 “Stopping, Standing, and Parking” to Title 10 “Vehicles and Traffic” of the City of South El Monte Municipal Code; and Resolution No. 22-06 establishing new no parking prohibitions for street sweeping purposes. Motion carried 5-0 by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s): Angel, Delgado, Retamoza, Mayor Pro Tem Acosta, and Mayor Olmos
NAYS: Councilmember(s): None

10. COMMITTEE REPORTS, INCLUDING AB 1234 REPORTS
Councilmember Angel, announced his attendance at the Senior Center’s Christmas Drive-Thru and City’s Christmas Wish Toy Giveaway.

Councilmember Retamoza, nothing to report.

Councilmember Delgado, nothing to report.

Mayor Pro Tem Acosta, announced his attendance at the City’s Christmas Wish Toy Giveaway, Senior Center’s Christmas Drive-Thru, Santa Coming to Town Ride Along, and Hilda Solis’ Breakfast with Santa.

Mayor Olmos, announced her attendance at Hilda Solis’ Breakfast with Santa, Santa Coming to Town Ride Along, Senior Center’s Christmas Drive-Thru, City’s Christmas Wish Toy Giveaway, and Christmas Tree Lighting.

11. CORRESPONDENCE: None.

12. COUNCILMEMBERS’ AGENDA

12.a. MAYOR GLORIA OLMOS

1. The COVID-19 Impact: Cost of Delayed Construction Projects and Extended Building Permits
Mayor Olmos announced it has been brought to her attention that due to COVID-19 and supply delays or contractors’ inability to work, a lot of projects are being delayed leading to additional costs for permit extensions.

She requested staff look for ways the City can assist residents with these additional fees.

Staff was directed to bring back options for assisting residents with building permit extension fees for City Council’s consideration at the next City Council meeting.

Councilmember Delgado directed staff to investigate whether any adjustments or extensions are needed to allow businesses to continue outdoor operations.

2. Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Grant Writing Services Mayor Olmos announced there is a grant opportunity with an upcoming deadline and there is a consultant that can assist with grant writing services.

City Attorney Anthony R. Taylor stated a competitive bidding process is not necessary for this service and the City Manager can enter into an agreement if the dollar amount falls under her signing authority.

Mayor Olmos directed the City Manager to enter into a grant writing services agreement, if it falls under her signing authority. Council concurred.

13. CLOSED SESSION: None.

14. ADJOURN COUNCIL MEETING
There being no further business coming before this body, at 7:20 p.m. Mayor Olmos adjourned the meeting to a regular meeting on Tuesday, January 25, 2022, at 6:00 p.m.
______________________________ ______________________
Donna G. Schwartz, CMC, City Clerk Gloria Olmos, Mayor

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 7.b.

DATE: January 25, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rachel Barbosa, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: William Fox, Interim Finance Director
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 22- 07, APPROVING WARRANTS FOR THE PERIOD OF
JANUARY 12, 2022, THROUGH JANUARY 25, 2022
SUMMARY: Authorizing payment of City expenditures for the period of January 12, 2021 through January 25, 2021 totaling $1,178,920.23
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council adopt Resolution No. 22- 07, authorizing payment of City expenditures.

FISCAL IMPACT:

DISCUSSION:

ATTACHMENT(S):

A. Resolution No. 22-07
B. Warrants

RESOLUTION NO. 22-07

A RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTH EL MONTE CITY COUNCIL

ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS FOR THE
PERIOD OF JANUARY 12, 2021 THROUGH JANUARY 25,
2022 TOTALING $1,178,920.23

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: That in accordance with Section 37202 of the Government Code, the Finance Director hereby certifies to the accuracy of the following demands and the availability of funds for payment thereof.
_____________________________________
Finance Director
SECTION 2: That the following claims and demands have been audited as required by law and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount hereafter set forth.

CLAIMANT CLAIM PERIOD WARRANT #’S AMOUNT
FY 21/22 Electronic Warrants 01/12/2022-01/25/2022 5247-5267 $179,845.38 FY 21/22 Hand Typed Warrants 01/12/2022-01/25/2022 138923-138931 $25,128.60 FY 21/22 Regular Warrants 01/12/2022-01/25/2022 138932-139000 $850,471.84 Payroll Check PPE 01/08/2022 27562-27568 $5,840.52
Payroll Direct Deposit PPE 01/08/2022 799913-800016 $117,633.89 TOTAL EXPENDITURES RESOLUTION NO. 22-07 $1,178,920.23
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of January 2022. __________________________________
Gloria Olmos, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:

CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE )
I, Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk of the City of South El Monte, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 22-07, was duly passed and approved by the City Council of the City of South El Monte at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 25th day of January 2022, and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

______________________________
Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 8.a.

DATE: January 25, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rachel Barbosa, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Colby Cataldi, Community Development Director SUBJECT: CONTINUED FROM THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL
MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2022 - CONSIDERATION AND
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 22-05, ADOPTING A

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND

GENE,RAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND APPROVE ORDINANCE
NO. 1255 FOR A PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT; AND RESOLUTION
NO 22-09 AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO

AN AGREEMENT REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNITS
SUMMARY: Wilson Ye/Mye Plaza LLC (“Applicant”) is proposing the development of a 106,137 square foot commercial and residential mixed-use building. The development requires a Zone Change ("ZC") from Commercial-Manufacturing ("C-M") to CommercialResidential ("C-R") and a General Plan Amendment ("GPA") from CommercialManufacturing to Mixed Use (“proposed Project” or “Project”). The proposed Project will include 8 commercial ground floor units and 73 residential units, 67 will be market rate and 8 will be affordable units.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council adopt Resolution No. 22- 05, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and General Plan Amendment. Staff also recommends City Council waive first reading and introduce Ordinance No. 1255, amending the zoning designation for properties located at 2727 Rosemead Boulevard and 9340-9352 Mabel Avenue. Finally, staff recommends City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-09, authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement regarding 8 affordable housing units.

FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact.

DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission reviewed the Applicant's request for the Proposed Project on December 21, 2021 and voted 5-0 to conditionally approve the

Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") and Subdivision request upon City Council's adoption of the Mitigated Degative Declaration ("MND"), Mitigated Monitoring & Reporting Program ("MMRP"), ZC, and GPA.

After the January 11, 2022 City Council meeting, staff met with the Applicant to go over City Council's requests for more affordable units in the development. The Applicant's team met with the Owner to discuss the request of extra units, and came up with an additional two affordable units that they can offer for the development. The two new affordable units will be split between one low income and one very low income with the distribution of affordable units being proposed in the table below:

Low Income Very Low Income
One-Bedroom Units 2 2
Two-Bedroom Units 3 1
General Plan Amendment
The six parcels are designated as “Commercial-Manufacturing” Land Use category in the City’s General Plan; the applicant is requesting a General Plan amendment to allow for a change in land use designation from Commercial-Manufacturing to Mixed Use. The proposed amendment would allow the site to be developed with residential and commercial uses, which is consistent with land use designation that is currently applicable to the properties at the adjacent intersection. Furthermore, the General Plan amendment is intended to promote balanced and dynamic economic growth in the area, and address the residential needs of the City and surrounding region. The amendment would also be consistent with the following goals and objectives of the Land Use and Housing Elements of the General Plan as follows:

Land Use Element
Goal 1.0: Maintain a balanced mix and distribution of land uses throughout South El Monte by allowing for the development of a mixed use development by providing both residential and commercial uses in one project and said project is not common within the City.

Policy 1.1: Provide opportunities for housing development at a range of densities and housing types that accommodate the varied interests and needs of present and future residents. This Project will serve the area by greatly expanding the housing stock in the City. Currently the Property is undeveloped, and will create 73 rental units.

Policy 1.2: Allow for the transition of mixed-density neighborhoods to higher density development consistent with underlying General Plan land use and zoning designations.

The nonconforming neighborhood has an average density of approximately 21 dwelling units per acre and this Project will provide a higher density of 42.2 dwelling units per acre.

Goal 2: Focus on revenue-generating development in those areas of the City with high visibility by approving a development that provides new commercial opportunities along the City’s highest traveled corridor.

Goal 3.0: Accommodate new development that is compatible with and complements existing land uses by allowing for the establishment of a large mixed use commercial/residential development that fits with the surrounding uses.

Goal 6.0: Provide for the revitalization of deteriorating land uses and properties by developing a property that has lain vacant for many years and has been underdeveloped.

Housing Element

Goal 1: An adequate supply of a variety of housing types to meet the existing and future needs of City residents by allowing the proposed Project to offer new mixed-use for-rent housing that is uncommon in the City.

Policy 1.1: The City shall provide adequate sites to facilitate the development of a range of residential development types that fulfills its regional housing needs, including lowdensity single-family units, moderate- to higher-density single-family attached and multiple-family units. This development will fulfill a need the City has in regards to their housing needs by providing multi-family units at a range from very low income, to low income, to market rate.

Goal 3: Compatible land uses that meet the needs of residents, employers and employees. The development of housing in this industrial, retail, and nonconforming residential area will help visually as well as physically seamlessly transition between the residential uses in the area and industrial uses.

Policy 3.3: The City shall encourage development of higher density housing in close proximity to public transportation, services, employment, recreation, and other resources and amenities. This is accomplished through the Project consisting of a mix of residential and commercial uses located near high quality bus routes that are between 500 feet to

1.3 miles away.

Zone Change
In order to allow for the proposed use, a change to the zoning designation will also be required. Currently, the zoning of the Property is “C-M” (Commercial-Manufacturing) and the zoning designation would have to be amended to be consistent with the Property’s new General Plan designation. Therefore, the request includes a zone change from “CM” (Commercial-Manufacturing) zone to “C-R” (Commercial-Residential) in order to allow for the development of the Project. To permit the rezoning of the subject site to C-R would allow for the creation of a quality residential development at the site which would help alleviate a housing need in the City.

As analyzed by staff, the proposed change is compatible with the existing uses in the surrounding area along Rosemead Boulevard and Mabel Avenue. The immediate surrounding area is made up of a mix of commercial, residential, and industrial uses which complement the proposed Project. Therefore, staff has determined, and the Planning Commission accepted, that the following findings can be made in favor of the proposed zone change pursuant to South El Monte Municipal Code (“SEMMC”) Section

17.66.040 (Planning Commission procedure) of Chapter 17.66 (Amendments to Zoning Regulations) of the South El Monte Municipal Code:

1. Substantial proof exists that the proposed change will promote the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the citizens of the City by allowing for the development of the property with a mix of residential and commercial uses that will benefit the City as a whole. Currently, the property is underdeveloped and underutilized and the proposed change will allow for improvements to the property that will address housing needs, diversity of commercial options for the residents and beautification;

2. The proposed change is in conformance with purpose of Chapter 17.66 (Amendments to Zoning Regulations) the Municipal Code, and with all applicable, officially adopted policies and plans by changing the Property to the C-R Zone so that the mixed use development will conform to the Zoning Code and General Plan;

3. Streets and public facilities existing or proposed are adequate to serve all uses permitted when the property is reclassified since the use will not change the level

of service of the surrounding streets because the surrounding area is already developed as commercial, manufacturing, and residential. Also it was found that the wastewater generation, storm drainage facilities, and water services all are anticipated to meet project demands; and

4. All uses permitted when the Property is reclassified will be compatible with present and potential future uses, and further, existing regulations applying to the property in question since commercial uses are already allowed under the current zoning, nonconforming residential uses are also present in the area and the Project as proposed complies with the South El Monte Municipal Code.

Environmental Review
An Initial Study was conducted and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (Administrative Code, Title 14, Chapter 3, §15063; §15070). The study concluded that there will be less than significant impacts with project mitigation.

Conclusion
The proposed Project is consistent with the proposed General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed mixed use commercial/residential development will provide new housing for the City, as well as a high quality commercial opportunities. In staff’s opinion the proposed Project is well designed, representing a quality mixed use development that will promote opportunities for the City. The proposed development will develop a site that has been underutilized for several decades into a viable asset for the City and the community generating property and sales taxes and increasing property values.

Staff Report Prepared by: Ian McAleese, Assistant Planner

ATTACHMENT(S):

A. Ordinance No. 1255
B. Resolution No. 22-05
C. Initial Study/Negative Declaration
D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-13
F. Resolution No. 22-09
G. Affordable Unit Agreement

ATTACHMENT A

ORDINANCE NO. 1255

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE

ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE AMENDING THE ZONING
DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2727
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD, 9340-9352 MABEL AVENUE,
AND APNS 5281-002-009 AND 5281-002-011
WHEREAS, Wilson Ye/Mye Plaza LLC (“Applicant”) has filed an application for a Zone Change to change the land use designation of property located at 2727 Rosemead Boulevard, 9340- 9352 Mabel Avenue, and APNs 5281-002-009 and 5281-002-011 in South El Monte (“Property” or “project site”) from the zoning designation of “Commercial-Manufacturing” to “CommercialResidential” in order to allow for a mixed use development consisting of 73 residential apartments with first floor commercial (“Project” or “proposed Project”); WHEREAS, pursuant to South El Monte Municipal Code (“SEMMC”) Section 17.66.040, the Project requires Planning Commission review and recommendation to City Council because the Project consists of property rezoning; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on December 21, 2021, to consider the application. All evidence, both written and oral, presented during said public hearing was considered by the Planning Commission in making its determination and it voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the ordinance; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on January 11, 2022, to consider the application. All evidence, both written and oral, presented during said public hearing was considered by the City Council in making its determination.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES, AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”), the State CEQA Guidelines (“Guidelines” and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.), and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines, City staff had an initial study prepared of the potential environmental effects of the proposed CUP. Based on the information contained in the initial study, staff determined that there was less than substantial evidence that approval of the proposed redesignations may have significant environmental impact with mitigating measures. Accordingly, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Notice of the preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted for the period of November 30, 2021 through December 20, 2021. Pursuant to Section 15074(b) of said Guidelines, the City Council independently reviewed and considered the contents of the initial study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Pursuant to the City Council’s adoption of this Resolution No. 22-05, the City Council approves Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project in compliance with CEQA Guidelines.

Based on the initial study, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the comments received thereon, and the record before the Planning Commission, the City Council hereby finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project represents the independent judgment of the City and that there is no substantial evidence that the approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment may have any significant environmental impact with mitigating measures implemented. The documents and other materials which constitute the record on which this decision is based, are maintained by the City’s Department of Community Development.

SECTION 2: Pursuant to Municipal Code section 17.66.040, the City Council hereby finds as follows for the proposed Zone Change (No. 20-13):

1. Substantial proof exists that the proposed change will promote the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the citizens of the City by allowing for the development of the property with a mix of residential and commercial uses that will benefit the City as a whole. Currently, the property is underdeveloped and underutilized and the proposed change will allow for improvements to the property that will address housing needs, diversity of commercial options for the residents and beautification;

2. The proposed change is in conformance with purpose of Chapter 17.66 (Amendments to Zoning Regulations) the Municipal Code, and with all applicable, officially adopted policies and plans by changing the Property to the C-R Zone so that the mixed use development will conform to the Zoning Code and General Plan;

3. Streets and public facilities existing or proposed are adequate to serve all uses permitted when the property is reclassified since the use will not change the level of service of the surrounding streets because the surrounding area is already developed as commercial, manufacturing, and residential. Also it was found that the wastewater generation, storm drainage facilities, and water services all are anticipated to meet project demands; and

4. All uses permitted when the Property is reclassified will be compatible with present and potential future uses, and further, existing regulations applying to the property in question since commercial uses are already allowed under the current zoning, nonconforming residential uses are also present in the area and the Project as proposed complies with the South El Monte Municipal Code.

SECTION 3: Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby changes the zoning designation for property located at 2727 Rosemead Boulevard, 9340-9352 Mabel Avenue, and APNs 5281-002-009 and 5281-002-011 from “C-M” (Commercial-Manufacturing) to “C-R” (Commercial-Residential), as shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and hereby incorporated by this reference. The City Council hereby directs City staff to amend the City’s official zoning map to reflect the change in zoning designation.

SECTION 4: The City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of January, 2022. ________________________________
Gloria Olmos, Mayor
ATTEST:

Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Anthony R. Taylor, City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS

CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE )
I, Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk of the City of South El Monte, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance, being Ordinance No. 1255 was passed and approved by the City Council of the City of South El Monte, at a meeting of said Council held on January 25, 2022 and that said Ordinance was adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk

Exhibit A
Existing Zoning
Proposed Zoning

ATTACHMENT B

RESOLUTION NO. 22-05

A RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTH EL MONTE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING

A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND APPROVING A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (NO. 21-14) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2727 ROSEMEAD
BOULEVARD, 9340-9352 MABEL AVENUE, AND APNS 5281-002-009 AND 5281-002-011
WHEREAS, Wilson Ye/Mye Plaza LLC (“Applicant”) has filed an application for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of property located at 2727 Rosemead Boulevard, 9340-9352 Mabel Avenue, and APNs 5281-002-009 and 5281-002-011 in South El Monte (“Property” or “project site”) from General Plan Land Use Category “Commercial-Manufacturing” to “Mixed Use” in order to allow for a mixed use development consisting of 73 residential apartments with first floor commercial (“Project” or “proposed Project”);
WHEREAS, pursuant to South El Monte Municipal Code (“SEMMC”) Section

17.66.040, the Project requires Planning Commission review and recommendation to City Council because the Project consists of property rezoning; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on December 24, 2021, to consider the application. All evidence, both written and oral, presented during said public hearing was considered by the Planning Commission in making its determination and it voted unanimously to recommend adoption/approval of the resolution/ordinance; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on January 11, 2022, to consider the application. All evidence, both written and oral, presented during said public hearing was considered by the City Council in making its determination.

THE SOUTH EL MONTE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. A record of the public hearing indicates the following:

The proposed amendment would allow the site to be developed with a mix of commercial and residential uses, which is consistent with the area. Furthermore, the Code amendment is intended to promote balanced and dynamic economic growth in the area and address the commercial and residential needs of the City and surrounding region. The amendment would also be consistent with the following goals and objectives of the Land Use and Housing Elements of the General Plan:

Land Use Element
(1) Goal 1.0: Maintain a balanced mix and distribution of land uses throughout South El Monte by allowing for the development of a mixed use development by providing both

residential and commercial uses in one project and said project is not common within the City;
(2) Policy 1.1: Provide opportunities for housing development at a range of densities and housing types that accommodate the varied interests and needs of present and future residents. This Project will serve the area by greatly expanding the housing stock in the City. Currently the Property is undeveloped, and will create 73 rental units; (3) Policy 1.2: Allow for the transition of mixed-density neighborhoods to higher density development consistent with underlying General Plan land use and zoning designations.

The nonconforming neighborhood has an average density of approximately 21 dwelling units per acre and this Project will provide a higher density of 42.2 dwelling units per acre;
(4) Goal 2: Focus on revenue-generating development in those areas of the City with high visibility by approving a development that provides new commercial opportunities along the City’s highest traveled corridor;
(5) Goal 3.0: Accommodate new development that is compatible with and complements existing land uses by allowing for the establishment of a large mixed use commercial/residential development that fits with the surrounding uses; (6) Goal 6.0: Provide for the revitalization of deteriorating land uses and properties by developing a property that has lain vacant for many years and has been underdeveloped; Housing Element
(7) Goal 1: An adequate supply of a variety of housing types to meet the existing and future needs of City residents by allowing the proposed Project to offer new mixed-use for-rent housing that is uncommon in the City;
(8) Policy 1.1: The City shall provide adequate sites to facilitate the development of a range of residential development types that fulfills its regional housing needs, including lowdensity single-family units, moderate- to higher-density single-family attached and multiple-family units. This development will fulfill a need the City has in regards to their housing needs by providing multi-family units at a range from very low income, to low income, to market rate;
(9) Goal 3: Compatible land uses that meet the needs of residents, employers and employees.

The development of housing in this industrial, retail, and nonconforming residential area will help visually as well as physically seamlessly transition between the residential uses in the area and industrial uses; and
(10) Policy 3.3: The City shall encourage development of higher density housing in close proximity to public transportation, services, employment, recreation, and other resources and amenities. This is accomplished through the Project consisting of a mix of residential and commercial uses located near high quality bus routes that are between 500 feet to 1.3 miles away.

SECTION 2. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”), the State CEQA Guidelines (“Guidelines” and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.), and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines, City staff had an initial study prepared of the potential environmental effects of the proposed CUP. Based on the information contained in the initial study, staff determined that there was less than substantial evidence that approval of the proposed re-designations may have significant environmental impact with mitigating measures.

Accordingly, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Notice of the preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted for the period of November 30, 2021 through December 20, 2021.

Pursuant to Section 15074(b) of said Guidelines, the City Council independently reviewed and considered the contents of the initial study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Pursuant to the City Council’s adoption of this Resolution No. 22-05, the City Council approves Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project in compliance with CEQA Guidelines.

Based on the initial study, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the comments received thereon, and the record before the Planning Commission, the City Council hereby finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project represents the independent judgment of the City and that there is no substantial evidence that the approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment may have any significant environmental impact with mitigating measures implemented. The documents and other materials which constitute the record on which this decision is based, are maintained by the City’s Department of Community Development.

SECTION 3. Based on the above findings, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program along with General Plan Amendment (No. 20-14) to change the land use designation of property located at 2727 Rosemead Boulevard, 9340-9352 Mabel Avenue, and APNs 5281-002-009 and 5281-002- 011 from “Commercial-Manufacturing” to “Mixed Use” as shown in Exhibit “A” hereto and hereby incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of January, 2022. ________________________
Gloria Olmos, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:

CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE )
I, Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk of the City of South El Monte, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 22-05 was passed and approved by the City Council of the City of South El Monte, at a special meeting of said Council held on January 11, 2022 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk

Exhibit A
Existing General Plan Designation
Proposed General Plan Designation
General Plan
General Plan

ATTACHMENT C

MYE PLAZA MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Prepared By
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1100 Town and Country Road, Suite 700
Orange, California 92868
Prepared For
City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, California 91733
November 2021

Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, CA 91733
Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1100 West Town and Country Road, Suite 700
Orange, California 92868
Date November 2021

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Table of Contents
i Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose and Scope of the Initial Study............................................................................1

1.2 Summary of Findings......................................................................................................1

1.3 Initial Study Public Review Process.................................................................................1

1.4 Report Organization .......................................................................................................2

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..............................................................................................................3

2.1 Project Location and Existing Setting ..............................................................................3

2.2 Land Use Designations....................................................................................................4

2.3 Project Characteristics....................................................................................................4

2.4 Construction Activities.................................................................................................. 35

2.5 Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals ....................................................................... 35

3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST........................................................................................................ 36 Environmental Checklist.......................................................................................................... 38

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.................................................................................................... 48

4.1 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................... 48

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources.............................................................................. 59

4.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 61

4.4 Biological Resources..................................................................................................... 70

4.5 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................ 73

4.6 Energy.......................................................................................................................... 76

4.7 Geology and Soils......................................................................................................... 80

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................................................... 85

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................................. 91

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................... 97

4.11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................... 103

4.12 Mineral Resources...................................................................................................... 106

4.13 Noise.......................................................................................................................... 107

4.14 Population and Housing.............................................................................................. 114

4.15 Public Services............................................................................................................ 116

4.16 Recreation.................................................................................................................. 120

4.17 Transportation ........................................................................................................... 122

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources............................................................................................ 130

Table of Contents
ii Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................................... 135

4.20 Wildfire ...................................................................................................................... 140

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................ 142

5.0 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 143 List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional and Local Vicinity Map ...............................................................................................7 Exhibit 2a: Site Plan - First Floor...............................................................................................................9 Exhibit 2b: Site Plan – Second Floor....................................................................................................... 11 Exhibit 2c: Site Plan – Third Floor........................................................................................................... 13 Exhibit 2d: Site Plan – Fourth Floor........................................................................................................ 15 Exhibit 3a: Conceptual Exterior Rendering............................................................................................. 17 Exhibit 3b: Conceptual Exterior Rendering............................................................................................. 19 Exhibit 3c: Conceptual Exterior Rendering ............................................................................................. 21 Exhibit 4: Conceptual Renderings .......................................................................................................... 23 Exhibit 5a: Landscaping Plan.................................................................................................................. 25 Exhibit 5b: Landscaping Plan – Second Floor.......................................................................................... 27 Exhibit 6a: Conceptual Parking Plan – Ground Level............................................................................... 29 Exhibit 6b: Conceptual Parking Plan – Parking Deck ............................................................................... 31 Exhibit 7a: Shade Shadow Modeling - Spring Equinox ............................................................................ 51 Exhibit 7b: Shade Shadow Modeling - Summer Solstice ......................................................................... 53 Exhibit 7c: Shade Shadow Modeling – Fall Equinox ................................................................................ 55 Exhibit 7d: Shade Shadow Modeling – Winter Solstice........................................................................... 57 List of Tables
Table 2-1: Surrounding Land Uses............................................................................................................4 Table 2-2: Project Summary.....................................................................................................................5 Table 2-3: Residential Unit Summary.......................................................................................................5 Table 2-4: Project Parking...................................................................................................................... 33 Table 4.3-1: Construction Emissions ...................................................................................................... 64 Table 4.3-2: Operational Emissions........................................................................................................ 64 Table 4.3-3: Localized Significance of Construction and Operational Emissions...................................... 67 Table 4.8-1: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................................... 87 Table 4.9-1: LUST and Cleanup Sites ...................................................................................................... 93

Table of Contents
iii Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 4.11-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis.................................................................................. 103 Table 4.13-1: Exterior Noise Limits....................................................................................................... 109 Table 4.13-2: Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment...................................... 110 Table 4.13-3: Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment...................................................... 112 Table 4.14-1: RHNA Requirement by Income Level .............................................................................. 114 Table 4.15-1: Nearby County Library Facilities ..................................................................................... 118 Table 4.17-1: Project Trip Generation .................................................................................................. 124 Table 4.17-2: Project VMT Impact Evaluation ...................................................................................... 127 Table 4.19-1: Future Wastewater Generation...................................................................................... 135 Table 4.19-2: Project Water Demand................................................................................................... 137 Table 4.19-3: County of San Bernardino Landfill Capacities.................................................................. 138 Table 4.19-4: Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation ..................................................................... 138 List of Appendices
A. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data
B. Cultural Resources Records Search
C. Geotechnical Study
D. Paleontological Records Search
E. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
F. Hydrology and Water Quality Studies
G. Transportation Study
H. Native American Tribal Consultation Correspondence

Table of Contents
iv Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Section 1.0
Introduction
1 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose and Scope of the Initial Study
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] §21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, §15000 et seq.), this Initial Study has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project (hereinafter referred to as the “proposed project” or “project”). This Initial Study includes a description of the proposed Project; evaluates each of the environmental issue areas identified in the environmental checklist form provided in Section 3.0; and recommends standard conditions and mitigation measures to lessen or avoid the project’s significant adverse impacts on the environment.

Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of South El Monte (City) is the Lead Agency for the project. The Lead Agency is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The City has the authority for environmental review in accordance with CEQA and certification of the environmental documentation. Any responsible agency may elect to use this environmental analysis for discretionary actions associated with the implementation of the project.

1.2 Summary of Findings
Based on the environmental checklist form completed for the proposed project and supporting environmental analysis, the project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following environmental issue areas: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Energy, Greenhouse Gases, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfires. The proposed project’s impacts on the following issue areas would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation: Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Tribal Cultural Resources. All impacts would be less than significant after mitigation.

As set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, an Initial Study leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) can be prepared when the Initial Study has identified potentially significant environmental impacts but revisions have been made to the Project, prior to public review of the Initial Study, that would avoid or mitigate the impacts to a level considered less than significant; and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, may have a significant effect on the environment.

1.3 Initial Study Public Review Process
The Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been provided to the County of Los Angeles Clerk-Recorder and mailed to responsible agencies, nearby property owners, and others who expressed interest in being notified. A 20-day public review period has been established for the IS/MND in accordance with Section 15073 of the State CEQA Guidelines. During the public review period, the IS/MND, including the technical appendices, can be accessed on the City’s website and is available for review at the location identified below.
https://www.cityofsouthelmonte.org/185/Planning

Section 1.0
Introduction
2 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South El Monte
Community Development Department, Planning Division
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, California 91733
In reviewing the IS/MND, affected public agencies and interested members of the public should focus on the adequacy of the document in identifying and analyzing the potential environmental impacts and the ways in which the potentially significant effects of the project can be avoided or mitigated. Comments on the IS/MND and the analysis contained herein may be sent to:

Ian McAleese, Assistant Planner
City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, California 91733
(626) 579-6540 extension 3201
[email protected]
Comments sent via email should include the project title in the subject line and a valid mailing address in the email.

Following receipt and evaluation of comments from agencies, organizations, and/or individuals, the City of South El Monte will determine whether any substantial new environmental issues have been raised. If so, further documentation may be required. If not or if the issues raised do not provide substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the IS/MND and the project will be considered for adoption and approval, respectively.

1.4 Report Organization
This document has been organized into the following sections:

Section 1.0 – Introduction. This section provides an introduction and overview describing the conclusions of the Initial Study.

Section 2.0 – Project Description. This section identifies key project characteristics and includes a list of anticipated discretionary actions.

Section 3.0 – Initial Study Checklist. The Environmental Checklist Form provides an overview of the potential impacts that may or may not result from project implementation.

Section 4.0 – Environmental Evaluation. This section contains an analysis of environmental impacts identified in the environmental checklist.

Section 5.0 – References. The section identifies resources used to prepare the Initial Study.

Section 2.0
Project Description
3 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Location and Existing Setting
The project site is shown in a regional and local context at Exhibit 1, Regional and Local Vicinity Map. The project site is located at 2727 N. Rosemead Boulevard in the western portion of the City of South El Monte, Los Angeles County, California. The approximately 1.73-acre project site includes six parcels legally described as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 5281-002-005, -006, -009, -010, -011, -018. The property is generally bordered by Mabel Avenue to the north, Rosemead Boulevard (State Route [SR] 164) to the east, a mobile home park and Troy Avenue to the south, and light industrial uses to the west. Regional access is provided by Interstate 10 (I-10), which is located approximately 0.75 mile north of the project site, and the Pomona Freeway (SR-60), which is located approximately 1.4 miles south of the project site.

Local access into the project site is currently restricted by locked gates, although there are driveways on Mabel Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard for private access. Public, on‐street parking is provided along parts of Mabel Avenue. No on-street parking is allowed on Rosemead Boulevard.

The proposed project is approximately 0.2 mile east of the Rio Hondo bikeway. There are no existing bike lanes on Rosemead Boulevard or Mabel Avenue. The General Plan Circulation Element identifies future bikeways in the project vicinity including a Class II bikeway along Rosemead Boulevard and a Class III bikeway along Loma Avenue and Mabel Avenue.

Public transit service is provided by Foothill Transit, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), and Norwalk Transit. Foothill Transit provides fixed-route bus public transit service to the San Gabriel Valley in the greater Los Angeles area. Foothill Transit has north-south fixed-route bus service that operates from the El Monte Station to the Montebello Town Center with a bus stop is at the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Santa Anita Avenue approximately 1.3 miles east of the project site.

Metro provides bus rapid transit service throughout Los Angeles County. Four fixed-route (three northsouth routes and one east-west route) lines are near the project site. Bus stops are located within approximately 430 feet of the project site. Norwalk Transit provides rapid bus and paratransit services in the City of Norwalk, along with several adjacent cities, including the City of South El Monte. The nearest bus stop is at the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Santa Anita Avenue, which is approximately 1.3 miles east from the project site.

The project site has been used as large vehicle storage and junk yard and includes concrete paving in the southern and eastern portions of the site and gravel paving throughout the remainder of the site. The site is fenced. A small, dilapidated six-foot by six-foot guard shack is located at the southeast property boundary. There is existing perimeter landscaping along the Rosemead Boulevard frontage and sparse vegetation on Mabel Avenue. There are eight trees on the site: two bottlebrush, one juniper, one caster bean, and one ligustrum along Rosemead Boulevard; one juniper tree on the southwestern corner of the site; one ash tree on the southeast portion of the site; and one dead tree on the south-central portion of the site. There are sidewalks along the project site frontage on Rosemead Boulevard and Mabel Avenue, as well as overhead utilities on both streets. The project site is generally flat with on-site elevations ranging from approximately 241 to 243 feet above mean sea level (msl)1 .
1 Topographic Map. Calland Engineering, Inc., 2020.

Section 2.0
Project Description
4 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Land uses near the project site are summarized in Table 2-1: Surrounding Land Uses.

Table 2-1: Surrounding Land Uses
Direction Land Uses
North Mabel Avenue; car wash; dental office and commercial retail on the north side of Mabel Avenue East Rosemead Boulevard; car wash, commercial retail and surface parking, Bruin Avenue and light industrial uses east of Rosemead Boulevard
South Mobile home park, single-family residences, Troy Avenue West Single-family residences, light industrial uses, Lee Avenue

2.2 Land Use Designations
General Plan
The project site has a General Plan designation of Commercial-Manufacturing (CM). According to the City of South El Monte General Plan, the CM designation allows for general commercial and limited manufacturing uses. The CM designation has a floor-area-ratio (FAR) limit of 0.75. Allowable uses include light manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, wholesale, and service operations. The project requires a General Plan Amendment to change the designation from CM to Mixed-Use (C/R). The Mixed-Use (C/R) category provides opportunities for mixtures of commercial, office, and residential uses in the same building on the same parcel of land, or side by side within the same area. Allowable uses include those identified in the High-Density Residential and Commercial categories. Multi-family residential development is allowed at densities up to 100 units per acre (du/ac) without a requirement for commercial uses. Commercial development is allowed up to an FAR of 1.0 without a requirement for accompanying residential uses. However, commercial uses are permitted on the ground floor of an otherwise residential building. If a site designated mixed use includes both residential and commercial uses, 100 units per acre plus ground floor commercial are permitted.

Zoning
The project site is zoned Commercial-Manufacturing (C-M) and the project requires a zone change to Commercial Residential (C-R). The C-R zoning district allows for a mix of commercial and residential uses, or solely commercial or residential land uses. Development standards are found in the City of South El Monte Municipal Code (Municipal Code) Chapter 17.15. Like the General Plan Mixed Use (C/R) land use designation, the residential density allowances in the C-R zoning district vary based on the zoning of abutting properties: 35 du/ac when abutting a single-family zone; 87 du/ac when abutting a multi-family zone; and 100 du/ac when not abutting any residential zone. The project site abuts properties with a Manufacturing (M) designation to the west and south, and a Commercial-Manufacturing (C-M) designation on all other sides. Accordingly, per Municipal Code Table 17.15-B, the maximum residential density for the project site is 100 du/ac. The proposed project would have a density of 42.4 du/ac and would meet current development standards for the C-R zoning district.

2.3 Project Characteristics
Site Development
The conceptual site plan for each floor of the project is provided at Exhibits 2a-2d, Site Plan. As proposed, the project would allow for a 4-story, 106,137-square-foot (sf) mixed-use residential and retail building.

Section 2.0
Project Description
5 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 2-2: Project Summary table identifies proposed uses and associated square footage. The maximum proposed building height would be 59 feet (to top of roof, excluding parapet). The retail component would be limited to the ground floor while the residential component occupies the second, third, and fourth floors.

Table 2-2: Project Summary
Use Type Net Square Feet
Residential 89,337
Food Retail 3,170
Commercial Retail 13,630
Total 106,137
Source: SLA Architects, 2020.

Retail Component
The ground floor commercial retail uses are proposed along the Rosemead Boulevard frontage, and would wrap around to Mabel Avenue. Commercial retail uses could include but not be limited to, a mini market, café, restaurant, and other sale and service uses. Eight retail lease spaces are proposed and would range from 1,460 sf to 3,335 sf. Pedestrian access to the ground-floor retail and food establishments would be provided from the existing public sidewalks on Rosemead Boulevard and Mabel Avenue. Additional pedestrian entrances are provided at the back of each lease space for access from the parking garage.

Residential Component
Table 2-3: Residential Unit Summary presents the breakdown of dwelling unit type for the proposed project. The project would include a mix of one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom leasable apartment units ranging in size from 770 sf to 1,469 sf. Of the 73 rental units, the project includes 4 lowincome and 2 very low-income housing units. Municipal Code Chapter 17.83, Density Bonus Procedures, allows incentives for the production of housing for very low income and lower income households in accordance with Government Code Sections 65915—65918 with the intent to facilitate the development of affordable housing in the City. The City has determined that the project is eligible for a concession, which is addressed under Parking and Circulation.

Table 2-3: Residential Unit Summary
Unit Type Net Square Feet Total Units
Type A (2 bed, 2.5 bathroom) 1,008 39
Type B (1 bed, 1.5 bathroom) 770 28
Type C (3 bed, 3 bathroom) 1,469 6
Total 73
Source: SLA Architects, 2020.

Architecture, Landscaping, and Lighting
Conceptual exterior elevations and renderings are shown at Exhibit 3a to Exhibit 3c, Conceptual Exterior Elevations and Exhibit 4, Conceptual Renderings. Overall, the building would have a neutral color palette featuring yellow, brown, and tan tones with articulated building facades to minimize building massing.

The contemporary modern palladium façade would include articulated archway treatments along the

Section 2.0
Project Description
6 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ground floor retail shops. Archway supports would be finished in stucco, painted tan with a stone veneer.

Large glass windows would be provided for each retail space fronting Rosemead Boulevard and limited portions on Mabel Avenue. The upper residential floors would be finished in stucco and painted with contrasting colors including cream, tan, and terracotta. Architectural tower structures with dark terracotta concrete roof tiles would be located on northeast and southeast corners of the building.

Project site landscaping is depicted at Exhibit 5a and Exhibit 5b, Landscape Plan. Perimeter landscaping is proposed along all project boundaries. Four trees (including one caster bean, one ligustrum, and two Hollywood junipers) fronting Rosemead Boulevard would be removed. A six-foot-high concrete block wall would be constructed along the southern and western boundaries of the project site with fern pines and artificial turf adjacent to the block wall. Foxtail ferns, red impatiens, and cat mints are proposed in parking lot planter islands. A marina strawberry tree would anchor the planter at the southwest corner of the site.

Four36-inch box street trees would also be provided along Mabel Avenue. The second-story courtyard is proposed to have artificial turf, trellises, benches, two reflection ponds and an olive tree with cobblestone pavers. Shrub planters with purple fountain grass, red autumn sage, and smooth agave are also proposed.

Project lighting would include light sources typically used in mixed-use developments, including outdoor lighting for security and wayfinding. Standard parking light posts would be provided along the uncovered parking area in the southern portion of the project site. Additionally, exterior lighting fixtures along the building frontage would provide illumination for retail storefronts. Planters would also include the standard parking light posts.

Parking and Circulation
The conceptual layout of the ground level and parking deck of the on-site parking garage is shown in Exhibit 6a and Exhibit 6b, Conceptual Parking Plan, respectively. Table 2-4: Project Parking summarizes City parking requirements and parking provided by the project. The project would provide 223 vehicle parking spaces in a ground floor parking garage and an above-ground parking deck, situated between the ground floor and second floor. Specifically, the project would provide 216 standard size parking spaces and 5 designated Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) handicap spaces; all ADA handicap spaces are located on the ground floor. The project includes 113 parking spaces in a ground level parking garage for guest parking and commercial retail uses. Bicycle storage would be provided on the ground level of the parking garage. An above ground (resident only) parking deck would have 110 spaces. A loading space would also be provided near the site access driveway on Rosemead Boulevard for large delivery trucks.

The standard parking standards for multi-family development require two parking spaces per residential unit; however, the project qualifies for a density bonus incentive that allows for a parking requirement modification. Municipal Code Section 17.83.040 allows one incentive for housing projects that include at least ten percent of the total units for lower-income households, and five percent of the total units for very low-income households. Based on the Applicant’s request for a reduction in parking for the residential component of the project, the City is allowing the project to split the two requirements and is allowing 50 percent of the units in each of the two categories to meet the incentive criteria for a reduced on-site parking requirement.

EXHIBIT 1: Regional and Local Vicinity Map
Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Project
Garvey Avenue
Mabel Avenue
Lee Avenue
Project Site
Garvey Avenue
Rosemead Boulevard
City of South El Monte
Pacific Ocean
Los Angeles
Troy Avenue
Rio Hondo
Rosemead Boulevard

Section 2.0
Project Description
8 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 2a: Site Plan - First Floor
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
10 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 2b: Site Plan - Second Floor
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
12 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 2c: Site Plan - Third Floor
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
14 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 2d: Site Plan - Fourth Floor
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
16 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

EXHIBIT 3a: Conceptual Exterior Elevations - West and South Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
18 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 3b: Conceptual Exterior Elevations - East and North Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
20 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

EXHIBIT 3c: Conceptual Exterior Elevations - Building Sections Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
22 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

EXHIBIT 4: Conceptual Renderings
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
24 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 5a: Landscape Plan
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
26 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 5b: Landscape Plan - Second Floor
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
28 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 6a: Conceptual Parking Plan - Ground Level
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
30 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 6b: Conceptual Parking Plan - Parking Deck
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
32 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Section 2.0
Project Description
33 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 2-4: Project Parking identifies the adjusted parking requirements for the project.

Table 2-4: Project Parking
Use Type Project Details Required Provided Difference
Residential
(2 spaces per unit) 73 DU 146 110 -36
Residential Guest
(1 space per four
residential units)
— 18 15 -3
Food: Restaurant
(1 space per 4 seats)
3,180 sf
(est. 75 seats) 19
98 +34
Commercial: Retail
(1 space per 300 sf) 13,620 sf 45
Total 228 223 -5
DU = dwelling unit; sf = square feet
Source: SLA Architects, 2020.

Vehicular access to the project site would be provided from three driveways: two driveways on Mabel Avenue and one on Rosemead Boulevard. The driveway on Rosemead Boulevard would be 28 feet wide, and would be restricted to a right-in, right-out turning movements. The Rosemead Boulevard driveway would lead to a 26-foot-wide drive aisle to the ground floor retail parking on the south side of the project site. The Rosemead Boulevard driveway would also provide emergency access to the site.

The first driveway on Mabel Avenue (closest to Rosemead Boulevard) would be 24 feet wide and provide access to the public ground floor parking garage. This driveway would lead to covered parking stalls provided by the above-ground residential parking deck. The second driveway on Mabel Avenue would be

23.5 feet wide and lead to the private residential above-ground parking deck. Access to the above-ground residential parking deck would be secured by a gate. There would be no turning movement restrictions from Mabel Avenue.

Primary pedestrian access to the residential units would be from an elevator and stairwell in the residential lobby, which would be adjacent to the key-card gated parking deck ramp on Mabel Avenue.

The elevator and stairwell in the residential lobby would provide access to the above-ground parking deck and all residential floors above.

A second stairwell near the southwestern corner of the building would provide access to the ground floor of the parking garage to the above-ground parking deck and all residential floors above. A third stairwell at the southeastern corner of the building would provide the same access as the other stairwells but be located adjacent to the ground floor commercial retail uses. Lastly, a fourth stairwell at the northwestern corner would provide access only between the ground floor parking garage and the above-ground parking deck.

Section 2.0
Project Description
34 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Open Space and Amenities
Municipal Code Section 17.15.040 identifies that the C-R zoning designation requires a minimum outdoor space of 140 sf per dwelling unit which can be provided as common or private space2 which, for the purposes of the proposed project, would be 10,220 sf of outdoor space.

The proposed project would provide common open space in the form of an open-air courtyard, a recreation room, a fitness gym, and a library, which would total 9,625 sf of common open space. The 7,717-sf courtyard is proposed to include two trellises, artificial turf, cobblestone pavers, two reflection ponds, and bench seating. The library, recreation room, and gym would be provided on the second floor adjacent to the open-air courtyard. The project would provide 11,213 sf of private open space in the form of a private balcony or deck for each residential unit. The proposed project would satisfy the City’s outdoor space requirements for the C-R zoning designation.

Utility Infrastructure
Project implementation would require the construction of new on-site utility infrastructure to serve the residential and retail uses. These utilities would be connected to existing utility infrastructure in adjacent roadways, with the final sizing and design of on‐site facilities to occur during final building design and plan check.

Water and Sewer. San Gabriel Valley Water Company (SGVWC) provides water service to the project site.

The Los Angeles County Public Works Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District (CSMD) maintains sewer service to the City. Upon project implementation, SGVWC and Los Angeles County Public Works CSMD would continue to serve the project site.

Drainage and Water Quality. The City owns and maintains a limited number of catch basins and storm drains while the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (County Flood Control District), a part of the Los Angeles County Public Works Division, owns and maintains a network of catch basins, storm drains and channels throughout the City. The County Flood Control District owns and operates the storm drain system near the project site.3 Upon project implementation, County Flood Control District would continue to serve the project site.

The project site was previously developed and contains remnant concrete paving in the southern and eastern sections of the site, and gravel paving throughout the remainder of the site. As such, the project site is somewhat impervious and does not promote substantial stormwater infiltration. Runoff from the project site flows in a northeast to the southwest direction. The proposed project would not alter existing drainage patterns. Site runoff would be directed to an on-site infiltration system before overflowing to existing County Flood Control District’s storm drains in Troy Avenue. Additionally, the project would implement source control measures including storm drain messages (e.g., “No Dumping - Drains to Ocean”) and signage and landscape irrigation using pressure sensors and rain sensors to reduce pollutant sources in stormwater runoff.
2 Per South El Monte Municipal Code Section 17.15.040(D), “A minimum outdoor space of one hundred forty square feet shall be provided per dwelling unit. Outdoor space may be provided as common or private space. Any common outdoor space shall have a minimum level surface dimension of twenty feet and a minimum area of 140 square feet.” 3 Los Angeles County Public Works, 2021. Los Angeles County Storm Drain System GIS Maps. Accessed from https://pw.lacounty.gov/fcd/StormDrain/index.cfm. Accessed March 17, 2021.

Section 2.0
Project Description
35 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dry Utilities and Solid Waste Management. There are aboveground and below ground utility infrastructure along Rosemead Boulevard and Mabel Avenue. Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electrical service to the project site. The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas service to the project site. Both SCE and SoCalGas would continue to serve the project site. New service connections for the proposed project would connect to existing underground utility lines. No connections to the existing overhead utility lines would occur. Athens Disposal Company currently provides solid waste collection and services to the City, including the project site, and would continue to serve the project.

2.4 Construction Activities
Project construction is anticipated to take approximately 24 months. For purposes of this environmental analysis, project construction is estimated to begin in Summer 2022 and end in Summer 2024 with opening year being 2024. Construction would occur in the following sequence:
 Site clearing (removal of existing vehicle storage and containers and trees);  Site preparation;
 Grading. Approximately 100 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 200 cy of fill with 100 cy imported to the project site, inclusive of on-site grading and installation of infrastructure within existing rights-ofway. All infrastructure (i.e., storm drain, water, wastewater, dry utilities, and street improvements) would be installed within the existing rights-of-way with connections to the project site;
 Building construction; and
 Paving, architectural coating, and landscaping.

2.5 Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals
The discretionary and ministerial actions and/or approvals need for the proposed project include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project requires CEQA compliance through the adoption of an IS/MND prior to approval of the project. This IS/MND is intended to serve as the primary environmental document for all actions associated with the approval of the Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project. In addition, this is the primary reference document for the mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the project.  General Plan Amendment. The project requires a General Plan Amendment to change the designation from Commercial-Manufacturing (CM) to Mixed-Use (C/R).  Zone Change. The project site requires a zone change from Commercial-Manufacturing (C-M) to Commercial Residential (C-R).
 Tentative Tract Map. The project requires review and approval of a tentative tract map for the development of 73 dwelling units and 16,800 sf of commercial retail uses.  Density Housing Bonus Agreement (Municipal Code 17.83.080). The project requires a density housing bonus agreement to reduce the project's residential parking requirement from 146 spaces to 110 spaces for residential use.
 Demolition, grading, building, and sign permits.
 Any other permit or approval required by an agency with jurisdiction over the project.

Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist
36 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages, and would require the preparation of an EIR. Because no factors are checked, an EIR is not required.

Aesthetics
Air Quality
Agricultural and Forestry
Resources
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems
Wildfire
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation (check one):

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist
38 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from 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?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?

Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist
39 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
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 US Fish and Wildlife Service?
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

Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist
40 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?

6. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the

Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist
41 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?

Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist
42 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
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?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous 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?
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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?

Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist
43 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or offsite?
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
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?

12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist
44 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
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?

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?

15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?

Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist
45 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?

16. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?

17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist
46 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k)?
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe?

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?

Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist
47 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

20. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project:
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
48 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

4.1 Aesthetics
Threshold (a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The project site is in an urbanized area of the City. The site has been used as a large vehicle storage and junk yard. Besides the guard shack, there are no structures on the site. There are eight trees on the site including two bottlebrush, one juniper, one caster bean, and one ligustrum along Rosemead Boulevard; one juniper tree on the southwestern corner of the site; one ash tree on the southeast portion of the site; and one dead tree on the south-central portion of the site. Light industrial, commercial retail, and a mix of residential types including single-family and multi-family residences, and mobile homes are in the project area. The General Plan does not identify any specific scenic vistas in the City. However, the San Gabriel Mountain Range is a prominent vista within the San Gabriel Valley. The existing urban development within the surrounding project area limits views across and beyond the project site. Mabel Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard do not provide long range scenic views. The proposed project would be limited to 59 feet and not obstruct any scenic vistas. Therefore, the project would not obstruct, interrupt, or diminish a scenic vista. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? No Impact. There are no officially-designated State scenic highways proximate to the project site.

Interstate 210 (I-210) is the nearest eligible state highway, which is approximately nine miles northwest of the project site. The project site is not visible from I-210. 4 The project site does not contain any scenic
rock outcroppings or historic buildings. None of the existing on-site trees or trees in the immediate surrounding area are heritage trees. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect scenic resources along an officially designed or an eligible scenic highway. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (c) Would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project also would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site or its surroundings. The City does not have a scenic overlay zone district that governs scenic quality. The project site has been used as a large vehicle storage and junk yard. Project implementation would result in the development of a mixed-use building, which would be consistent with the existing surrounding residential land uses adjacent to the site to the south and single-family residences to the east at Lashbrook Avenue.

Shadows cast by the proposed project would vary in length and direction throughout the day and from season to season. The proposed project would result in new shadows cast onto surrounding residential and commercial uses, as well as onto adjacent sidewalks and roadways. An existing mobile home park is south of the project site.

The City of South El Monte does not have a specific adopted threshold to determine whether increased shade/shadow patterns are considered significant; therefore, this analysis used the City of Los Angeles’ 4 California Scenic Highway Mapping System, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-andcommunity-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways, accessed December 22, 2020.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
49 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
adopted threshold. The City of Los Angeles threshold identifies that a significant impact would result if shadow-sensitive use areas (where sunlight is important to its function) would be shaded by projectrelated structures for more than three hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM Pacific Standard Time (between late October and early April), or for more than four hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time (between early April and late October), compared to existing conditions.

For the proposed project, simulations were prepared to depict potential shade/shadow conditions for the following time periods:
 Spring Equinox (March 21): 9 AM, 12 PM, 3 PM, 5 PM
 Summer Solstice (June 21): 9 AM, 12 PM, 3 PM, 5 PM
 Fall Equinox (September 21): 9 AM, 12 PM, 3 PM, 5 PM
 Winter Solstice (December 21): 9 AM, 12 PM, 3 PM, 5 PM Shadows cast by the proposed project vary in length and direction throughout the day and from season to season. The proposed project would result in new shadows cast onto surrounding residential such as the mobile home park located 75 feet to the south of the project site, and the single-family residence and associated structures at 9336 Mabel Avenue to the west of the site, as well as onto adjacent sidewalks and public roads. As shown at Exhibit 7a through Exhibit 7d, Shade Shadow Modeling, shadow-sensitive uses near the project site would not experience significant shadow impacts, meaning no shadow-sensitive uses would be shaded for more than four hours between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM during the summer/winter solstice and or between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM during the spring/autumnal equinox. Shade and shadows are mostly cast onto Mabel Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard under all simulation scenarios. Therefore, impacts for shade and shadow are less than significant.

Compliance with C-R zoning district development standards including setbacks and building height limits would be ensured through the City’s review during application process and future review of building permits. The proposed architecture and massing would complement the existing development and would comply with the objectives and General Plan policies to ensure the compatibly of the project design with the surrounding community. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. Sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces such as window glass or other reflective materials can cause reflected light (glare). Buildings constructed of highly reflective materials from which the sun reflects at a low angle commonly cause adverse glare. Materials known to cause glare, such as mirrored/reflective glass would not be used by the project. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

The project site is in an urbanized area with existing light sources, which include street lighting on Rosemead Boulevard and Mabel Avenue, the car wash on the north side of Mabel Avenue, and residential lighting from the mobile home park to the south. Additional lighting in the area includes vehicle headlights and traffic signals.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
50 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
The proposed project would generate lighting from two primary sources: lighting from building interiors that would pass through windows, and lighting from exterior sources (e.g., signage, street lighting, parking area lighting, building illumination, security lighting, wayfinding, and landscape lighting). The outdoor amenities (courtyard on second floor) and landscaped areas on the site would have lighting to allow for nighttime use; lighting for security; and landscape accent lighting. Although the proposed project would introduce new sources of light, the surrounding urban area contains multiple sources of illumination. The proposed lighting would be subject to comply with Municipal Code Chapter 17.15.030 – General Development Standards for C-R zoning district. The proposed project would be required to prepare a photometric plan which would be subject to City review. Street lighting would be subject to Municipal Code Chapter 16.12.060 which would require lighting facilities designed and constructed in compliance with the City’s improvement standards and specifications. Therefore, the proposed project lighting would not cause adverse effects; the change would be a less than significant impact.

Cumulative Impacts
When evaluating cumulative aesthetic impacts, a number of factors must be considered. The cumulative study area for aesthetic impacts is the viewshed that includes the project site and surrounding areas. The context in which public views a project is being viewed will also influence the significance of the aesthetic impact. The contrast a project has with its surrounding environment may actually be reduced by the presence of other cumulative projects. For example, if most of an area becomes urbanized, the contrast of a project with the natural surroundings may be less since it would not stand out in contrast as much. In order for a cumulative aesthetic impact to occur, the aesthetic impacts from cumulative projects would need to occur within the same geographic area to substantially alter the existing viewshed or existing scenic character of an area. The cumulative projects would need to be visible together or near each other so a viewer could perceive them in the same view. However, a change in the viewshed or character of an area from cumulative development does not necessitate the conclusion of a significant adverse effect.

There is existing development bordering the project site. There are no undeveloped properties adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity or viewshed of the project site. Other potential future projects in the viewshed would likely be renovations or rehabilitations because the project site bordered by existing development. No significant cumulative visual impacts would occur.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are applicable.

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 7a: Shade Shadow Modeling - Spring Equinox
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
52 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 7b: Shade Shadow Modeling - Summer Solstice
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
54 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 7c: Shade Shadow Modeling - Fall Equinox
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
56 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 7d: Shade Shadow Modeling - Winter Solistice
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
58 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
59 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The project site and surrounding area can be characterized as a developed urban environment. There are no agricultural and forestry resources located on or proximate to the project site.

Threshold (a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resource Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The State of California, Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, has designated the project site as Urban and Built-Up Land. This farmland category defines Urban and Built-Up Land as land developed at a density of at least 1 dwelling unit (du) per 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. Land uses include but are not limited to residential, industrial, office/commercial, institutional, and public administration. There is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Farmland of Local Importance on the project site or in the project vicinity.5 The surrounding area includes various automotive repair and servicing uses, a mobile home park, single-family residences, and commercial retail uses. No farmland would be converted.

Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
No Impact. A Williamson Act contract between local governments and private landowners restricts specified parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use in return for a lower property tax assessment. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. The proposed project would require a zone change from Commercial-Manufacturing (C-M) to Commercial Residential (C-R). Neither the existing or proposed zoning designation allows for agriculture uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with agricultural zoning designation or a Williamson contract. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104 (g))? and
Threshold (d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. There are no forest or timberland resources on the project site or in the surrounding area. The existing and proposed zoning designations for the project site do not permit such uses. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. 5 State of California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed March 9, 2021.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
60 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Threshold (e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest land?
No Impact. The project site and surrounding area do not include nor are proximate to agricultural uses or forest land. Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly result in the conversion of property from agricultural or timberland uses. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project would have no impact on agricultural and forestry resources. The General Plan does not identify any agricultural or forestry resources within the City. Therefore, no cumulative impacts would occur.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
61 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.3 Air Quality
An air quality analysis was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates (Kimley-Horn, 2021) for the proposed project. The air quality modeling outputs and results are included in Appendix A of this Initial Study and the results are summarized herein.

Threshold (a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is in the South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin) which includes all of Orange County and non-desert portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. The Air Basin is approximately 6,600 square miles extending from the Pacific Ocean to the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains. The Air Basin is a coastal plain with broad valleys and low hills, and semi-arid climate. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) monitor air quality within the Air Basin.

The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is prepared by SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Air quality plans describe strategies to control air pollution and measures to be implemented by a city, county, region, and/or air district. The primary purpose of an air quality plan is to bring an area that does not attain federal and State air quality standards into compliance with the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act. Non-attainment is used to refer to an air basin where one or more ambient air quality standards are exceeded. In addition, air quality plans are developed to ensure that an area maintains a healthful level of air quality based on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).

The current plan is the 2016 AQMP adopted on March 3, 2017. The 2016 AQMP is designed to meet the State and federal Clean Air Act planning requirements and focuses on federal ozone and ultra-fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards. The SCAQMD’s AQMP was prepared to accommodate growth; to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD; and to attain clean air within the region. Projects that are considered consistent with the AQMP would not interfere with attainment because this growth is included in the projections used to formulate the AQMP.

The SCAQMD’s CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency with the AQMP:

1. Whether a project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.

2. Whether a project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the year of project buildout and phase.

With respect to the first criterion, based on the air quality modeling analysis conducted for the proposed project, the construction and operation of the project would not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD thresholds of significance; therefore, project construction and operation would not increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations. The proposed project is not forecasted to contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards.

With respect to the second criterion, the project site has a General Plan designation of CommercialManufacturing (CM). The project requires a General Plan Amendment to change the designation from CM to Mixed-Use (C/R). The project site is zoned Commercial-Manufacturing (C-M) and the project requires

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
62 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
a zone change to Commercial Residential (C-R). Although the proposed project would change the land use designation to allow for residential and commercial development, as discussed in Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, of this Initial Study, the project would not exceed the population or job growth projections used by the SCAQMD to develop the 2016 AQMP. As such, the project would not interfere with attainment because this growth is included in the projections used to formulate the AQMP. Additionally, the project is an infill development along Rosemead Boulevard (SR-164) near Metro transit stops and commercial land uses. Infill developments reduce emissions by reducing the need to travel long distances by some residents.6 Additionally, the SCAQMD’s CEQA Handbook indicates that significant air pollutant projects may include airports, electrical generating facilities, petroleum and gas refineries, designation of oil drilling districts, water ports, solid waste disposal sites, and offshore drilling facilities. The proposed project is not defined as one of these significant uses. Therefore, the project is also consistent with the second criterion.

SCAG forecasts are based on the General Plans of municipalities in the Air Basin. As addressed in the following analysis, total project emissions would be less than the SCAQMD significance thresholds. The emissions increase due to the project would not interfere with the AQMP or the attainment of the ambient air quality standards. Therefore, emissions from the project would not be greater than those anticipated in the AQMP.

The determination of AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with the long-term influence of a project on air quality in the Air Basin. The proposed project would not result in a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and federal air quality standards. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the AQMP for the control of fugitive dust.

Threshold (b) Would the project 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?
Construction Emissions
Less Than Significant Impact. Air quality standards in Southern California are identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) in the NAAQS and by CARB in the CAAQS. The air quality standards of the following five criteria pollutants relate to development projects: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Of these criteria pollutants, the Air Basin, in which South El Monte lies, is designated non-attainment for O3 and particulate matter, meaning the Air Basin has recorded exceedances of the air quality standards for these pollutants in recent years.7
The project’s construction activities would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the project area include ozone-precursor pollutants (i.e., reactive organic gases [ROG] and nitrogen oxides [NOX]) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-generated emissions are short-term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, 6 The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association document, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (August 2010), identifies that infill developments, such as the proposed project reduce vehicle miles traveled which reduces fuel consumption. Infill projects such as the proposed project would have an improved location efficiency. 7 A portion of the Air Basin in Los Angeles County is also designated a non-attainment basin for lead, which is not a criteria pollutant that is relevant to this project, since air emissions of lead would not be generated by the project.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
63 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.

Construction equipment would include excavators, dozers, rollers, rubber-tired loaders, tractors, trenchers, and pavers. Exhaust emission factors for typical diesel-powered heavy equipment are based on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) program defaults. Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on or off the site. The analysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared using CalEEMod.

In accordance with the SCAQMD Guidelines, CalEEMod was used to model construction emissions for ROG, NOx, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Nitrogen oxides (NOX) are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the formation of ground-level O3 and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain.

NO2 (often used interchangeably with NOx) is a reddish-brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at high levels. Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have a high concentration of combustion sources (e.g., motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations). Sulfur oxides (SOX) belong to the family of sulfur oxide gases that are formed when fuel containing sulfur from coal and oil are burned and during industrial metal smelting processes. SO2 contributes to respiratory illness, particularly in children and the elderly, and aggravates existing heart and lung diseases.

CalEEMod allows the user to input mitigation measures such as watering the construction area to limit fugitive dust. Standard conditions that were input into CalEEMod allow for certain reduction credits (i.e., compliance with SCAQMD rules) and result in a decrease of pollutant emissions. Reduction credits are based upon studies developed by CARB, SCAQMD, and other air quality management districts throughout California, and were programmed within CalEEMod. Table 4.3-1: Construction Emissions identifiesthe anticipated daily short-term construction emissions and assumes reductions associated with Standard Condition (SC) AQ-1 (Dust Control) and SC AQ-2 (Architectural Coatings). Impacts would be less than significant for all criteria pollutants during construction. The project would be required to adhere to SCAQMD Rules 403 and 402, as part of SC AQ-1 to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions resulting from fugitive dust, and Rule 1113 as part of SC AQ-2 to reduce ROG emissions. As indicated in the table, project construction emissions would not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the project’s constructionrelated impacts would be less than significant for all criteria pollutants.

Operational Emissions
Less Than Significant Impact. Table 4.3-2: Operational Emissions summarizes long-term operational emissions attributable to the proposed project. Project-generated emissions would be associated with motor vehicle use, energy, and area sources, such as the use of natural gas-fired appliances, landscape maintenance equipment, and architectural coatings. Mobile and stationary (area and energy) source operational emissions would result from normal daily activities on the project site after occupancy. Mobile source emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site. Area source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for consumer products, architectural coating, and landscaping. Energy source emissions would be generated from electricity and natural gas (non-hearth) usage associated with the proposed project. The primary use of electricity and natural gas by the project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. As shown in the table, emissions from the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
64 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5. Project operational emissions would be less than significant.

Table 4.3-1: Construction Emissions
Emissions Source
Pollutant (pounds per day) a, b
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction: 2022 3.25 33.14 20.63 0.04 9.53 5.78
Construction: 2023 2.04 16.46 20.16 0.04 1.91 0.99
Construction: 2024 24.87 8.32 12.86 0.02 0.61 0.43
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD
Thresholds? No No No No No No
ROG: reactive organic gases; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOx: sulfur oxides; PM10: particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter. a. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), as recommended by the SCAQMD.

Refer to Appendix A
b. The modeling incorporates reduction/credits for construction emissions based on measures included in CalEEMod and as required by the SCAQMD through Rule 403. This includes the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment.

Source: Kimley-Horn, 2021.

Table 4.3-2: Operational Emissions
Emissions Source
Pollutant (pounds per day) a
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Source 2.64 1.16 6.49 0.01 0.12 0.12
Energy Use 0.03 0.25 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02
Mobile Source 1.42 6.00 16.93 0.06 5.52 1.51
Total 4.09 7.41 23.53 0.07 5.66 1.65
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD
Thresholds? No No No No No No
ROG: reactive organic gases; NOX: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOX: sulfur oxides; PM10: particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter. a. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), as recommended by the SCAQMD.

Source: Kimley-Horn, 2021.

A significant impact to air quality would occur if a project would result in a cumulative considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is non-attainment under an applicable NAAQS or CAAQS (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). The ozone precursors include ROG and NOX. The Air Basin is in non-attainment for ozone (State and federal), PM10 (State), PM2.5 (State and federal), and lead (federal, partial non-attainment in a portion of Los Angeles County). To determine whether the project would result in a cumulatively considerable increase

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
65 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
in non-attainment criteria pollutants or exceed the quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors, the lead agency may evaluate project emissions based on the quantitative emission thresholds established by the SCAQMD in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993, as amended). The SCAQMD has established quantitative thresholds against which a project’s emissions could be evaluated to determine if there is a potential for a significant impact. In the event direct impacts from a project are less than significant, a project may still have a cumulatively considerable impact on air quality if the emissions from the project, in combination with the emissions from other proposed, or reasonably foreseeable future projects are in excess of screening levels and the project’s contribution accounts for more than an insignificant proportion of the cumulative total emissions. As previously addressed, the proposed project would not result in significant construction or operational air quality impacts including non-attainment criteria pollutants. Therefore, the project’s contribution to regional pollutant concentrations would not be cumulatively considerable.

With respect to the proposed project’s construction-period air quality emissions and cumulative Air Basin conditions, the SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the AQMP pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act mandates. As such, the project would comply with SCAQMD’s Rule 403 (see SC AQ-1). Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures in order to reduce dust so that it does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of a project site. Per SCAQMD rules and mandates, as well as the CEQA requirement that a project mitigate its significant impacts to the extent feasible, these same requirements (i.e., Rule 403 compliance, implementation of all feasible measures, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures) would also be imposed on construction projects throughout the Air Basin, which would include related projects. Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would preclude significant constructionrelated impacts. Therefore, project-related construction emissions, in combination with emissions from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate the local air quality.

As previously discussed, the proposed project would not result in long-term air quality impacts because emissions would not exceed SCAQMD operational thresholds. Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations (SC AQ-1 and SC AQ-2) would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project basis. The SCAQMD and other entities are constantly developing emission reduction technology, strategies, and plans. As a result, the proposed project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of any non-attainment criteria pollutant. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A significant impact may occur when a project would generate pollutant concentrations to a degree that would significantly affect sensitive receptors, which include populations that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large.

This section addresses the exposure of sensitive receptors for the following situations: CO hotspots; localized emissions concentrations, toxic air contaminants (TACs, specifically diesel particulate matter [PM]) from on-site construction; and asbestos and lead based paint during demolition.

Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots
An analysis of CO “hot spots” determines whether the change in the level of service (LOS) of an intersection caused by a proposed project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. Vehicular emissions cause CO exceedances, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections.

Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
66 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined.

The Air Basin was re-designated as attainment in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the SCAQMD’s AQMP.

Further, the proposed project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot (see Section 4.17 for Traffic Trip Generation). Therefore, CO hotspots are not an environmental impact of concern for the proposed project. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile‐source emissions would be less than significant. As a result, no significant impact would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required.

Localized Significance Threshold Analysis
Localized Significance Analysis. The Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Methodology provides a lookup table for construction and operational emissions based on the emission rate, location, and distance from receptors, and provides a methodology for air dispersion modeling to evaluate whether a construction or operation could cause an exceedance of an ambient air quality standard. The local air quality emissions from construction were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Localized Significant Threshold Look-Up Tables and the methodology described in Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (SCAQMD, revised July 2008) to determine if the daily emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5, from the project would result in a significant impact to local air quality. Construction emissions were compared to the SCAQMD’s screening thresholds. Project implementation would require approximately 100 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 200 cy of fill. Approximately 100 cy of fill would be imported to balance the project site. The nearest sensitive receptor is a single-family residence and associated structures at 9336 Mabel Avenue, 10 feet west of the project site.

As shown in Table 4.3-3: Localized Significance of Construction and Operational Emissions, construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LSTs. However, unmitigated operational emissions would exceed PM10 and PM2.5 LSTs. Natural gas hearth emissions are the primary source causing this exceedance; therefore, Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-1 prohibits wood burning and natural gas fireplaces. Therefore, with implementation of MM AQ-1, the project would not result in significant localized construction or operational emissions.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Construction would result in the generation of diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment required for grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to toxic air contaminant emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer.

The use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic. The duration of exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment is highly dispersive and concentrations of diesel PM dissipates rapidly. Current models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Project construction involves phased activities in several areas across the site and the project would not require

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
67 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
the extensive use of heavy-duty construction equipment or diesel trucks in any one location over the duration of development, which would limit the exposure of any proximate individual sensitive receptor to TACs.

Table 4.3-3: Localized Significance of Construction and Operational Emissions Emission Source
Pollutant (pounds per day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation (2022) 33.08 19.70 9.34 5.73
Grading (2022) 20.86 15.27 3.74 2.31
Building Construction (2022) 15.62 16.36 0.81 0.76
Building Construction (2023) 14.38 16.24 0.70 0.66
Paving (2023) 8.79 12.19 0.44 0.40
Paving (2024) 8.27 12.22 0.40 0.37
Architectural Coating (2024) 1.22 1.81 0.06 0.06
SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold
(Adjusted for 3.5 acres of disturbance at 25 meters) 152 1,423 10.50 7 Exceed SCAQMD Thresholds? No No No No
Unmitigated On-Site Emissions (Area and Energy) 1.70 24.49 3.06 3.06 Mitigated On-Site Emissions (Area and Energy)1 1.41 6.6 0.14 0.14 SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold
(Adjusted for 1.73 acres of disturbance at 25 meters) 166 1,603 3 2 SCAQMD Threshold Exceeded with Mitigation? No No No No
NOX: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOX: sulfur oxides; PM10: particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5:
particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter.

Notes: SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. Refer to Appendix A for Model Data Outputs.

1. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 prohibits the use of fireplaces.

Sources: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2 and Kimley-Horn, 2021.

Additionally, construction activities would occur in an area of less than five acres. CARB generally considers construction project sites of such size to represent less than significant health risk impacts due to (1) limitations on the off-road diesel equipment able to operate and therefore a reduced amount of generated diesel PM; (2) the reduced amount of dust-generating ground disturbance possible compared to larger construction sites; and (3) the reduced duration of construction activities compared to the development of larger sites. Additionally, construction is subject to and would comply with California regulations (e.g., California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Division 3, Article 1, Chapter 10, Sections 2485 and 2449), which reduce diesel PM and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles and limit the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than five minutes. These regulations would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable diesel PM emissions. Given the temporary and intermittent nature of construction activities likely to occur in specific locations at the project site (i.e., construction is not likely to occur in any one location for an extended time), the dose of diesel PM of any one receptor is exposed to would be limited. Therefore, considering the relatively short duration of diesel PM-emitting construction activity at any one location of the plan area and the highly dispersive properties of diesel PM, sensitive receptors would not be exposed

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
68 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
to substantial concentrations of construction-related TAC emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold (d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD, 1993) identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture, wastewater treatment plant, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project is a mixed-use residential and commercial development and does not propose to include any odor-inducing uses on the site.

During construction-related activities, some odors (not substantial pollutant concentrations) that the public may detect are those typical of construction vehicles (e.g., diesel exhaust from grading and construction equipment). These odors are a temporary short-term impact that is typical of construction projects and would disperse rapidly. The project would not include any of the land uses that the SCAQMD identifies as odor sources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Cumulative Impacts
The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions.

The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in non-attainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, individual project emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which individual project emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the Air Basin’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the SCAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. As discussed above, the project’s emissions would be below the significance thresholds during both construction and operations.

Therefore, the project’s contribution is not considered cumulatively considerable.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC AQ-1 Dust Control. During construction, construction contractors shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Rules 402 and 403 in order to minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off-site. Rule 402 prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with Best Available Control Measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible beyond the property line of the emission source. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications. Table 1 of Rule 403 lists the Best Available Control Measures that are

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
69 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
applicable to all construction projects. The measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. b. All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
c. All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
d. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
e. Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.

SC AQ-2 Architectural Coatings. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1113 requires manufacturers, distributors, and end-users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories. Architectural coatings shall be selected so that the volatile organic compound (VOC) content of the coatings is compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1113. This requirement shall be included as notes on contractor specifications.

Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-1 Hearth Emissions. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the building official shall confirm that the applicable project plans and specifications do not include wood-burning or natural gas hearths.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
70 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.4 Biological Resources
Threshold (a) Would the project have a substantial effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The project site has been used as a large vehicle storage and junk yard with a mix of pervious and impervious surfaces. Resources on the site are limited to ruderal vegetation (weeds)as well as eight trees: bottlebrush, one juniper, one caster bean, and one ligustrum along Rosemead Boulevard; one juniper tree on the southwestern corner of the site; one ash tree on the southeast portion of the site; and one dead tree on the south-central portion of the site. Due to the disturbed nature of the site, no natural habitat is present on the site. No natural habitats are present on the surrounding properties. Based on review of the existing and surrounding site conditions, site clearance and project development would not adversely impact candidate, sensitive, or special status biological resources. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? and Threshold (c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a State or federally protected wetlands(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. As previously addressed, on-site vegetation is limited to weeds and eight trees. There are sensitive natural communities, riparian habitats, or federally protected wetlands or resources on the project site.8 The project site does not contain any water resources (e.g., streams, creeks, channels, vernal pools) nor would any of the proposed land uses potentially impact wetlands. The nearest body of water mapped by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory is the Rio Honda riverbed, approximately 0.2 mile west of the project site. The Rio Honda is a concrete-lined channel that serves primarily as flood control. It is not considered a State or federally protected wetland. The proposed project would not directly or indirectly impact this habitat. The project site is fully developed; the project site does not contain riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or wetlands. Therefore, no impacts to riparian habitat, wetlands, or other sensitive natural communities would result from the proposed project and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact. Wildlife movement corridors are physical connections that allow wildlife to move between areas of suitable habitat in both undisturbed and fragmented landscapes. The project site has been used as a storage yard and is bordered by existing development and roadways. The project site is not a recognized wildlife corridor nor is it proximate to a nursery site for native and migratory wildlife. 8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory. www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html, accessed December 18, 2020 and September 11, 2021.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
71 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
The proposed project would remove several trees that have the potential to support nesting migratory birds that are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). The proposed project would adhere to SC BIO-1, which ensures compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). MBTA governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. Under MBTA provisions, it is unlawful “by any means or manner to pursue, hunt, take, capture (or) kill” any migratory birds except as permitted by regulations issued by the USFWS. The term “take” is defined by USFWS regulation to mean to “pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect” any migratory bird or any part, nest or egg of any migratory bird covered by the conventions, or to attempt those activities. In addition, the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) extends protection to non-migratory birds identified as resident game birds (CFGC §3500) and any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds‐of‐prey) (CFGC §3503). The on-site trees and vegetation could provide suitable nesting habitat for birds. Compliance with SC BIO-1 would ensure that no significant impacts would occur.

Threshold (e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The City’s Tree Policy applies to street on public property including along City streets.9 If a tree is removed, planting of another tree from the City’s Approved Tree List is required. As previously addressed, there are eight trees on the project site; the two bottlebrush trees would be retained (see Exhibits 5a and 5b). None of the trees are within the public right-of-way or are designated as street trees. The proposed removal of the six trees would not conflict with the City’s Tree Policy. As such, project implementation would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s California Regional Conservation Plans map, the project site is not located within a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) or Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
10 As discussed above within Responses 4.4(a) through 4.4(e), the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to biological resources and would not result in conflicts with provisions of a HCP or NCCP. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Cumulative Impacts
Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects are required to implement measures, as set forth in their respective CEQA documents, consistent with federal, State, and local regulations to avoid adverse effects to biological resources or to mitigate for significant impacts to these resources. The types of measures required for projects impacting protected habitat, species, and regulated resources can include avoidance, project design features, regulatory approvals, best management practices, and mitigation measures. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework and standard conditions, the proposed project would not cause a significant impact to biological resources. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a potential cumulatively considerable impact. 9 City of South El Monte, Council Report, Dated March 22, 2011. 10 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Regional Conservation Plans, April 2019, Available at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline, accessed December 19, 2020 and September 11, 2021.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
72 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC BIO-1 Nesting Migratory Birds. During construction, grubbing, brushing, or tree removal shall be conducted outside of the state identified nesting season for migratory birds (i.e., typically March 15 through September 1), if possible. If construction activities cannot be conducted outside of nesting season, a Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey within and adjacent to the project site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within three days prior to initiating construction activities. If active nests are found during the Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey, a Nesting Bird Plan (NBP) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented during construction. At a minimum, the NBP shall include guidelines for addressing active nests, establishing buffers, monitoring, and reporting. The size and location of all buffer zones, if required, shall be based on the nesting species, nesting sage, nest location, its sensitivity to disturbance, and intensity and duration of the disturbance activity.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
73 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.5 Cultural Resources
A Cultural Record Search was requested for the proposed project. The results is included in this Initial Study as Appendix B and the results are summarized herein.

Threshold (a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in §15064.5?
No Impact. Historical resources are defined as buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts of significance in history, archaeology, architecture, and culture. These resources include intact structures of any type that are 50 years or more of age. These resources are sometimes called the “built environment” and can include, in addition to houses, other structures such as irrigation works and engineering features. Historical resources are preserved because they provide a link to a region’s past as well as a frame of reference for a community.

The CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5, define “historic resources” as resources listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or determined to be eligible by the California Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources.11 CEQA allows local historic resource guidelines to serve as the California Register of Historical Resources criteria if enacted by local legislation to act as the equivalent of the State criteria.

The City of South El Monte General Plan Resources Element (October 2000) notes that “no historic or archaeologically significant sites have been located in the City.” (see page 1.) Therefore, this topic is not addressed further in the City’s General Plan. As a part of the preparation of this Initial Study, a records search was prepared by the South-Central Coastal Information Center; no historical resources have been recorded as being on the project site or within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site. Further, the project site does not contain any structures other than a small dilapidated guard shack. Due to the lack of significant historic resources on the project site, the project would have no impact on historic resources and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As noted, a record search was requested from the SouthCentral Coastal Information Center to obtain recorded archaeological and built-environment information.

The search includes review of all recorded archaeological and built-environment resources, as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file within a one-mile project site radius. No cultural studies have been conducted and no resources identified at the project site. However, one built-environment resource was recorded, and 15 cultural reports and studies were conducted within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site.

There is a likelihood of encountering archaeological resources in the project site since the site has not been previously extensively graded and the proximity to a water body (Rio Hondo Channel), approximately 0.2 mile west of the site. Although no subterranean land uses are proposed, construction activities for the project would require excavation and grading. Therefore, while low, there is the potential for the project to affect a previously unidentified archaeological resource. The project would be required to comply with MM CR-1, which requires that an archaeologist monitor grading and excavation activities.

The archaeologist would have the ability to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, 11 California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), Section 5024.1(g).

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
74 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
identification, and evaluation of the artifacts and resources, as appropriate. If resources are found to be significant, the archaeologist would determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the City and Applicant. Compliance with MM CR-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Threshold (c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation. No known human remains occur on the site, and no dedicated cemeteries are on or near the project site. It is not anticipated that human remains are present. In the event human remains are encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities, compliance with the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.57.98, identified in MM CR-2, would reduce any impact associated with human remains to a less than significant level.

Cumulative Impacts
Potential cumulative impacts could occur if the project – when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects – would cause significant impacts based on the thresholds of significance set forth in this Initial Study. The project site does not contain significant historic resources and is not expected to impact any archaeological resources; mitigation measures have been identified to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. As with the proposed project, other past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects would be required to comply with mitigation measures. Despite the site-specific nature of resources, mitigation required for the identification and protection of unknown or undocumented resources would reduce the potential for cumulative impacts.

On a cumulative level, data recovered from sites in the region allow for the examination and evaluation of the diversity of human activities in the region. The proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact on cultural resources.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Requirements
No standard conditions are required.

Mitigation Measures
MM CR-1 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit or permit for ground disturbance activities, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of South El Monte that a qualified professional (i.e., archaeologist, historian, architect, paleontologist, Native American Tribal monitor) has been retained. The selection of the qualified professional(s) shall be subject to approval by the City. In the event that cultural resources (archaeological, historical, paleontological) are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, the contractor shall immediately cease all earth-disturbing activities within a 100-foot radius of the area of discovery. The qualified professional shall be contacted to evaluate the significance of the finding an appropriate course of action. If avoidance of the resource(s) is not feasible, salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines shall be followed.

After the find has been appropriately avoided or mitigated, work in the area may resume.

MM CR-2 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
75 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
dedicated cemetery. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event that human remains are discovered, disturbance of the site shall be halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
76 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.6 Energy
Building Energy Conservation Standards
Energy conservation standards for new residential and non-residential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the California Energy Commission) in June 1977 and are updated every three years (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy.

The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On May 9, 2018, the California Energy Commission (CEC) adopted the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code), which went into effect on January 1, 2020. The CEC is currently preparing the 2022 Energy Code, which will improve upon the 2019 Energy Code for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and non-residential buildings. Proposed standards will be adopted in 2021 with an effective date of January 1, 2023. The California Energy Commission updates the standards every three years.12 The current 2019 Energy Code improve upon the previous 2016 Energy Code. Under the 2019 Title 24 standards, residential buildings are about 7 percent more energy efficient, and when the required rooftop solar is factored in for low-rise residential construction, residential buildings that meet 2019 Title 24 standards use about 53 percent less energy than those built to meet the 2016 standards. Non-residential buildings use about 30 percent less energy due mainly to lighting upgrades.13 Senate Bill 350
In September 2015, then California Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 350 (de León). This legislation established tiered increases to the Renewable Portfolio Standard—40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030.

Senate Bill 100
SB 100, referred to as “The 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2019, ”was signed into law by Governor Brown in September 2018 and increased the required Renewable Portfolio Standards established in SB 350.

Under SB 100, the total kilowatt hours (kWh) of energy sold by electricity retailers to their end-use customers must consist of at least 50 percent renewable resources by 2026, 60 percent renewable resources by 2030, and 100 percent renewable resources by 2045. SB 100 also establishes a State policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.

Threshold (a) Would the project result in a potentially significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation?
12 California Energy Commission, 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022-building-energyefficiency, Accessed March 4, 2021. 13 California Energy Commission, 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions, Available at:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf, Accessed March 4, 2021.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
77 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Less Than Significant Impact.

Electricity. Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the project area. The project is expected to use approximately 802,739 kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/year) based on California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod); refer to Appendix A (Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas data). Project implementation would result in a permanent increase in electricity over existing conditions. The increased demand is expected to be adequately served by the existing SCE electrical facilities. Total electricity demand in SCE’s service area is forecast to increase by approximately 12,000 gigawatt-hours (GWh)—or 12 billion kWh—between 2015 and 2026.14 The increase in electricity demand from the project would represent an insignificant percent increase compared to overall demand in SCE’s service area. Therefore, projected electrical demand would not significantly impact SCE’s level of service.

Based on the project schedule, the project would be required to comply with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which took effect on January 1, 2020. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City of South El Monte Building and Safety Department would review and verify that the project plans demonstrate compliance with the current version of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The project would also be required adhere to the provisions of CALGreen, which establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants.

Some design features include low voltage outdoor flood lights and high efficiency windows to reduce heating and cooling loads, reducing electricity consumption. Project development would not interfere with achievement of the 60 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard set forth in SB 100 for 2030 or the 100 percent standard for 2045. These goals apply to SCE and other electricity retailers. As electricity retailers reach these goals, emissions from end user electricity use would decrease from current emission estimates.

Natural Gas. Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas service to the project area.

The project is expected to use approximately 1,005,472 kilo-British thermal units per year (KBTU/year) of natural gas based on California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod); refer to Appendix A (Air Quality/ Greenhouse Gas Data). The increased demand is expected to be adequately served by the existing SoCalGas facilities. From 2020 to 2035, core demand is expected to decline from 934 million cubic feet (mcf) to 806 mcf, while supplies remain constant at 3.775 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd)15 from 2015 through 2035.16 Therefore, the natural gas demand from the proposed project would represent a nominal percentage of overall demand in SoCalGas’ service area. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.

Fuel. During construction, transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, vehicle miles traveled, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Transportation energy use during construction 14 California Energy Commission, California Energy Demand 2018-2030 Revised Forecast, Figure 49 Historical and Projected Baseline Consumption SCE Planning Area, Available at:
file:///C:/Users/elena.ajdari/Downloads/TN222287_20180120T141708_The_California_Energy_Demand_20182030_Revis ed_Forecast.pdf, Accessed March 4, 2021. 15 1 bcfd is equivalent to about 1.03 billion kBTU 16 California Gas and Electric Utilities, 2020 California Gas Report, Southern California Gas Company Annual Gas Supply 2020- 2035 Table 1-SCG, Available at:
https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/2020-
10/2020_California_Gas_Report_Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_Filing.pdf, Accessed March 4, 2021.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
78 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel and/or gasoline. The use of energy resources by these vehicles would fluctuate according to the phase of construction and would be temporary. Most construction equipment during demolition and grading would be gas-powered or diesel-powered, and the later construction phases would require electricity-powered equipment. Impacts related to transportation energy use during construction would be temporary and would not require expanded energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure; impacts would not be significant.

During operations, energy consumption would be associated with resident, visitor, and employee vehicle trips; delivery and supply trucks; and trips by maintenance and repair crews. The project is a mixed-use infill development, thereby reducing the need to travel long distances. The project is also near public transportation access, further reducing the need to for passenger vehicle trips. The City and surrounding areas are highly urbanized with numerous gasoline fuel facilities and infrastructure. Consequently, the proposed project would not result in a substantial demand for energy that would require expanded supplies or the construction of other infrastructure or expansion of existing facilities. Existing rules and regulations concerning vehicle fuel consumption efficiencies(CAFE Standards)17 would ensure that vehicle trips generated by the proposed project would not be considered as inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.

The proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant Impact. Project design and operation would comply with State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, appliance efficiency regulations, and green building standards (CALGreen). Project development would not cause inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption, and no adverse impact would occur. The proposed project would include design features such as high efficiency windows to reduce heating and cooling loads, Energy Star appliances, and high efficiency heating and cooling systems to reduce energy consumption and reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, the project is consistent with AB 32, which aims to decrease emissions statewide to 1990 levels by 2020 and the SB 32 goal of reducing emissions 40 percent below 1990 by 2030. Potential impacts are considered less than significant.

Further, the City’s General Plan 2014-2021 5th Cycle Update Housing Element and the City’s draft 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element include an Energy Efficiency Program and identify various conservation opportunities. Key elements of the Energy Efficiency Program include energy conservation measures, recycling, water conservation, and the use of alternative transit. The project would not conflict with the Energy Efficiency Program and benefit from the City’s implementation of its measures. The key elements of this program include the following:
 The City shall permit and encourage the installation of photovoltaic/solar and solar water heating systems on new residential construction consistent with local and state regulations.  The City will provide brochures and handouts promoting energy conservation from local utility providers at or near the planning counter. In addition, the City’s website will continue to be 17 U.S. Department of Transportation (2014). Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Available at:
https://www.transportation.gov/mission/sustainability/corporate-average-fuel-economy-cafe-standards, Accessed August 24, 2021.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
79 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
updated to publicize the availability of the various rebate programs and tax incentives that will reduce the cost of installing energy-saving devices.
 The City of South El Monte shall continue to support ongoing programs from SCE and Sempra Energy that promote energy conservation. The programs sponsored by the utility providers include rebates for energy conserving refrigerators, water heaters, and other household appliances.
 The City of South El Monte will review the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that there are no requirements that are overly restrictive concerning the installation of solar panels. The City will then amend the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that solar panels are permitted in all Zone Districts.  The City will consider reducing processing fees for those building improvements that involve the installation of solar panels.
18 Compliance with the Title 24 Energy Code standards and CALGreen standards would ensure the proposed project incorporates rooftop solar panels, energy efficient windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, water efficient fixtures, and other energy-efficient features. Further, the 2019 CALGreen standards requires the recycling and/or salvaging of a minimum of 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Adherence to the California Public Utilities Commission’s energy requirements, as well as the most current Title 24 and CALGreen standards would ensure conformance with the City of South El Monte General Plan goals and policies, as well as the State’s goal of promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required. 18 City of South El Monte General Plan, 2014-2021 5th Cycle Housing Element, Available at:
https://www.cityofsouthelmonte.org/DocumentCenter/View/856/2014-2021-5th-Cycle-Housing-Element-PDF, Accessed March 4, 2021. 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element, Available at:
https://www.cityofsouthelmonte.org/DocumentCenter/View/2322/SEM_Housing-Element-6th-Cycle_Public-ReviewDraft?bidId=. Accessed September 11, 2021.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
80 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.7 Geology and Soils
A Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report was prepared by Cal Land Engineering (Cal Land, July 2020). The report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix C and the results are summarized herein.

A Paleontological Record Search was conducted by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.

The record search is included in this Initial Study as Appendix D and the results are summarized herein.

Threshold (a.i) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
No Impact. According to the Alquist‐Priolo Fault Zone and Seismic Hazard Zone Map, the project site is not located in a Fault Zone.19 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts in relation to a rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Map. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (a.ii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The City, as well as most of Southern California, is located in a region of historic seismic activity. The project site could be subject to moderate to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on one of the regional faults. The closest fault to the project site is the Elysian Park (Upper) Fault, approximately 2.1 miles southwest of the project site. Due to the site’s proximity to several active faults, the proposed project would experience similar moderate to occasionally high ground shaking from these fault as well as ground shaking from other seismically active faults of the Southern California region. The potential for damage resulting from seismic‐related events include ground shaking, ground failure, and ground displacement. Strong levels of seismic ground shaking can cause damage, particularly to older and/or poorly constructed buildings. The proposed project construction would be required to conform to the seismic design parameters of the current California Building Code as adopted by the City. MM-GEO 1 requires the City to review all project plans for grading, foundation, structural, infrastructure, and all other relevant construction permits relative to the Cal Land Geotechnical Engineering Investigation and Code requirements. Compliance with MM-GEO 1 and applicable regulations would reduce potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level.

Threshold (a.iii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is the loss of strength where loose, saturated, relatively cohesion-less soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include intensity and duration of ground motion, characteristics of the subsurface soils, insitu stress condition, and the depth to groundwater. Soil susceptible to liquefaction includes loose to medium dense sand and gravel, low-plasticity silt, and some low-plasticity clay deposits. According to the State of California Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, El Monte Quadrangle map, the project site 19 California Department of Conservation, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation EQ Zapp Application, Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/, Accessed February 5, 2021 and September 11, 2021.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
81 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
is located in a Liquefaction Hazard Zone. The Geotechnical Engineering Investigation evaluated the site’s potential for liquefaction using a modeling program and on-site data and concluded that the clayey soil on the site is not susceptible to liquefaction. As discussed under Threshold 4.7aii, the City would review construction plans to verify compliance with standard engineering practices, the California Building Code, and the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report’s recommendations. Because the site is not considered susceptible to liquefaction, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (a.iv) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? No Impact. Landslides can occur if areas of steep slopes consisting of unstable soils are disturbed by ground shaking and/or heavy rainfall. Neither of these conditions exist on the project site. According to the State of California Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation El Monte Quadrangle map, the project site and surrounding vicinity are not located within an Earthquake-Induced Landslide Zone. There are no known landslides near the site nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides. Therefore, no impacts related to landslides would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Grading and earthwork activities during construction would expose soils to potential short-term erosion by wind and water. During construction, the proposed project would be required to comply with erosion and siltation control measures such as sand-bagging to reduce site runoff or hold topsoil in place prior to final grading and construction. Additionally, the proposed project is required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process since construction activities would exceed the one or more-acre threshold. Construction impacts would be minimized through compliance with the Construction General Permit. The NPDES permit requires development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and sediment-control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control potential construction-related pollutants. Erosion-control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. These requirements would ensure that potential project impacts are less than significant. The project would include BMPs and additional landscaping to prevent soil erosion from impervious surfaces. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (c) Would the project 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 an on-site or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? and Threshold (d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact. Landslides are gravity-driven movements of earth materials that may include rock, soil, unconsolidated sediment, or combinations of such materials. The primary factors influencing the stability of a slope are the nature of the underlying soil or bedrock, the geometry of the slope (height and steepness), and rainfall. Because the site is flat and is not adjacent to any slopes, the project site is not susceptible to landslides.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
82 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lateral spreading generally is a phenomenon where blocks of intact, non-liquefied soil moves downslope on a liquefied substrate of large areal extent. For lateral spreading to occur, a sloping site with an open face within or at some distance from the site typically exists and there is a potential for liquefaction to occur near the base of the open face. Because the project site is not sloping or considered susceptible to liquefaction, the site is not susceptible to lateral spreading.

Subsidence occurs when a large portion of land is displaced vertically, usually due to the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. Soils that are particularly subject to subsidence include those with high silt or clay content. The geotechnical study noted sandy clay -sandy silt mixture (CL-ML). In general, these soils exist in the slightly moist and stiff conditions. Underlying the surface soils, silty sand (SM), sand and silty sand mixture (SP-SM) and sandy clay (CL) were noted in the borings to the depths explored (51.5 feet). These soils exist in the stiff to very stiff and medium dense, to dense, and slightly moist to moist conditions. No large-scale extraction of groundwater, gas, oil, or geothermal energy is occurring or planned at the project site or in the general site vicinity. There appears to be little or no potential for ground subsidence due to withdrawal of fluids or gases at the project site. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service’s Web Soil Survey, the site is composed of Urban land Pico Metz complex, which are well drained.20 Urban land Pico Metz complex are not considered expansive soils due to their ability to transmit water efficiently. The project site is not considered susceptible to subsidence.

The proposed project would be required to conform with the most recently published California Building Code, City regulations, and other applicable standards as noted in SC GEO-1. Conformance with standard engineering practices and design criteria would reduce the potential for substantial risks to life or property as a result of expansive soils is minimal and the associated impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (e) Would the project 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?
No Impact. The project does not propose the use of septic tanks. The project would connect to the existing sanitary sewer system for wastewater disposal. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. The project site is currently mostly undeveloped with some paved areas. According to the record search results from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, no known fossil localities lie directly within the project site. Although no fossil localities were noted on the project site, the record search did identify other fossil localities that were found in the greater San Gabriel Valley area with similar sedimentary deposits. Although not expected, there is a possibility that project construction activities to affect unidentified paleontological resources. Therefore, implementation of MM GEO-2, which addresses the actions to be taken should 20 USDA Web Soil Survey, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, Accessed March 31, 2021.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
83 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
paleontological resources be found, is required to reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level.

Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project would be constructed in compliance with all applicable codes and in accordance with the mitigation set forth in this Initial Study, which are designed to reduce the exposure of people or structures to substantial risk of loss, injury, or death related to geological conditions or seismic events.

The potential cumulative impact related to earth and geology is typically site specific. The analysis herein determined that the project would not result in any significant impacts related to landform modification, grading, or the destruction of a geologically significant landform or feature with implementation of mitigation. Moreover, existing State and local laws and regulations are in place to protect people and property from substantial adverse geological and soils effects, including fault rupture, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-induced ground failure (including liquefaction), and landslides.

Existing laws and regulations also protect people and property from adverse effects related to soil erosion, expansive soils, loss of topsoil, development on an unstable geologic unit or soil type that could result in on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. These existing laws and regulations, along with mitigation required for the project, would render potentially adverse geological and soil effects less than significant. These existing laws and regulations also ensure that past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the region do not result in substantial adverse geological and soils effects. As a result, the existing legal and regulatory framework would ensure that the incremental geological and soils effects of the project would not result in greater adverse cumulative effects when considered together with the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in South El Monte and the greater Los Angeles County region. Therefore, the project—in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects—would not result in a cumulatively significant impact by exposing people or structures to risks related to geologic hazards, soils, or seismic conditions.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC GEO-1 The project is required to conform to the seismic design parameters of the 2019 California Building Code and the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (or applicable adopted code at the time of plan submittal or permit issuance).

Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City of South El Monte shall review all project plans for grading, foundation, structural, infrastructure, and all other relevant construction permits to ensure compliance with the applicable recommendations from the Geotechnical Investigation and other applicable Code requirements.

MM GEO-2 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit or permit for ground disturbance activities, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of South El Monte that a qualified professional paleontologist has been retained. The selection of the qualified professional(s) shall be subject to the acceptance of the City. In the event that paleontological are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, the contractor shall immediately cease all earthPage 157 of 816 Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
84 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
disturbing activities within a 100-foot radius of the area of discovery. The qualified professional shall be contacted to evaluate the significance of the finding an appropriate course of action. If avoidance of the resource(s) is not feasible, salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines shall be followed.

After the find has been appropriately avoided or mitigated, work in the area may resume.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
85 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates (Kimley-Horn, 2021) for the proposed project. The GHG modeling outputs and results are included in Appendix A of this Initial Study and the results are summarized herein.

Background
The “greenhouse effect” is the natural process that retains heat in the troposphere, the bottom layer of the atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, thermal energy would “leak” into space resulting in a much colder and inhospitable planet. With the greenhouse effect, the global average temperature is approximately 61˚F (16˚C). Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the components of the atmosphere responsible for the greenhouse effect. The amount of heat retained is proportional to the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere. As more GHGs are released into the atmosphere, GHG concentrations increase and the atmosphere retains more heat, increasing the effects of climate change. The Kyoto Protocol identified six gases for emission reduction targets: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). When accounting for GHGs, all types of GHG emissions are expressed in terms of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) and are typically quantified in metric tons (MT) or million metric tons (MMT).

Approximately 80 percent of the total heat stored in the atmosphere is caused by CO2, CH4, and N2O.

These three gases are emitted by human activities as well as natural sources. Each of the GHGs affects climate change at different rates and persists in the atmosphere for varying lengths of time. Global warming potential (GWP) is the relative measure of the potential for a GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere. The GWP allows comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases. Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of one ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of one ton of CO2. The larger the GWP, the more that a given gas warms the Earth compared to CO2 over that time period. GWPs provide a common unit of measure, which allows analysts to add up emissions estimates of different gases (e.g., to compile a national GHG inventory), and allows policymakers to compare emissions reduction opportunities across sectors and gases.

GHGs, primarily CO2, CH4, and N2O, are directly emitted as a result of stationary source combustion of natural gas in equipment such as water heaters, boilers, process heaters, and furnaces. GHGs are also emitted from mobile sources such as on-road vehicles and off-road construction equipment burning fuels such as gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, propane, or natural gas (compressed or liquefied). Indirect GHG emissions result from electric power generated elsewhere (i.e., power plants) used to operate process equipment, lighting, and utilities at a facility. Included in GHG quantification is electric power which is used to pump the water supply (e.g., aqueducts, wells, pipelines) and disposal and decomposition of municipal waste in landfills.
21 Regulations and Significance Criteria
Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-3-05 in June 2005, which established the following GHG emission reduction targets: (a) by 2010: Reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; (b) by 2020: Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and (c), by 2050: Reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
21 California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Scoping Plan, 2008.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
86 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Statutes of 2006, Health and Safety Code Section 38500 et seq. require that CARB determine what the statewide GHG emissions level was in 1990 and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit that is equivalent to that level, to be achieved by 2020. CARB has approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e). Additionally, issued in April 2015, Executive Order B-30-15 requires statewide GHG emissions to be reduced 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

Then Governor Jerry Brown issued Executive Order B-30-15 in April 2015, which requires statewide GHG emissions to be reduced 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. SB 32, signed into law in September 2016, codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target in Executive Order B-30-15. SB 32 authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions level target for the State to achieve by 2030, and to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective GHG reductions. With SB 32, the California Legislature passed companion legislation AB 197, which provided additional direction for developing an updated Scoping Plan. CARB released the second update to the Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 target set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32 in November 2017.

Additionally, signed into law in September 2018 by former Governor Brown, SB 100 increased California’s renewable electricity portfolio from 50 to 60 percent by 2030. SB 100 also established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045.

Due to the nature of global climate change, it is not anticipated that any single development project would have a substantial effect on global climate change. Addressing GHG emissions generation impacts requires an agency to determine what constitutes a significant impact. The State CEQA Guidelines specifically allow lead agencies to determine thresholds of significance that illustrate the extent of an impact and are a basis from which to apply mitigation measures. This means that each agency is to determine whether a project’s GHG emissions would have a “significant” impact on the environment. The State CEQA Guidelines direct that agencies are to use “careful judgment” and “make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” the project’s GHG emissions (14 CRC §15064.4(a)).

On September 28, 2010, the SCAQMD GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group recommended an interim screening level numeric bright‐line threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e annually, as well as an efficiency-based threshold of 4.8 metric tons of CO2e per service population (residents plus employees) per year in 2020 and 3.0 metric tons of CO2e per service population per year in 2035.22 The SCAQMD formed the Working Group to assist the SCAQMD’s efforts to develop a GHG significance threshold. The Working Group included a wide variety of stakeholders including the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR), CARB, the Attorney General’s Office, a city and county planning departments in the Air Basin, various utilities such as sanitation and power companies throughout the Air Basin, industry groups, and environmental and professional organizations. The 22 In Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, the Supreme Court held that the EIR prepared for the San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG) 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy did not need to include an analysis of the Plan’s consistency with GHG emission reduction goals of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 (established by EO S-3-05 to comply with CEQA. The Court’s opinion stated that the lead agency made "a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate" in part because it disclosed the 2050 emissions levels and identified the significance of the 2050 threshold to climate change impacts (i.e., to stabilization of temperature increases). The Court also noted that “a recent California Energy Commission report concludes, however, that the primary strategies to achieve this target should be major ‘decarbonization’ of electricity supplies and fuels, and major improvements in energy efficiency.”

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
87 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
numeric bright line and efficiency-based thresholds were developed to be consistent with CEQA requirements for developing significance thresholds. The thresholds are supported by substantial evidence and provide guidance to CEQA practitioners and lead agencies in determining whether GHG emissions from a proposed project are significant.

The City has not adopted project-specific significance thresholds. For the proposed project, the SCAQMD’s proposed 3,000 MTCO2e/yr non-industrial screening threshold is used as the significance threshold in addition to the qualitative thresholds of significance from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Section VII.

Threshold (a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. Pursuant to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a potentially significant impact if it generates GHG emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions. Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines specifies how the significance of GHG emissions is to be evaluated. The process is broken down into quantification of project-related GHG emissions, making a determination of significance, and specification of appropriate mitigation if impacts are found to be potentially significant.

The proposed project would result in direct emissions of GHGs from construction and operations. Direct project-related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources, while indirect sources include emissions from electricity consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation. Operational GHG estimations are based on energy emissions from natural gas usage and automobile emissions. CalEEMod relies upon trip data; the project’s Transportation Study and project-specific land use data was used to calculate emissions. Table 4.8-1: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions presents the estimated GHG emissions of the proposed project.

Table 4.8-1: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source CO2e (Metric Tons/Year)
Construction Emissions (2022) 281
Construction Emissions (2023) 494
Construction Emissions (2024) 19
Total Construction Emissions 794
Construction Emissions Amortized over 30 Years 26.47
Area Source 17
Energy 248
Mobile 1,054
Waste 13
Water 32
Total 1,390.47
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
Note: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for Model Data Outputs.

Source: Kimley-Horn, 2021.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
88 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Project total construction would result in the generation of approximately 794 metric tons of CO2e during construction (or 26.47 metric tons amortized over 30 years)23. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease. Forecasted GHGs from construction have been quantified and amortized over the life of the project (30 years). The amortized construction emissions are added to the annual average operational emissions.

Operational emissions consist of area sources, energy sources, mobile sources, solid waste generation, water use, and wastewater treatment. Area source emissions occur from architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and consumer products. Mobile source emissions are based on the net new vehicle trips generated by the proposed project. Emissions from water consumption occur from energy use for conveyance and treatment, and emissions from solid waste occur as materials decompose. The proposed project would result in project-related GHG emissions of 1,390.47 MTCO2/yr. Therefore, the project would not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2eq per year significance threshold. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of South El Monte does not have an adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP) or Citywide GHG Reduction Plan for land use development projects.

The proposed project would be required to comply with all building codes in effect at the time of construction which include energy conservation measures mandated by Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code – Energy Efficiency Standards. Because Title 24 standards require energy conservation features in new construction (e.g., high-efficiency lighting, high‐efficiency heating, ventilating, and air‐ conditioning (HVAC) systems, thermal insulation, double‐glazed windows, water conserving plumbing fixtures), they indirectly regulate and reduce GHG emissions. California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated on an approximately three‐year cycle. The proposed project would be consistent with energy efficiency measures. Therefore, the project is consistent with AB 32, which aims to decrease emissions statewide to 1990 levels by the year 2020 and the SB 32 goal of reducing emissions 40 percent below 1990 by 2030.

In addition, the proposed project would comply with all SCAQMD applicable rules and regulations during construction of the operational phase and would not interfere with the State’s goals set forth in AB 32 and SB 32. In addition, the proposed project does not interfere with State efforts to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 in accordance with SB 32. Approximately 94 percent of the proposed project’s emissions are from energy and mobile sources which would be further reduced by implementation of the 2017 Scoping Plan. It should be noted that the City has no control over vehicle emissions (approximately 76 percent of the proposed project’s total emissions). However, these emissions would decline in the future due to statewide measures including the reduction in the carbon content of fuels, CARB’s advanced clean car program, CARB’s mobile source strategy, fuel efficiency standards, cleaner technology, and fleet turnover. Additionally, SCAG expects implementation of its Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) to help California reach its GHG 23 The project lifetime is based on the standard 30‐year assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13, August 26, 2009).

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
89 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
reduction goals, with reductions in per capita transportation emissions of 19 percent by 2035. 24 The
proposed project is an infill mixed-use development project near locally-serving commercial uses and several Metro bus stops, thereby potentially reducing the need to travel long distances.25 Accordingly, the proposed project does not interfere with the State’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions in 2030.

Concerning Executive Order S-3-05’s goals for 2050, it is not currently possible to quantify all emissions savings from future regulatory measures because these measures have not yet been developed. Just as the proposed project’s GHG emissions would decrease over time in compliance with regulations that the State will phased over time, it can be anticipated that operation of the proposed project would comply with or benefit from all applicable measures enacted by State lawmakers to reach the goal of an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. This percentage reduction is the level of GHG emissions that the State’s GHG regulators believe the State needs to achieve in order to stabilize GHG-induced temperature increases and limit GHG impacts in California’s environment. The analysis in this IS/MND documents what can reasonably be known about the current regulation of GHG emissions and predict GHG impacts to the extent possible based on scientific and factual data. Further analysis would be speculative; therefore, in compliance with CEQA, this Initial Study provides no further analysis or conclusions concerning the proposed project’s long-term GHG affects.

Further, as noted above, the proposed project is required to comply with all building codes in effect at the time of construction which include energy conservation measures mandated by Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code – Energy Efficiency Standards. Title 24 is part of the State's plans and regulations for reducing emissions of GHGs to meet and exceed AB 32 and SB 32 energy reduction goals. Because Title 24 standards require energy conservation features in new construction, they help reduce GHG emissions.

As previously noted, California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated on an approximately three‐year cycle and the most recent 2019 standards went into effect on January 1, 2020.

Consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, SB 32, and Title 24, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on GHG emissions and no mitigation is required.

Cumulative Impacts
As addressed in this Initial Study, because of the global nature of the climate change problem, most projects will not generate GHG emissions that individually will cause a significant impact on global climate change. Therefore, the analysis of a project’s GHG impacts is typically not considered individually but is analyzed against the GHG emissions of existing and proposed projects within the region, State, and ultimately against global emissions and how the emissions can cumulatively affect global climate change.

This concept is supported in the various Attorney General, State Clearinghouse, and SCAQMD publications.26 Further, the proposed project demonstrates consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan, 24 Southern California Association of Governments, The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of The Southern California Association of Governments, adopted September 3, 2020, p. 9. 25 The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (August 2010) identifies that infill developments, such as the proposed project reduce vehicle miles traveled which reduces fuel consumption. Infill projects such as the proposed project would have an improved location efficiency. 26 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review Technical Advisory, June 2008; South Coast Air Quality Management District, Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, October 2008; Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 538 F.3d 1172, 1215-1217 [9th Cir. 2008].

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
90 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, SB 32, and Title 24. The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact associated with GHGs.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC GHG‐1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant/Property Owner shall be required to demonstrate to the Planning Department, Building Division that building plans meet the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-residential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods.

SC GHG‐2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant/Property Owner shall be required to demonstrate to the Planning Division, Building Division that building plans meet the applicable California Green Building Standards (CalGreen) Code (24 CCR 11).

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
91 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section provides a discussion of existing conditions, potential impacts, and mitigation measures to avoid or minimize the significance of such impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials as a result of the implementation of the project. Information in this section is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report (ESA) prepared by Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. (March 2019); the report is included in Appendix E of this Initial Study.

Additionally, Kimley-Horn conducted a regulatory database search of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor website (http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/) and the State Water Resources Control Board's geotracker website (http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/). The database search was performed to identify potential new hazardous material-regulated facilities on or near the project site.

Regulatory Setting
The management of hazardous materials is regulated by various federal, State, and local agencies. Federal and State agencies include the U.S. EPA, United States Department of Transportation (DOT), California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), DTSC, California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the California Highway Patrol. Local agencies include the Los Angeles County Fire Department which regulates hazardous materials use, storage, and disposal within the City.

Existing Site Conditions
As part of the Phase I ESA, a site reconnaissance was conducted on March 22, 2019, which noted that the project site is mostly undeveloped but used as an impound yard with multiple vehicles stored on the site.

Site reconnaissance also noted a small six-foot by six-foot guard shack in the southeastern corner of the property. There is existing streetscape fronting Rosemead Boulevard and very limited vegetation on Mabel Avenue. Eight trees are on the project site.

Based on review of historical records, the property was vacant farmland in the 1920s and later developed with a single-family residence in the 1930s. The single-family residence and garage were cleared by the 1950s. The property was then used as a County of Los Angeles Vehicle Impound Yard in the mid-1950s.

Other surrounding properties have been commercially developed since the 1960s. Record search and review could not confirm if the project site is still actively used as an impound yard.

Site reconnaissance did not find significant storage of, or stains from hazardous chemicals or distressed vegetation on the project site. No oil or gas wells, underground tanks, clarifiers, or sumps were identified as being previously or presently on or adjacent to the property. No off-site source was identified that could adversely impact the property. No pesticide/herbicide, PCB, or chemical contamination were likely to be on the project site.

Threshold (a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. Exposure of the public or the environment to hazardous materials can occur through transportation accidents; environmentally unsound disposal methods; improper handling of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes (particularly by untrained personnel); and/or emergencies, such as explosions or fires. The severity of these potential effects varies by type of activity, concentration

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
92 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
and/or type of hazardous materials or wastes, and proximity to sensitive receptors. Project construction is not anticipated to involve the transport, use, creation or disposal of hazardous materials. Small quantities of potentially hazardous substances such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricants for machines, and other petroleum-based products would be used on the project site, mostly during the proposed project’s construction phase. Should any unknown contaminated soils or other hazardous materials be discovered and be removed from the project site, the soils/material can be transported only by a licensed hazardous waste hauler in covered containment devices in compliance with all applicable County, State, and federal requirements.

The project proposed a mixed-use residential and retail development. It is assumed that use, storage, and transport of routinely-used hazardous materials would occur in compliance with the established regulatory framework. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or involve hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. However, the proposed project could involve the transport and use of materials associated with routine maintenance of the property, such as janitorial supplies for cleaning purposes and/or herbicides and pesticides for landscaping. The types and quantities of materials associated with routine maintenance would not be significant enough to create a reasonable foreseeable upset or accident. Further, the Los Angeles County Fire Department routinely provides inspections to ensure the safe storage, management, and disposal of any hazardous materials in accordance with the federal, State, and local regulations. Therefore, no significant impacts related to exposing the public or the environment to significant hazards through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the project 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the DTSC Envirostor database, the San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site (ID: 60001339) covers the entire City of South El Monte and portions of the cities of El Monte and Rosemead. The San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site is listed on the database due to exceedances in State and federal drinking water standards for groundwater, specifically in volatile organic compounds (VOC) (PCE, TCE, 1,4-dioxane, and perchlorate). The U.S. EPA issued the Interim Record of Decision to address VOC-impacted groundwater in 2000 and continued groundwater remediation and monitoring in 2012 and 2013. The U.S. EPA is evaluating the need for additional cleanup for the San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site. A May 2021 Progress Update published by the U.S. EPA notes that South El Monte local water agencies currently operate three water treatment systems that clean the groundwater and provide drinking water to homes in the San Gabriel Valley. In 2021 the U.S EPA will complete a streamline study for cleanup options and do a Five-Year Review of the current cleanup plan.27 According to State Water Resources Control Board Geotracker database, five Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs) Clean Up Sites and four Cleanup Program Sites are located within 0.25 mile of the project site, as identified in Table 4.9-1: LUST and Cleanup Sites.

According to the Phase I ESA, the project site and adjacent properties are not listed as known contaminated sites and hazardous materials/underground tank permit sites. Further, no active 27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2021). San Gabriel Valley Superfund Sites Progress Update, Available at:
https://wqa.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/SGV-All-Site-Fact-Sheet-5-5-2021-FinalUpdated.pdf, Accessed September 14, 2021.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
93 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
environmental cleanup sites are within 2,000 feet of the project site. Although the City of South El Monte, inclusive of the project site, is part of the San Gabriel Valley Superfund site, the nature of the project would not impact ongoing remediation of the superfund site and would not include earth-disturbing activities such as drilling or extraction of groundwater supplies.

Table 4.9-1: LUST and Cleanup Sites
Category Address Status Case Year
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Cleanup Sites
2737 Lee Ave, El Monte Completed – Case
Closed
1980
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Cleanup Sites
9420 Garvey Ave, South El
Monte
Completed – Case
Closed
1995
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Cleanup Sites
9432 Garvey Ave E, El Monte Open - Remediation 1991
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Cleanup Sites
9401 Garvey Ave, South El
Monte
Completed – Case
Closed
2001
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Cleanup Sites
9505 E Garvey Ave, South El
Monte
Completed – Case
Closed
2001
Cleanup Program Sites 2652 Lashbrook Ave, South El
Monte
Open - Inactive 1965
Cleanup Program Sites 3154 Rosemead Blvd, El Monte Open – Site assessment
1965
Cleanup Program Sites 9452 Garvey Ave, South El
Monte
Completed – Case
Closed
1985
Cleanup Program Sites 9452 Garvey Ave, South El
Monte
Completed – Case
Closed
1985
Source: State Water Resources Control Board Geotracker database Project construction would include demolition of all structures on the project site, including the guard shack. Asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint (LBP) may be present in some of the building materials found in the guard shack. Any activity that involves cutting, grinding, or drilling during building demolition, or that involves relocation of underground utilities, could release friable asbestos fibers unless proper precautions are taken. The federal Clean Air Act regulates asbestos as a hazardous air pollutant, which subjects it to regulation by SCAQMD under its Rule 1403. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) also regulates asbestos as a potential worker safety hazard. All hazardous building materials, including asbestos, lead-based paint and universal wastes, would be abated in accordance with SCAQMD rules and in accordance with all applicable laws, including guidelines from OSHA. Therefore, implementation of MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2 would be required. MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2 would require an asbestos survey with certified asbestos abatement contractor and formal leadbased paint survey with requalified lead abatement contractor, respectively.

The storage, use, handling, and disposal of any hazardous materials (such as paints and solvents) that might be stored on the site during construction are addressed by federal, State, and local laws, regulations and programs. Compliance with federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and programs would reduce the risk of hazardous material incidents. Implementation of MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2 would reduce impacts related to ACMs and LBP to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
94 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment with mitigation incorporated.

Threshold (c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less Than Significant Impact. No schools are within 0.25 mile of the project site. The nearest school is Potrero Elementary School at 2611 Potrero Avenue, approximately 0.4 mile east of the project site. The project does not propose any uses which could potentially generate hazardous materials in significant quantities that would have an impact to schools. As such, no significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (d) Would the project 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 create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less than Significant Impact. Government Code Section 65962.5 refers to the Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, commonly known as the Cortese List, maintained by the DTSC28. The Cortese list contains hazardous waste and substance sites including public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination, sites with known underground storage tanks (USTs) having a reportable release, solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration, hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action, historic Cortese sites, and sites with known toxic material identified through the abandoned site assessment program. A regulatory agency database search was conducted as part of the Phase I ESA; see Appendix E. As discussed above, there are no active environmental cleanup sites are within 2,000 feet of the project site.

Although the City of South El Monte, inclusive of the project site, is part of the San Gabriel Valley Superfund site, the nature of the project would not impact ongoing remediation of the superfund site and would not include earth-disturbing activities such as drilling or extraction of groundwater supplies.

Further, the Phase I ESA concluded there are no areas of concern on the project site. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The project site is approximately two miles southwest of San Gabriel Valley Airport (also known as the El Monte Airport). The El Monte Airport Master Plan (Master Plan) Report reviews the Airport development’s current status, anticipated future use, and proposed future flight path. The Master Plan must be consistent with the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCP) cover aviation activities of 15 Los Angeles County public use airports, including the San Gabriel Valley Airport. The ALUCP depicts the Airport’s boundaries and development restrictions. According to the San Gabriel Valley Airport 28 California, State of, Department of Toxic Substances Control, DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List - Site Cleanup (Cortese List). Available at: https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/. Accessed: September 14, 2021.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
95 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Layout Plan Land Use Drawing, Sheet No. 8, the project site is not within the Airport’s influence area or noise contours. 29 Therefore, the project would not result in an airport-related safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working at the project site. area. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is in an area where adequate vehicular circulation and access is provided to facilitate emergency response. According to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Rosemead Boulevard is designated as an evacuation route. 30 Rosemead Boulevard
borders the project’s eastern boundary. Construction activities are expected to be primarily contained within the project site boundaries and would not require the complete closure of any public or private streets or roadways during construction. The project is proposed as a mixed-use development and would not include activities that would interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan.

The proposed building configuration would be subject to compliance with applicable fire codes, including proper emergency exits for residents and patrons; see Section 4.15: Public Services, Threshold (a). As such, project implementation would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Impact. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has mapped fire threat potential throughout California.
31 CAL FIRE ranks fire threats based on the availability of fuel and the likelihood of an area burning (based on topography, fire history, and climate). The rankings include no fire threat, moderate, high, and very high fire threats. According to CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map for Los Angeles County, the project site is not in a State Responsibility Area. The project site is in a Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (Non-VHFHSZ) zone within a local responsible area. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a risk involving wildland fires. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Cumulative Impacts
The incremental effects of the proposed project related to hazards and hazardous materials, if any, are anticipated to be minimal, and any effects would be site-specific. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in incremental effects to hazards or hazardous materials that could be compounded or increased when considered together with similar effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. The proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to or from hazards or hazardous materials.
29 County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning, Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission, San Gabriel Valley Airport Layout Plan, May 2015. Available at: https://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/aluc_elmonteplan.pdf. Accessed March 9, 2021. 30 County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Disaster Route Maps, City of South El Monte. Available at:
https://pw.lacounty.gov/dsg/DisasterRoutes/map/South%20El%20Monte.pdf. Accessed March 9, 2021. 31 California, State of, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer, Available at:
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed June 15, 2021.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
96 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-1 In accordance with National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines, an asbestos survey shall be performed on any structures proposed for demolition that are known or suspected to have been constructed prior to 1980. If asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) are determined to be present, the materials shall be abated by a certified asbestos abatement contractor in accordance with the regulations and notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Demolition and disposal of ACMs shall be completed in accordance with the procedures specified by SCAQMD’s Rule 1403.

MM HAZ-2 A lead-based paint survey shall be performed on any structure proposed for demolition that are known or suspected to have been constructed prior to 1980. If lead-based paint is identified, then federal and State construction worker health and safety regulations shall be followed during renovation or demolition activities. If loose or peeling lead-based paint is identified at the structure, it shall be removed by a qualified lead abatement contractor and disposed of in accordance with existing hazardous waste regulations.

Requirements set forth in the California Code of Regulations shall be followed during demolition activities, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
97 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
In July 2020, Cal Land Engineering prepared a Hydrology Report, a Low Impact Development Plan, and Infiltration Report for the proposed project. The technical studies are summarized below and provided in Appendix F of this Initial Study.

Threshold (a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Project impacts related to water quality could occur over three different periods:
 During the earthwork and construction phase, where the potential for erosion, siltation, and sedimentation would be the greatest;
 Following construction, before the establishment of ground cover, when the erosion potential may remain relatively high; and
 After project completion, when impacts related to sedimentation would decrease markedly but those associated with urban runoff would increase.

Urban runoff, both dry and wet weather, discharges into storm drains, and in most cases, flows directly to creeks, rivers, lakes, and the ocean. Polluted runoff can have harmful effects on drinking water, recreational water, and wildlife. Urban runoff pollution includes a wide array of environmental, storm water characteristics depend on site conditions (e.g., land use, impervious cover, and pollution prevention practices), rain events (duration, amount of rainfall, intensity, and time between events), soil type and particle sizes, the amount of vehicular traffic, and atmospheric deposition. Major pollutants typically found in runoff from urban areas include sediments, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, pathogens, and bacteria. Most urban storm water discharges are considered non-point sources.

Runoff from the project site flows in a northeast to the southwest direction towards Troy Avenue. Runoff ultimately drains into a Los Angeles County Storm Drain (MTD 0138) which flows south in Rosemead Boulevard and intersects with a drainage facility (ID name: BI 1115) in East Rush Street. BI 1115 flows east and confluences into the Rio Hondo Channel. The Rio Hondo Channel eventually flows into the Los Angeles River and discharges into the Pacific Ocean.

Construction
Short-term impacts related to water quality can occur during the earthwork and construction phases when the potential for erosion, siltation, and sedimentation would be the greatest. Additionally, impacts could occur prior to the establishment of ground cover when the erosion potential may remain relatively high. Project construction has the potential to produce typical pollutants, such as nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides and herbicides, and chemicals related to construction and cleaning, waste materials, including wash water, paints, wood, paper, concrete, food container, sanitary wastes, fuel, and lubricants. Impacts to storm water quality could occur from construction, and associated earth-moving, and increased pollutant loading.

Construction activity subject to the Construction General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit) includes any construction or demolition activity, including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, grubbing, or excavation, or any other activity that results

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
98 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
in a land disturbance of equal to or greater than one acre. The proposed project would disturb more than one acre of land surface and would therefore be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES storm water program. Construction activities would be required to comply with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) consistent with the General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activity (Construction Activity General Permit). To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, the Applicant is required to file with the State Water Board, Permit Registration Documents that include a Notice of Intent (NOI) and other compliance-related documents. The Construction General Permit requires development and implementation of a SWPPP and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and sediment-control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control potential construction-related pollutants. Erosioncontrol BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized.

Additionally, the project would be required to comply with Municipal Code Chapter 8.44, known as the South El Monte Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The Ordinance sets forth requirements for construction and operation of developments within the City to ensure compliance with the City’s current NPDES permit and to reduce pollutant loading in stormwater discharges by the maximum extent practicable. Compliance with any conditions and requirements established by the City in order to meet federal and State water quality requirements related to storm water runoff would be verified during the plan check process. The Ordinance contains guidelines on structural and non-structural BMPs for meeting the NPDES goals. These requirements would ensure that potential project impacts related to soil erosion, siltation, and sedimentation remain less than significant and avoid violation to any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

Operations
Under existing conditions, the project site is somewhat impervious and does not promote substantial stormwater infiltration. In the post-development condition, the project site would be approximately 94 percent impervious, with the remaining 6 percent consisting of pervious landscaping areas.

The proposed drainage pattern would be similar to the existing condition, except the proposed site would drain to an infiltration system located in the southern portion of the site before overflowing to Troy Avenue. Implementation of BMPs would manage and capture stormwater runoff to reduce potential impacts on the County Flood Control District’s stormwater drainage system. In order to comply with the new development and redevelopment standards of the Los Angeles County Municipal NPDES Permit (MS4 permit), a Low Impact Development (LID) Plan has been prepared to determine the best capability of the project to use BMPs to manage and capture stormwater runoff. The project’s LID Plan assumes flows would enter a continuous deflection separation inlet for pretreatment prior to discharge into an onsite drainage pipe. Additionally, a perforated pipe would be constructed as a treatment BMP to reduce off-site flows. Excess flows would be directed to a sump pump located at the southwestern corner of the site and discharged into the County Flood Control District’s parkway drain along Troy Avenue.

Further, the proposed project would incorporate source control measures designed to prevent pollutants from contacting stormwater runoff or prevent discharge of contaminated stormwater runoff to the storm drain system. Since the project would affect more than 1 acre and create greater than 10,000 sf of impervious area, it would be required to implement Source Control Measures 1, 8, and 9 as defined by Los Angeles County Public Works LID standards manual. Under Source Control Measure 1, the project would incorporate storm drain messaging and signage to inform site residents and visitors that dumping

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
99 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
of wastes into storm drains is prohibited and that the drain ultimately discharges into receiving waters.

Under Source Control Measure 8, the project would incorporate efficient landscape irrigation methods to reduce site runoff and the potential for pollutants to enter the storm drain system. Under Source Control Measure 9, the project would use alternate building materials to eliminate compounds such as heavy metals and chemicals from pressure-treated wood from entering the drainage system.

All new development is required to comply with existing water quality standards and waste discharge regulations set forth by the State Water Quality Control Board. The proposed project would comply with these regulations. All new development is required to comply with existing water quality standards and waste discharge regulations set forth by the State Water Quality Control Board. The proposed project would comply with these regulations. Waste discharges are to be connected to the public wastewater system. Therefore, the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less Than Significant Impact. The San Gabriel Valley Water Company (SGVWC) provides water service in the City. SGVWC uses local groundwater from 31 wells located in the Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin (Main Basin) and from 4 wells located in the Central Groundwater Basin (Central Basin). The Main Basin is a large groundwater basin replenished by stream runoff from the adjacent mountains and hills, by rainfall directly on the surface of the valley floor, subsurface inflow from Raymond Basin and Puente Basin, and by return flow from water applied for overlying uses. Additionally, the Main Basin is replenished with imported water. The total freshwater storage capacity of the Main Basin is estimated to be approximately

8.7 million acre-feet (AF). Of that, approximately 1,000,000 AF have been used historically in Main Basin operations.

Historical data indicates the Main Basin and Central Basin have been well managed for the full period of the adjudications, resulting in a stable and reliable water supply. There are no contemplated basin management changes, other than increasing direct use of recycled water and the planned use of recycled water for groundwater replenishment in the Main Basin to reduce the need to import water from other regions. Therefore, the groundwater supplies in the Main Basin and Central Basin are deemed reliable.

The project site overlies the Main Basin. In July 2020, a field investigation was conducted at three on-site locations, which included excavation and boring to a maximum depth of 51.5 feet. No groundwater was encountered in the borings. As previously addressed, on-site improvements would allow for infiltration and source control design measures. Water would flow toward the BMPs and infiltrate into the native soil below the finished grade. Heavy flows would discharge to the historic low point on the site before following the existing drainage pattern and discharging to the southwest into an existing parkway drain along Troy Avenue. Although the project would increase the amount of on‐site impervious surfaces, the proposed drainage system would maximize ground infiltration and limit pollutants from entering the water system. Therefore, the project would not significantly impact local groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
100 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Threshold (c.i.) Would the project 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 result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? and
Threshold (c.ii.)Would the project 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 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, such that erosion or siltation would result. The proposed project does not contain nor is adjacent to a stream or river. Further, the proposed project would not result in a significant change to the site’s drainage pattern. As previously addressed, the proposed project would follow the site’s existing drainage pattern. Project construction would temporarily expose on-site soils to surface water runoff. The SWPPP and monitoring plan must include erosion-control and sediment-control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control potential construction-related pollutants. Erosion-control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion;sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized.

Implementation of BMPs would manage and capture stormwater runoff to reduce potential impacts on the County Flood Control District’s stormwater drainage system. In order to comply with the new development and redevelopment standards of the Los Angeles County Municipal NPDES Permit (MS4 permit), a Low Impact Development (LID) Plan has been prepared to determine the best capability of the project to use BMPs to manage and capture stormwater runoff. The project’s LID Plan assumes flows would enter a continuous deflection separation inlet for pretreatment prior to discharge into an onsite drainage pipe. Additionally, a perforated pipe would be constructed as a treatment BMP to reduce off-site flows. Excess flows would be directed to a sump pump located at the southwestern corner of the site and discharged into the County Flood Control District’s parkway drain along Troy Avenue.

The proposed project would incorporate source control measures designed to prevent pollutants from contacting stormwater runoff or prevent discharge of contaminated stormwater runoff to the storm drain system following project construction. Water would drain to a continuous deflection separation inlet and perforated pipe, then infiltrate into the native soil below the finished grade. Heavy flows would discharge to the historic low point on-site before entering a sump pump and following the existing drainage pattern for discharge into the existing parkway drain at Troy Avenue. Significant alterations to existing drainage patterns within the project site and surrounding area would not occur. No flooding would occur on the site. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (c.iii.) Would the project 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 create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. The City is primarily built out and contains an existing storm water drainage system. Runoff from the project site would be discharged into existing storm drain facilities. Therefore,

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
101 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
the project would not require construction of new storm drain facilities. During construction, the construction plans would be reviewed along with supporting hydrology reports and calculations and the project would be required to comply with NPDES requirements, as well as Municipal Code Chapter 8.44 to ensure that any potential impacts associated with runoff and water quality during grading and construction of the project would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (c.iv.) Would the project 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 impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. The project site is not located in a 100-year hazard flood zone area. Based on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 06037C16755F, the project site is within Zone X, which is classified as an area of minimal flood hazard located outside the special flood hazard area and higher than the elevation of the

0.2 percent change flood.32 Further, the project would use infiltration BMPs to reduce off-site runoff. The project site is not subject to flooding and would not impede or redirect flood flows. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact. According to the California Geologic Survey Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, the project site is not within a coastal area and therefore not subject to impacts associated with inundation by tsunami. The project is a mixed use development project and would involve the use of materials associated with routine maintenance of the property, such as janitorial supplies for cleaning purposes and/or herbicides and pesticides for landscaping. The project is not within a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone and would not risk the release of pollutants. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed under threshold a), the project would comply with water quality standards and provisions. In 2014, the State adopted the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), which provides authority for agencies to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans or alternative plans that demonstrate the sustainable management of water basins.33 The San Gabriel Valley Water Company (SGVWC) manages groundwater to protect the long-term sustainability of the Main Basin and Central Basin and to protect against land subsidence. Based on historical and ongoing management practices, SGVWC is able to rely on the Main Basin for adequate supply over the next 20 years under single year and multiple year drought cycles. The Main Basin’s spreading program and the guaranteed minimum inflow from the Main Basin has resulted in the recovery of water levels in wells throughout the Central Basin. In each drought cycle, the Central Basin has been managed to maintain water levels. Therefore, based on historical and ongoing management practices, 32 FEMA. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06037C1665F. https://msc.fema.gov/portal#. Accessed March 4, 2021. 33 State Water Resources Control Board. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/gmp/sgma.html. Accessed March 4, 2021.