final environmental impact report...environmental impact report (eir) for the proposed marriott...

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

City of Pasadena, Planning & Community Development Department

State Clearinghouse Number: 2012071031

Pasadena Marriott Residence Inn ProjectMay 2013

i

Table of Contents

Section1Summary.............................................................................................................................................1‐1

Section2CorrectionsandAdditions............................................................................................................2‐1

Section3CommentsandResponses.............................................................................................................3‐1

ListofPublicAgenciesandPrivatePartiesCommeingontheDraftEIR......................................3‐1LetterNo.1 NativeAmericanHeritageCommission................................................................3‐3LetterNo.2 StateofCalifornia,Governor’sOfficeofPlanningandResearch............3‐11LetterNo.3 CountySanitationDistrictsofLosAngelesCounty......................................3‐17LetterNo.4 StateofCalifornia,Governor’sOfficeofPlanningandResearch............3‐21LetterNo.5 UNITEHERE!Local11..............................................................................................3‐29LetterNo.6 NicholasBaldwin.........................................................................................................3‐33

CommentsReceivedatthePublicHearingontheDraftEIR...........................................................3‐36

Section4MitigationMonitoringandReportingProgram.....................................................................4‐1

Table of Contents

ii

Thispageintentionallyleftblank.

1‐1

Section 1

Summary

Introduction InaccordancewiththeCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA),specifically,CEQAGuidelinesSections15088,15089,and15132,theCityofPasadena(theCity)haspreparedtheFinalEnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR)fortheproposedMarriottResidenceInnProject(proposedprojectorproject).AFinalEIRisdefinedbySection15362(b)oftheCEQAGuidelinesas“containingtheinformationcontainedintheDraftEIR;comments,eitherinverbatimorinsummaryreceivedinthereviewprocess;alistofpersonscommenting;andtheresponsesoftheLeadAgencytothecommentsreceived.”

TheFinalEIRisorganizedinthefollowingSections:

Section1–Summary:ThisSectionisintendedtoprovideasummaryoftheCEQArequirements,includingProjectLocation,SettingandDescriptioninformation,AlternativestotheProject,AreasofControversy,IssuestobeResolvedandaSummaryoftheProjectImpactsandMitigationMeasures.

Section2–CorrectionsandAdditions:ThisSectionincludeschangestotextwithintheDraftEIRasaresultofeithercommentsreceivedfrominterestedpartiesduringthepublicreviewperiodorasinitiatedbytheLeadAgency(CityofPasadenaorCity).Alistofpublicagencies,organizations,andindividualswhosubmittedcommentsontheDraftEIRisprovided.

Section3–CommentsandResponses:ThisSectionincludesallcommentsreceivedontheDraftEIRduringthedocument’s60‐daypublicreviewperiod,whichbeganonJanuary4,2013andwascompletedonMarch4,2013.ResponsestocommentsreceivedontheDraftEIRhavebeenpreparedandareincludedinthisSectionofthisFinalEIR.

Section4–MitigationMonitoringandReportingProgram:ThisSectionincludesalistofallmitigationmeasuresfortheprojectandidentifiesthetimingassociatedwith,andentityresponsiblefor,implementingeachmitigationmeasureinatableformat.Spaceisprovidedwithinthetablefortrackingmitigationimplementationandeffectiveness.

Thisdocument,alongwiththeDraftEIR(incorporatedbyreference),makeuptheFinalEIRasdefinedinCEQAGuidelines,Section15132,whichstates:

TheFinalEIRshallconsistof:

(a)TheDraftEIRorarevisionoftheDraft.

(b)CommentsandrecommendationsreceivedontheDraftEIReitherverbatimorinsummary.

(c)Alistofpersons,organizations,andpublicagenciescommentingontheDraftEIR.

(d)TheresponsesoftheLeadAgencytosignificantenvironmentalpointsraisedinthereviewandconsultationprocess.

Section 1 Summary

1‐2

(e)AnyotherinformationaddedbytheLeadAgency.

Uses of the Final EIR TheFinalEIRallowsthepublicandthedecisionmakerstheopportunitytoreviewrevisionstotheDraftEIR,thecommentsandresponsestothosecomments,andothercomponentsoftheEIR,suchastheMitigationMonitoringandReportingProgram,priortoapprovaloftheproject.TheFinalEIRservesastheenvironmentaldocumenttosupportapprovaloftheproposedproject,eitherinwholeorinpart.

AftercompletingtheFinalEIR,andbeforeapprovingtheproject,theLeadAgencymustmakethefollowingthreecertificationsasrequiredbySection15090oftheCEQAGuidelines:

ThattheFinalEIRhasbeencompletedincompliancewithCEQA;

ThattheFinalEIRwaspresentedtothedecision‐makingbodyoftheLeadAgency,andthatthedecision‐makingbodyreviewedandconsideredtheinformationcontainedintheFinalEIRpriortoapprovingtheproject;and

ThattheFinalEIRreflectstheLeadAgency’sindependentjudgmentandanalysis.

Additionally,pursuanttoSection15093(b)oftheCEQAGuidelines,whenaLeadAgencyapprovesaprojectthatwouldresultinsignificantunavoidableimpactsthataredisclosedintheFinalEIR,theagencymuststateitsreasonsforsupportingtheapprovedactioninwriting.ThisStatementofOverridingConsiderationsissupportedbysubstantialinformationintherecord,whichincludestheFinalEIR.However,sincetheproposedprojectwouldnotresultinsignificantunavoidableimpacts,thedecision‐makingbody(CityCouncil)isnotrequiredtoadoptaStatementofOverridingConsiderationsifitapprovestheproposedproject.

Project Location and Setting TheCityislocatedapproximately10milesnortheastoftheCityofLosAngelesintheCountyofLosAngeles.RegionalaccesstotheCityisprovidedbyStateRoute134(SR134),Interstate210(I‐210orFoothillFreeway),StateRoute110(SR110),andInterstate710(I‐710).Theprojectsiteislocatedat233NorthFairOaksAvenue,locatedimmediatelysouthofI‐210.The42,000squarefootsiteisborderedbyCorsonStreetonthenorth,FairOaksAvenueontheeast,WalnutAvenueonthesouth,andavacantparcelonthewest.

TheprojectsiteislocatedwithintheCentralDistrictSpecificPlan,andiszonedCD‐1.TheGeneralPlanLandUsedesignationforthesiteisSpecificPlan.TheSpecificPlanareaencompasses960acrescorrespondingtotheareasrecognizedbyPasadenaresidentsas“downtown.”IncludedwithintheboundariesoftheSpecificPlanareaareactivitycentersknownasOldPasadena,theCivicCenter,thePlayhouseDistrict,andSouthLakeAvenue.SignificantusesandstructureswithintheCentralDistrictSpecificPlanincludetheOldPasadenaarea,St.AndrewsChurch,PasadenaPlayhouse,CityHall,thePasadenaCentralPublicLibrary,theY.W.C.A.building,andthePasadenaHumaneSociety.

Thesurroundingareaisdevelopedwithmostlycommercialusesandsemi‐publicuses.SaintAndrew’sChurch,SaintAndrew’sdaycare,andofficeandretailusesarelocatedtotheeastofFairOaksAvenueandtheprojectsite.TheParson’scampus(anofficecomplex)islocatedtothesouthoftheprojectsite.AvacantlotandBeckham’sGrillrestaurantarelocatedwestofthesite.Northofthe

Section 1 Summary

1‐3

siteisCorsonStreetaswellastheFoothillFreeway/I‐210,andfurthernorthofthefreewayarecommercialandindustrialuses.

MemorialPark,a5.3‐acreCitypark,islocatedoneblockfromtheprojectsite.SoutheastoftheparkistheMemorialParkGoldLinelightrailstation,whichisapproximatelyonequartermiletotheeastofthesite.TheproposedprojectsiteislocatedwithinwalkingdistanceofOldPasadena(approximatelyone‐quartermilesouthofthesite),thePasadenaCivicCenter(approximatelyone‐halfmileeastofthesite),andavarietyofotherhistoricallydesignatedbuildingsanddistricts.Theprojectsiteisnotlocatedwithinanhistoricdistrict.

Project Objectives Theobjectivesfortheproposedprojectincludethefollowing:

CreateapremierhoteldevelopmentthatadherestotheintentandtherequirementsoftheCity’sGeneralPlanandtheCentralDistrictSpecificPlan.

CreateahoteldevelopmentthatcomplementstheexistingneighboringusestosupporttheOldPasadenaBusinessDistrict.

CreateanentrancetotheCity’snorthwestgatewaycornerthatiscompatiblewithitsurbancontextandencouragespedestrian‐oriented,less‐motorizedtransportation,particularlywithinOldPasadena.

Locateanewhotelwithineasywalkingdistanceofamajorpublictransportationfacility(theGoldLine)tosupportpublictransportationthroughoutthearea.

StrategicallyplaceahotelusetohelpextendOldPasadenanorth,andsupportabetterlinkbetweenOldPasadenaandNorthwestPasadena.

Project Characteristics Theproposedprojectinvolvestheconstructionofa144‐room,fivestoryextendedstayhotelonaflat,vacantlotat233NorthFairOaksAvenueinPasadena.Thehotelwouldbeapproximately94,091squarefeetinsize.

Thebuildingfootprintfortheproposedhotelwouldbeapproximately35,705squarefeet,leavingapproximately6,112squarefeetofopenspaceonthesite.Theproposedprojectwouldincludeapproximately2,880squarefeetoflandscapingandatotalofninetreeswouldbeplantedonthesite,mostlyalongNorthFairOaksAvenue.

Inadditiontothe144guestrooms,thehotelwouldcontainapproximately1,200squarefeetofmeetingspace,anapproximately750squarefootbreakfastroomandassociatedkitchenfacilities(forhotelguestsonly),alobby,laundryandhousekeepingfacilities,andanoutdoorrecreationalareawithaswimmingpool.Onelevelofundergroundparkingisproposedandwouldaccommodate117parkingspaces.Theproposedprojectwouldcatertoextendedstayguests;assuch,all144guestroomswouldincludeindividualkitchens.

Theproposedprojectvariesinheightfrom17feetupto65feet.IftheapplicantisnotabletomeettherequirementsoftheHeightAveraging,theywouldhavetoapplyforavariance,ormeettheheightrestrictionsof60feetallowablebytheCentralDistrictSpecificPlanstandards.

Section 1 Summary

1‐4

Theproposedhotelwouldbestaffedbyapproximatelyeightfull‐timeemployees.Becausetheproposedprojectisahotel,thefacilitywouldbeopen24hoursperday,365daysperyear.

Constructionactivitiesassociatedwiththeproposedprojectareanticipatedtoincludesitepreparation,excavation,grading,constructionofthenewhotel,applicationofcoatings,paving,painting/striping,installationoflighting/securitylighting,andlandscaping.Constructionwouldoccurinonephaselastingapproximately13months.Gradingoftheprojectsiteisanticipatedtotakeapproximatelytwomonths,buildingsub‐phase(i.e.,constructionofundergroundparkinglevel)wouldlastforfourmonths,constructionofthehotelstructurewouldlastapproximately13months,andapplicationofarchitecturalcoatingswouldlastapproximatelyfourmonths.

Alternatives to the Project InaccordancewithCEQAGuidelinesSection15126.6,anEIRmustdescribearangeofreasonablealternativestoaproposedprojectthatcouldfeasiblyavoidorlessenanysignificantenvironmentalimpacts,whileattainingthebasicobjectivesoftheproject.Comparativeanalysisoftheimpactsofthesealternativesisrequired.Inresponsetothepotentialsignificantimpactsassociatedwiththeproposedproject,theCitydevelopedandconsideredthefollowingalternativestotheproject:

Alternative1–NoProject

TheNoProjectAlternativeistheNoBuildAlternativeandassumesthattheproposedextendedstayhotelwouldnotbeconstructed;thesitewouldremaininitscurrentvacantstate.

Alternative2–ResidentialProject

TheResidentialProjectAlternativeassumesafullyresidentialprojectwouldbeconstructedincompliancewiththeexistingzoningfortheprojectsite.Underexistingcodes,a94,091squarefootresidentialprojectwouldbeconstructed,withatotalof84unitsandupto105parkingspaces.

Alternative3–CommercialOfficeProject

TheCommercialOfficeProjectAlternativeassumesthemaximumallowablebuild‐outoftheprojectsitewithcommercialandofficeuses.Underthisalternative,a94,091squarefootcommercialofficeprojectwouldbeconstructedwithapproximately282parkingspaces.

TheCEQAGuidelinesrequirethatanenvironmentallysuperioralternativebeidentifiedfromthealternativesconsideredinanEIR.TheNoProjectAlternativewouldresultinnoenvironmentalimpactsandthereforewouldbetheEnvironmentallySuperiorAlternativetotheproposedproject.However,asrequiredbyCEQAGuidelinesSection15126.6(e)(2),iftheNoProjectAlternativeisidentifiedastheEnvironmentallySuperiorAlternative,asecondbuildalternativemustbeidentifiedastheEnvironmentallySuperiorAlternative.Assuch,thecode‐compliantAlternative2,ResidentialProjectAlternative,wouldbetheEnvironmentallySuperiorAlternativetotheproposedproject.However,giventhattheproposedprojectwouldnotresultinanysignificantandunavoidableenvironmentalimpacts,theResidentialProjectAlternativewouldnotavoidorreducetheseverityofsignificantenvironmentalimpacts,andwouldinsteadresultingreaterhealthriskimpactsassociatedwiththeproposedproject.

Areas of Known Controversy

Section 1 Summary

1‐5

TheCEQAGuidelinesrequireaDraftEIRtoidentifyareasofcontroversyknowntotheLeadAgency,includingissuesraisedbyotheragenciesandthepublic.CommentswerereceivedfrompublicagenciesandinterestedpartiesinresponsetothecirculatedNoticeofPreparation(NOP).IncompliancewithCEQAGuidelines,theCityheldonescopingmeetingonJuly11,2012,tosolicitcommentsandtoinformthepublicoftheproposedEIR.CommentsreceivedinresponsetothepublishedNOPidentifiedenvironmentaltopicsthatlocalandregionalagenciesrecommendedforanalysisintheDraftEIR.Thesetopicsincluded:

Aesthetics

AirQuality

CulturalResources

GreenhouseGases

NoiseandVibration

TransportationandCirculation

Issues to be Resolved TheCEQAGuidelinesrequireanEIRtopresentissuestoberesolvedbytheLeadAgency.Theseissuesincludethechoicebetweenalternativesandwhetherorhowtomitigatepotentiallysignificantenvironmentalimpacts.ThemajorissuestoberesolvedbytheCityofPasadena,astheLeadAgencyfortheprojectincludethefollowing:

- Whethertherecommendedmitigationmeasuresshouldbeadoptedormodified;

- Whetheradditionalmitigationmeasuresneedtobeappliedtotheproject;and

- Whethertheprojectoranalternativeshouldbeapproved.

Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Asummaryoftheenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwithimplementationoftheproposedproject,mitigationmeasuresincludedtoavoidorlessentheseverityofpotentiallysignificantenvironmentalimpacts,andresidualimpacts,isprovidedinTable1‐1,SummaryofProjectImpacts,MitigationMeasures,andResidualImpacts,below.

Table 1‐1 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts

Significance Threshold and Project Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact

Aesthetics

The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (i.e., blocking views of the San Gabriel Mountains from public vantage points or from the adjacent uses).

No mitigation is required Less than significant impact

The project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; on the contrary, the project would be considered an improvement in comparison to the existing vacant lot.


Section 1 Summary

1‐6

The project would create a new source of increased levels of ambient lighting and glare in the immediate vicinity of the site; however, emanating light would be consistent with the ambient nighttime illumination levels of existing development and proposed exterior lighting would be shielded and oriented in a manner that will prevent spillage.


Air Quality

The project would not conflict with implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

No mitigation is required No impact

The project would create emissions from vehicle trips along surrounding local streets and the highway, but would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.


The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant.


The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.


The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.


Cultural Resources

The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section15064.5.


Although, the likelihood of encountering archaeological resources on the project site is considered low, the project could potentially cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

MM CR‐1: Prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities on the project site, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained in the event that cultural resources are discovered during grading activities. No further disturbance shall occur in the vicinity of the discovery until the archaeologist examines and evaluates the discovery.

Should archaeological resources be found during project ground‐disturbing activities, the Archaeologist shall first determine whether it is a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to Section 21083.2(g) of the PRC or a “historical resource” pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. If the archaeological resource is determined to be a “unique archaeological resource” or a “historical resource”, the Archaeologist shall formulate a mitigation plan in consultation with the City of Pasadena that satisfies the requirements of the above‐referenced sections, and the applicant shall implement the mitigation plan.

If the Archaeologist determines that the archaeological resource is not a “unique archaeological resource” or “historical resource”, s/he will record the site and submit the recordation form to the California Historic Resources Information System at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. The Archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a testing or mitigation plan, following accepted professional practice. The report shall follow guidelines of the California Office

Less than significant impact

Section 1 Summary

1‐7

of Historic Preservation. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City of Pasadena and to the California Historic Resources Information System at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton.

Although, the likelihood of encountering paleontological resources on the project site is considered low, the project could potentially destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

MM CR‐2: Prior to the commencement of ground‐disturbing activities (i.e., grading and excavation), a qualified Paleontologist shall be retained and shall attend the pre‐grading meeting. Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted, as determined necessary by the Supervising Paleontologist, during grading and other excavation work. Recommended hours for monitoring activities shall be established by the Supervising Paleontologist. It shall be the responsibility of the Supervising Paleontologist to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City, the appropriate level of monitoring necessary based on the tentative map level grading plans, when available. Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of a qualified Paleontologist. If a fossil discovery occurs during grading operations when a Paleontological Monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the Monitor can survey the area. Any fossils recovered, along with their contextual stratigraphic data, shall be donated to the City of Pasadena or County of Los Angeles or other appropriate institution with an educational and research interest in the materials. The Paleontologist shall prepare a report of the results of any findings as part of a testing or mitigation plan following accepted professional practice.


The project could potentially unearth/disturb previously undiscovered human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

MM CR‐3: If human remains are encountered during excavation activities, all work shall halt and the County Coroner shall be notified (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 5097.98). The Coroner will determine whether the remains are of forensic interest. If the Coroner, with the aid of the qualified Archaeologist, determines that the remains are prehistoric, s/he will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall be responsible for designating the most likely descendant (MLD), who will be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The MLD shall make his/her recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD’s recommendation shall be followed if feasible, and may include scientific removal and non‐destructive analysis of the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials (California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5). If the landowner rejects the MLD’s recommendations, the landowner shall rebury the remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location that will not be subject to further subsurface disturbance (PRC Section 5097.98).


Greenhouse Gases

The project would generate greenhouse gas emissions as a result of vehicles traveling to and from the hotel, natural gas combustion from space heating, disposal of solid waste, and electricity used directly by the building and


Section 1 Summary

1‐8

indirectly to supply water to the site and to treat wastewater; however, these emissions would not exceed the SCQAMD’s proposed significant threshold for commercial land uses.

The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses.


Noise and Vibration

The project would expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

MM NOISE‐1: Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall prepare an acoustical study demonstrating what sound reducing measures will be incorporated into the construction of the project to ensure the interior noise levels for habitable rooms do not exceed 45dB. This study shall be reviewed and approved as part of the building permits issued for the project. The following are suggested measures that can be used to achieve a noise reduction. The final measures shall be presented in the acoustical analysis and incorporated into the plans submitted for building permits:

If a 15‐20 dBA reduction is needed, the following may suffice:

a. Air Conditioning or a mechanical ventilation system;

b. Windows and sliding glass doors should be double paned glass and mounted in a low air filtration rate frames (0.5 cfm or less, per American National Standard Institute (ANSI) specifications); and

c. Solid core exterior doors with perimeter weather stripping and threshold seals.


a. Same as No. 1 a‐c;

b. Exterior walls consist of stucco or brick veneer. Wood siding with a one‐half inch thickness fiberboard underlayer may also be used;

c. Glass in both windows and doors should not exceed 20 percent of the floor area in a room; and

d. Rood or attic vents facing the noise source should be baffled.


a. Same as No 2 a‐d;

b. The interior sheetrock of exterior wall assemblies should be attached to studs by resilient channels. Staggered studs or double walls are acceptable alternatives; and

c. Window assemblies should have a laboratory‐tested STC rating of 30 or greater (windows that provide superior noise reduction capability and that are laboratory‐tested are sometimes called “sound rated” windows).

MM‐NOISE‐2: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project, a sound test shall be performed to the satisfaction of the Pasadena Health Department and the Building Division of the Planning Department demonstrating that the interior noise


Section 1 Summary

1‐9

level of habitable rooms do not exceed 45 dB.

MM‐NOISE‐3: The project shall adhere to all applicable requirements of the Noise Restrictions Ordinance during project construction and operation. A Construction Related Noise Plan is required as part of the Construction Staging Plan and must be reviewed by the Building Division and the Department of Transportation and approved prior to the issuance of a grading permit. This plan should show the location of any construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment will be mitigated by such methods as: temporary noise attenuation barriers; preferential location of equipment; and use of current technology and noise suppression equipment.

The project would not expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.


The project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.


The project would not cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.


Transportation and Circulation

The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non‐motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.


The project would conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.

MM TRANS‐1: The project applicant shall contribute funds to the Neighborhood Traffic Management Capital Improvement Program Fund Number 75210, which would be used to implement traffic management measures to protect neighborhoods potentially influenced by the project’s traffic north of I‐210 and west of St. John Avenue.


The project would not increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).


The project would not result in inadequate emergency access.


The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.


2‐1

Section 2

Corrections and Additions

ThefollowingcorrectionsandadditionsaresetforthtoupdatetheDraftEnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR)fortheproposedMarriottResidenceInnProject(proposedproject)inresponsetothecommentsreceivedduringthepublicreviewperiod.ThefollowingcorrectionsandadditionshavebeenreviewedinrelationtothestandardsinSection15088.5(a)and(b)oftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)GuidelinesregardingwhenrecirculationofaDraftEIRisrequiredpriortocertification.Sections15088.5(a)and(b)oftheCEQAGuidelinesstate:

(a)AleadagencyisrequiredtorecirculateanEIRwhensignificantnewinformationisaddedtotheEIRafterpublicnoticeisgivenoftheavailabilityofthedraftEIRforpublicreviewunderSection15087butbeforecertification.Asusedinthissection,theterm“information”canincludechangesintheprojectorenvironmentalsettingaswellasadditionaldataorotherinformation.NewinformationaddedtoanEIRisnot“significant”unlesstheEIRischangedinawaythatdeprivesthepublicofameaningfulopportunitytocommentuponasubstantialadverseenvironmentaleffectoftheprojectorafeasiblewaytomitigateoravoidsuchaneffect(includingafeasibleprojectalternative)thattheproject’sproponentshavedeclinedtoimplement.“Significantnewinformation”requiringrecirculationinclude,forexample,adisclosureshowingthat:

(1)Anewsignificantenvironmentalimpactwouldresultfromtheprojectorfromanewmitigationmeasureproposedtobeimplemented.

(2)Asubstantialincreaseintheseverityofanenvironmentalimpactwouldresultunlessmitigationmeasuresareadoptedthatreducetheimpacttoalevelofinsignificance.

(3)Afeasibleprojectalternativeormitigationmeasureconsiderablydifferentfromotherspreviouslyanalyzedwouldclearlylessenthesignificantenvironmentalimpactsoftheproject,buttheproject’sproponentdeclinestoadoptit.

(4)ThedraftEIRwassofundamentallyandbasicallyinadequateandconclusoryinnaturethatmeaningfulpublicreviewandcommentwereprecluded.

(b)RecirculationisnotrequiredwherethenewinformationaddedtotheEIRmerelyclarifiesoramplifiesormakesinsignificantmodificationsinanadequateEIR.

ThecorrectionsandadditionstotheDraftEIRdocumentincludedhereindonotconstitutenewsignificantinformationrequiringrecirculationoftheDraftEIR.

Corrections and Additions ChangestotheDraftEIRareidentifiedbelowbythecorrespondingDraftEIRsectionandsubsection,ifapplicable,andthepagenumber.Additionsareshowninunderlineanddeletionsindoublestrikeoutformat.

Executive Summary TheExecutiveSummaryoftheDraftEIRisreplacedbySection1,Summary,ascontainedinthisFinalEIRdocument.

Section 2 Corrections and Additions

2‐2

Section 3.1, Aesthetics Thelastparagraphinsection3.1.5,towardsthetopofpage3.1‐8,isrevisedtoreadasfollows:

ItshouldbenotedthatthesecondofthesecriteriawaseliminatedfromfurtherconsiderationintheInitialStudy,whichdeterminedthattheproposedproject’simpactsrelatedtoscenicvistasresourceswithinastatescenichighwaywouldhavenoimpact(seeAppendixAfortheInitialStudydiscussion).Therefore,thisthresholdisnotevaluatedwithinSection3.1.6below.

Section 3.6, Transportation and Circulation Figure3.6‐4onpage3.6‐8mis‐labeledstudysegment“E”;thefigurehasbeenrevisedandreplacedwiththefigureincludedonthenextpageofthisdocument.

Thelasttwobulletpointsonpage3.6‐16withinSection3.6.5arerevisedtoreadasfollows:

Resultininadequateemergencyaccess;or

Conflictwithadoptedpolicies,plans,orprogramsregardingpublictransit,bicycle,orpedestrianfacilities,orotherwisedecreasetheperformanceorsafetyofsuchfacilities.

ThesecondparagraphundertheCumulative2014TrafficAnalysissubheadingonpage3.6‐20isrevisedtoreadasfollows:

Thirty‐fivecumulativeprojectswereidentifiedwithintheCumulativeProjectListandareshowninTable3.6‐9andinFigure2‐12inSection2.0,ProjectDescription.

Section 4, Alternatives ThelastsentenceofthefirstparagraphunderSection4.6.3.2AirQuality,onpage4‐9,isrevisedtoreadasfollows:

Assuch,constructionofAlternative23hasthepotentialtoresultinmoreconstructionemissionsthantheproposedproject.

Appendix A Thefirstparagraphofresponse20(b)onpage66oftheInitialStudyincludedasAppendixAoftheDraftEIRisrevisedtoreadasfollows:

TheCityofPasadenaDepartmentofPublicWorksEngineeringDivision(DPW)maintainsthelocalsewersystem.Thewastewaterfloworiginatingfromtheproposedprojectwilldischargeintoalocalsewerline,maintainedbytheCity,forconveyanceintotheLosAngelesCountySanitationDistrict’sArroyoSecoTrunkSewer.This16‐inchdiametertrunksewerislocatedinGarfieldAvenueatthePasadenaFreeway.FlowsfromthelocalsystemarecurrentlycarriedtothetrunksewersoperatedbytheLosAngelesCountySanitationDistrict.

Figure 3.6-4Study Area Intersections and Roadway Segments

Pasadena Marriott Residence Inn EIR

Source: Raju Associates, Inc. (2012)

Not to Scale

A

B

D

C

E ANALYZED ROADWAY SEGMENT

E

F G H

I


2‐4

Thispageisintentionallyleftblank.


2‐5

Thethirdsentenceofthefirstfullparagraphonpage67oftheInitialStudyincludedasAppendixAoftheDraftEIRisrevisedtoreadasfollows:

WastewateriscurrentlytreatedattheWhittierNarrowsReclamationPlant,SanJoseCreekWaterReclamationPlan,andtheLosCoyotesWaterReclamationPlant.ThewastewatergeneratedbytheproposedprojectwillbetreatedateithertheWhittierNarrowsWaterReclamationPlantortheLosCoyotesWaterReclamationPlant.

Thesecondsentenceofthediscussionunder20(e)onpage69oftheInitialStudyincludedasAppendixAoftheDraftEIRisrevisedtoreadasfollows:

WastewaterfromtheCityofPasadenaiscurrentlytreatedbytheCountySanitationDistricts’WhittierNarrowsReclamationPlant,SanJoseCreekWaterReclamationPlant,andtheLosCoyotesWaterReclamationPlant.ThewastewatergeneratedbytheproposedprojectwillbetreatedateithertheWhittierNarrowsWaterReclamationPlantortheLosCoyotesWaterReclamationPlant.


2‐6

Thispageisintentionallyleftblank

3‐1

Section 3

Comments and Responses

AccordingtotheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)Guidelines,Section15132,theFinalEIRshallconsistofthefollowingitems:1)theDraftEIRorarevisionoftheDraftEIR;2)commentsandrecommendationsreceivedontheDraftEIReitherverbatimorinsummary;3)alistofpersons,organizationsandpublicagenciescommentingontheDraftEIR;4)responsesoftheLeadAgencytosignificantenvironmentalpointsraisedinthereviewandconsultationprocess;and5)anyotherinformationaddedbytheLeadAgency.

TheDraftEIRwassubmittedtotheStateClearinghouse(adivisionoftheGovernor’sOfficeofPlanningandResearch)andcirculatedforpublicreviewonJanuary4,2013.ThecommentperiodwasinitiallyscheduledtocloseonFebruary19,2013;however,onFebruary11,2013,theLeadAgencyextendedthecommentperiodforanadditional14days.Assuch,the60‐daycommentperiodconcludedonMarch4,2013.CommentlettersreceivedafterthisdatewerealsoacceptedandareincludedinthisFinalEIR.

Atotalofsixcommentletterswerereceived.Alistofcommentersisprovidedbelow.Thecommentlettershavebeennumberedandorganizedintothefollowingcategories:

StateandLocalAgencies

PrivateandLocalOrganizations

Individuals

Theoriginalbracketedcommentlettersareprovidedfollowedbyanumberedresponsetoeachbracketedcomment.Individualcommentswithineachletterarenumberedandtheresponseisgivenamatchingnumber.WhereresponsesresultinchangestotheDraftEIR,thesechangesarenotedandtheresultingchangesareidentifiedinSection2,CorrectionsandAdditions,ofthisFinalEIRdocument.

Additionally,asummaryofcommentsreceivedbytheCityofPasadena’s(City’s)PlanningCommissionersandthepublic,andresponsestothosecomments,isincludedherein.

List of Public Agencies and Private Parties

Commenting on the Draft EIR Thefollowingagencies,organizationsandindividualsprovidedwrittencommentsontheDraftEIR:

State and Local Agencies LetterNo.1 StateofCalifornia,NativeAmericanHeritageCommission(January17,2013)

LetterNo.2 StateofCalifornia,Governor’sOfficeofPlanningandResearch(February12,2013)

LetterNo.3 CountySanitationDistrictsofLosAngelesCounty(March4,2013)

Section 3 Comments and Responses

3‐2

LetterNo.4 StateofCalifornia,Governor’sOfficeofPlanningandResearch(March5,2013)

Private and Local Organizations LetterNo.5 UNITEHERE!Local11(March4,2013)

Individuals LetterNo.6 NicholasBaldwin(February19,2013)

cobleighnn

Line

cobleighnn

Line

cobleighnn

Text Box

1

cobleighnn

Text Box

2

cobleighnn

Text Box

Letter No. 1

cobleighnn

Line

cobleighnn

Text Box

2 (cont)


3‐8



3‐9

Letter No. 1 Native American Heritage Commission

StateofCaliforniaNativeAmericanHeritageCommission915CapitolMall,Room364Sacramento,CA95814Mr.DaveSingleton,ProgramAnalystJanuary17,2013Responses

Response 1‐1

TheCityacknowledgesthattheNativeAmericanHeritageCommission(NAHC)istheStateofCalifornia“trusteeagency”forthepreservationandprotectionofNativeAmericanculturalresources.

Response 1‐2

AsdetailedinAppendixC,CulturalResourcesTechnicalReport,oftheDraftEIR,aninquirywasmadeoftheNAHCtorequestareviewoftheSacredLandsFiledatabaseregardingthepossibilityofNativeAmericanculturalresourcesand/orsacredplacesintheprojectvicinitythatarenotdocumentedonotherdatabases.OnSeptember6,2012,theNAHCprovidedalistofNativeAmericangroupsandindividualswhomayhaveknowledgeregardingNativeAmericanculturalresourcesnotformallylistedonanydatabase.ThelistprovidedonSeptember6,2012isidenticaltothelistprovidedwithinthiscommentletter(datedJanuary17,2013).EachthesegroupsandindividualsweremailedaninformationalletteronSeptember14,2012,describingtheproposedprojectandrequestinganyinformationregardingresourcesthatmayexistonorneartheprojectsite.

TheNAHCsearchoftheSacredLandsFiledatabase,receivedonSeptember6,2012,didnotidentifythepresenceofNativeAmericanculturalresourcesontheprojectsite.Inaddition,outreachtothecontactsprovidedbyNAHCwascompleted,andnoresponseswerereceivedfromthetribesandindividualscontacted.

Assuch,therecommendationsandrequirementsindicatedbythecommenterhavebeensatisfied.


3‐10


cobleighnn

Line

cobleighnn

Text Box

1

cobleighnn

Text Box

Letter No. 2


3‐14



3‐15

Letter No. 2 State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research

StateofCaliforniaGovernor’sOfficeofPlanningandResearchStateClearinghouseandPlanningUnit1400TenthStreetSacramento,CA95814Mr.ScottMorgan,DirectorFebruary12,2013Responses

Response 2‐1

ThiscommentacknowledgestheextensionofthepublicreviewperiodfortheMarriottResidenceInnProjectDraftEIRtoMarch4,2013.Nofurtherresponseisrequired.


3‐16


COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY

1955 Workman Mill Road , Wh itt ier, CA 90601-1400 Mailing Address : P.O . Box 4998, Whittier, CA 90607-4998 Telephone: (562) 699-7411 , FAX : (562) 699-5422 www.lacsd .org

Mr. Jose D. Jimenez, Planner Planning Department City of Pasadena 175 N. Garfield Avenue Pasadena, CA 911 09

Dear Mr. Jimenez:

GRACE ROBINSON CHAN Chief Engineer and Genera/ Manager

March 4, 2013

Ref. File No: 2512010

Marriott Residence Inn

The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Districts) received a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the subject project on December 31, 2012. The proposed development is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of District No. 16. We offer the following comments:

1. Page 53, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Section, paragraph Iof Response 20 (b). The Districts cannot verify the 18-inch vitrified clay pipe sewer main identified in the report. The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to a local sewer line, which is not maintained by the Districts, for conveyance to the Districts' Arroyo Seco Trunk Sewer. This 16-inch diameter trunk sewer is located in Garfield A venue at the Pasadena Freeway.

2. Page 54, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Section, paragraph 3 of Response 20 (b) and Page 56 of the same section, paragraph I of Response 20 (e). The wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated at the Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) or the Los Coyotes WRP. The San Jose Creek WRP will not treat the wastewater generated by the proposed project.

3. All other information concerning Districts' facilities and sewerage service contained in the document is correct.

If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2717.

AR: ar

c: M. Tremblay J. Ganz

Doc #: 2523342.016

Very truly yours,

Gr/11 Ro=P-~Raza

Customer Service Specialist Facilities Planning Department

ft Recycled Paper ~.,

cobleighnn

Text Box

Letter No. 3

cobleighnn

Line

cobleighnn

Line

cobleighnn

Line

cobleighnn

Text Box

1

cobleighnn

Text Box

2

cobleighnn

Text Box

3


3‐18



3‐19

Letter No. 3 County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County

CountySanitationDistrictsofLosAngelesCountyFacilitiesPlanningDepartment1955WorkmanMillRoadWhittier,CA90601‐1400Ms.AdrianaRaza,CustomerServiceSpecialistMarch4,2013Responses

Response 3‐1

TheCityacknowledgesreceiptofthisinformationfromtheCountySanitationDistricts.Inresponsetothiscomment,thefirstparagraphofresponse20(b)onpage66oftheInitialStudyincludedasAppendixAoftheDraftEIRisrevisedtoreadasfollows:

TheCityofPasadenaDepartmentofPublicWorksEngineeringDivision(DPW)maintainsthelocalsewersystem.Thewastewaterfloworiginatingfromtheproposedprojectwilldischargeintoalocalsewerline,maintainedbytheCity,forconveyanceintotheLosAngelesCountySanitationDistrict’sArroyoSecoTrunkSewer.This16‐inchdiametertrunksewerislocatedinGarfieldAvenueatthePasadenaFreeway.FlowsfromthelocalsystemarecurrentlycarriedtothetrunksewersoperatedbytheLosAngelesCountySanitationDistrict.

Response 3‐2

TheCityacknowledgesreceiptofthisinformationfromtheCountySanitationDistricts.Inresponsetothiscomment,thethirdsentenceofthefirstfullparagraphonpage67oftheInitialStudyincludedasAppendixAoftheDraftEIRisrevisedtoreadasfollows:

WastewateriscurrentlytreatedattheWhittierNarrowsReclamationPlant,SanJoseCreekWaterReclamationPlan,andtheLosCoyotesWaterReclamationPlant.ThewastewatergeneratedbytheproposedprojectwillbetreatedateithertheWhittierNarrowsWaterReclamationPlantortheLosCoyotesWaterReclamationPlant.

Additionally,thesecondsentenceofthediscussionunder20(e)onpage69oftheInitialStudyincludedasAppendixAoftheDraftEIRisrevisedtoreadasfollows:

WastewaterfromtheCityofPasadenaiscurrentlytreatedbytheCountySanitationDistricts’WhittierNarrowsReclamationPlant,SanJoseCreekWaterReclamationPlant,andtheLosCoyotesWaterReclamationPlant.ThewastewatergeneratedbytheproposedprojectwillbetreatedateithertheWhittierNarrowsWaterReclamationPlantortheLosCoyotesWaterReclamationPlant.

Response 3‐3

ThiscommentacknowledgesthattherestoftheanalysiswithintheEIRisaccuratefromthepointofviewoftheCountySanitationDistrictsofLosAngelesCounty.Nofurtherresponseisrequired.


3‐20


cobleighnn

Text Box

Letter No. 4

cobleighnn

Line

cobleighnn

Text Box

1


3‐26



3‐27

Letter No. 4 State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research

StateofCaliforniaGovernor’sOfficeofPlanningandResearchStateClearinghouseandPlanningUnit1400TenthStreetSacramento,CA95814Mr.ScottMorgan,DirectorMarch5,2013Responses

Response 4‐1

ThiscommentacknowledgesthecloseofthepublicreviewperiodandtransmitsacopyofthecommentlettersubmittedbytheStateofCaliforniaNativeAmericanHeritageCommission.SeeresponsestoCommentLetterNo.1providedabove.


3‐28


cobleighnn

Text Box

Letter No. 5

cobleighnn

Line

cobleighnn

Line

cobleighnn

Line

cobleighnn

Text Box

1

cobleighnn

Text Box

2

cobleighnn

Text Box

3

cobleighnn

Line

cobleighnn

Line

cobleighnn

Text Box

4

cobleighnn

Text Box

5


3‐31

Letter No. 5 UNITE HERE! Local 11

UNITEHERE!Local11464SouthLucasAvenue,Suite201LosAngeles,CA90017Ms.RachelTorres,ResearchAnalystMarch4,2013Responses

Response 5‐1

Pleaseseeresponsestocomments2through5below.

Response 5‐2

TheDraftEIRidentifiesthatatotalofeightnewjobswouldbecreatedasaresultoftheproposedproject.Economicanalyses,however,arenotpartofanEIRbecauseeconomiceffectsarenottreatedassignificanteffectsontheenvironment,perSection15131(a)oftheCEQAGuidelines.Assuch,theDraftEIRdoesnotinclude,andisnotrequiredtoinclude,aneconomicanalysisoftheproposedproject.

Response 5‐3

Theprojectdoesnothaveenvironmentalimpactswithregardtolanduse,assetforthintheInitialStudy,atpages57‐58.NoevidencehasbeenpresentedthattherewillbepotentiallysignificantenvironmentaleffectswithregardtolandusesincecompletionoftheInitialStudy,andthereforenofurtheranalysisinthisregardisnecessary.

TheprojectsiteislocatedwithintheCentralDistrictSpecificPlanareaoftheCityofPasadenaandiszonedCD‐1.Theproposedprojectisconsistentwiththezoning,aswellasGeneralPlandesignationfortheprojectsite.Theproposedprojectvariesinheightfrom17feetupto65feet.Heightaveragingisallowedontheprojectsite,pertheCentralDistrictSpecificPlanandpursuanttotheZoningCode(PMCSection17.30.050.B).Accordingly,heightaveragingisnotapotentiallysignificantenvironmentaleffect.Further,thefindingsrequiredforheightaveragingarenotspecificallyconstrainedbythefactorsinthiscomment.Intheeventthattheprojectdoesnotcomply,theapplicantwillberequiredtomodifytheprojecttomeettheallowableheightof60feet.

TheDraftEIRpreparedfortheproposedprojectevaluatedtheenvironmentaleffectsassociatedwithconstructingandoperatingtheproposedextendedstayhoteluseontheprojectsite.Theanalysisfocusedonpotentialaesthetics,airquality,culturalresources,greenhousegases,noise,andtransportationandtrafficimpacts.AllotherissueareasweredeemedtobelessthansignificantintheInitialStudypreparedfortheproposedproject,includedasAppendixAtotheDraftEIR.AsindicatedintheDraftEIR,allpotentialenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwiththeprojectwouldbelessthansignificant.

Response 5‐4

Persection17.50.150.C.2oftheZoningCode,aMinorConditionalUsePermitincompliancewithSection17.61.050maybeappliedfortoallowkitchenfacilitiesinmorethan60percentoftheproposedrooms.AneconomicanalysisonhowthisimpactsCEQAisnotpartofanEIRbecauseeconomiceffectsarenottreatedassignificanteffectsontheenvironment,perSection15131(a)oftheCEQAGuidelines.Assuch,theDraftEIRdoesnotincludeaneconomicanalysisoftheproposedproject,norisone


3‐32

required.However,thecommentisnotedandwillbeaddressedintheleadagency’sanalysisofthemeritsoftheprojectinthestaffreportthatwillbeprovidedtothecommenterandthedecision‐makingbody(PlanningCommission)aspartoftheconsiderationoftheentitlementapplication.

Response 5‐5

TheproposedprojectislocatedwithinaTransitOrientedDistrictandwithinone‐quartermileoftheMetroGoldLineStationlocatedatMemorialPark.Additionally,theprojectsiteislocatedwithinwalkingdistanceofretail,restaurantandcommercialusesthroughouttheOldPasadenaandtheCentralDistrict.Aspartoftheproject,shuttleserviceswillbeprovidedbythehoteltotheGoldLineStation,aswellasotherareasthroughouttheCity.PotentialvehicletripsassociatedwiththeproposedprojectareidentifiedinSection3.6,TransportationandCirculation,andpotentialairquality,greenhousegasandnoiseimpactsassociatedwiththeanticipatedincreaseinvehicletripsareevaluatedinSection3.2,AirQuality,Section3.4,GreenhouseGases,andSection3.5,Noise,respectively.AsdiscussedineachofthesesectionsoftheDraftEIR,environmentalimpactsassociatedwiththeproposedprojectwouldbelessthansignificant.Accordingly,thiscommentdoesnotraiseenvironmentalmatterssomuchasurbanplanningmatters.Thecommentisnotedandwillbeaddressedintheleadagency’sanalysisofthemeritsoftheprojectinthestaffreportthatwillbeprovidedtothecommenterandthedecision‐makingbody(PlanningCommission)aspartoftheconsiderationoftheentitlementapplication.

1

Cobleigh, Nicole

From: Nicholas Baldwin <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:27 PMTo: Jimenez, JoseSubject: Comments for DEIR re CUP #5601

Good Afternoon, I would like to voice my support of this project. The site is already heavily impacted in terms of noise, aesthetics, and air quality due to its proximity to the freeway, so any additional impact caused by the construction and operation of a hotel would be negligible. The close proximity of the site to freeway onramps and light rail stations keeps the impacts caused by traffic to a minimum. In my view this is an ideal site to place this kind of use. Sincerely, Nick Baldwin, Pasadena resident 147 S. Oak Knoll Ave., #147 Pasadena, CA 91101

cobleighnn

Text Box

cobleighnn

Rectangle

cobleighnn

Text Box

Letter No. 6

cobleighnn

Line

cobleighnn

Text Box

1


3‐34



3‐35

Letter No. 6 Nicholas Baldwin

Mr.NicholasBaldwin,PasadenaResident147SouthOakKnollAvenue#147Pasadena,CA91101Responses

Response 6‐1

ThiscommentexpressessupportfortheprojectandconcurrencewiththeenvironmentalanalysiscompletedaspartoftheEIR.Nofurtherresponseisrequired.


3‐36

Comments Received at the Public Hearing on the Draft EIR ThefollowingsummarizescommentsreceivedfromthepublicandthePlanningCommissionersatthepublichearingheldontheDraftEIRonWednesday,February27,2013.Commentsareparaphrasedandnotwrittenverbatim.

Public Comments

RonMiller(ExecutiveSecretaryLosAngeles/OrangeCounties,CaliforniaBuildingandConstructionTradesCouncil):Weurgeyoutomoveforward.Goodforbusinessforthecommunity.ProjectwillcreatejobsfortheCity,includingunion‐constructionjobsandhelmets‐to‐veteranshireclause.

Response:Commentnoted.

DavidKirsch(CarpentersUnionCommittee):Wealsoshowsupportfortheproject.ItisgoodforCityrevenue.Itisajobcreator.Weurgeyoutomovequickly.Inaddition,theEIRiscleanandeasytoread,intermsofitsenvironmentalimpacts.


City of Pasadena Planning Commission Comments

CommissionerNelson:Isthereareasonwhythetrafficstudydidnotconsiderstreetsnorthofthe210Freeway?

Response:Trafficanalysisconsideredstreetsegmentsinthevicinityoftheproject,whichdidnotresultinsignificantanticipatedeffects;thus,therewasnoneedtoexpandthescopeofthestudyareatoincludeintersectionsnorthofthe210Freeway.

CommissionerNelson:Symbol“E”inFigure3.1‐4(page3.6‐8andlistedonpage3.6‐9)appearstobeontheFairOaksAvenueandMarengoAvenuestreetsegment;thisthismis‐labeledinthefigureorincorrectlydescribedinthelistonpage3.6‐9?

Response:Roadwaysegment“E”islabeledinthewrongplaceonFigure3.1‐4.ThefigureisrevisedintheFinalEIR.

CommissionerHansen:Howisparcelwestofpropertyzoned?

Response:Samezoningasproperty,whichisCentralDistrict(CD)‐1.Pastconsiderationforaprojectonthisandneighboringparcelasacombinedproject;however,thatisnolongeraprojectandtherearenoformalplansatthistoexpandtheMarriottResidenceInnprojectontotheadjacentvacantparcel.

CommissionerHansen:Althoughproposedasahotel,istheprojectsubjecttoresidentialfeesdotokitchensincludedinunits?

Response:Itisbelievedthattheprojectisnotsubjecttoresidentialfees,unlessitisconvertedintopermanentresidentialuseinthefuture.Ifitisconvertedintoresidentialuse,atthattimefeeswouldbepaid.

CommissionerHansen:InregardstoTransientOccupancyTax(TOT),willthelengthofstayberegulated?

Response:Ifyoustaylongerthan30days,TOTdoesnotapply,however,adifferenttaxapplies.TOTisaprojectissue,notaCEQAissue.


3‐37

CommissionerHall:Theresidentialalternativefortheprojectwouldhavehealthriskpotentialduetoitsproximitytothe210freeway.Wouldalong‐termstayalsobeahealthrisk?

Response:Commercialpropertyisnotasensitivereceptorcategory.Ifaresidentialusewereconsideredatthesite,itwouldbesubjecttoadditionalenvironmentalanalysisandreview.A30‐daystayattheproposedMarriottResidenceInnwouldnottripthehealthriskassessmentcriteria,consideredtobea70‐yearspanofexposure.Constructingaresidentialuseatthesitedoesnotguaranteethatahealthriskimpactwouldoccur,butthistypeoflanduseincloseproximitytoafreewaywouldwarrantadditionalanalysis.

CommissionerPersico:Iftheprojectwasaresidentialuse,therewouldbenopotentialtrafficimpact?

Response:Therearedifferenttrendsduetocommutepatternsanddestinations/attractions;impactswouldbelessthansignificant,andaresidentialusewouldgeneratefewervehicletripsthantheproposedhoteluse.

CommissionerNelson:Theresidentialalternativeistheenvironmentalsuperioralternative?

Response:Table4.7summariesenvironmentalimpactsforeachoftheAlternatives.TheenvironmentallysuperioralternativetotheproposedprojectistheNoProjectAlternative;however,CEQArequiresthatwhentheNoProjectAlternativeistheenvironmentallysuperioralternative,asecondalternativebeidentified.Inthiscase,yes,theenvironmentallysuperioralternativewouldbeAlternative2,ResidentialProjectAlternative.

CommissionerNelson:Ispublicopenspaceincluded?

Response:No.However,landscapingwouldbeincludedaspartofprojectalongthepublicly‐accessiblesidewalk.

CommissionerNelson:Noimpactwouldoccuronviewsofmountainsandthetower?

Response:AsdiscussedinSection3.1,theprojectdoesnotsubstantiallyalterviewsofthemountainsorthetowerbuildingofSaintAndrewschurch.Impactsare,however,recognizedbutareconsideredtobelessthansignificant.

CommissionerHansen:What,ifany,pedestrianstudieswereconducted?

Response:Apedestrianenvironmentalqualityindex(PEQI)analysiswasconductedforFairOaksandWalnut.Assummarizedintheanalysis,thepedestrianenvironmentwasdeterminedtobeadequate;however,softimprovementssuchasaudiblepush‐buttonsforpedestriancross‐walksarerecommendedatthiscorneraspartoftheproposedproject.

CommissionerHansen:Thiscornerisahostilepedestrianenvironment.Foraestheticsandsafety,thisareaneedsconsideration.

Response:Apedestrianenvironmentalqualityindex(PEQI)analysisandabicycleenvironmentalqualityindex(BEQI)analysiswereconductedforFairOaksandWalnut.Assummarizedintheanalyses,thepedestrianandbicycleenvironmentsweredeterminedtobeadequate;however,softimprovementssuchasaudiblepush‐buttonsforpedestriancross‐walksandenhancedbicyclesignagearerecommendedatthiscorneraspartoftheproposedproject.

CommissionerNelson:AsCEQAGuidelinesrequireprojectobjectives,I’mdrawingalinkbetweentheprojectobjectivesandthedesignofthehotel.I’mexpressinghopethathotelisnotsoprettythatpeopledo


3‐38

notgoout.Theprojectoperatorshouldencouragetenantstouselocalservicesandrestaurants.InreferencetoProjectObjectiveNo.2(SupportOldPasadena),theprojectshouldbeabeautifulwelcomingfeatureandcontributortoOldPasadena.Whatdeterminessizeoflivingroomfortheextended‐stayhotel?

Response:Thesizeofthelivingroomwasdeterminedbyamarketstudyconductedfortheproposedproject.Thisstudylooksatdemographicsandothertrendsintheprojectarea.

CommissionerNelson:Thehotelincludesaconferenceroom;canthisroombeavailableforusebythepublicand/ortheCity?Also,willashuttlebeprovidedtonearestMetroGoldLinestation?

Response:Useoftheconferenceroomatthehotelwillbedetermineduponopeningofthehotel.ShuttleservicewillbeavailableforguestsofthehotelandwillprovideaccesstotheMetroGoldLinestation.

CommissionerPersico:NotsureifhotelbuildingisanentrancepointandwelcominggatewaytoOldPasadena.


CommissionerHansen:ConcurswithPersicoandhopesthedesignandorientationwillbecarefullythoughtout.


4‐1

Section 4

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

AMitigationMonitoringandReportingProgram(MMRP)describestheproceduresthatwillbefollowedtoimplementthemitigationmeasuresadoptedinconnectionwiththeapprovaloftheproposedprojectandthemethodsformonitoringsuchactions.TheMMRPhasbeenpreparedinconformancewithSection21081.6oftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA).Theintentoftheprogramisto(1)verifysatisfactionoftherequiredmitigationmeasuresoftheEIR;(2)provideamethodologytodocumentimplementationoftherequiredmitigation;(3)providearecordofthemonitoringprogram;(4)identifymonitoringresponsibility;(5)establishadministrativeproceduresfortheclearanceofmitigationmeasures;(6)establishthefrequencyanddurationofmonitoring;and(7)utilizeexistingreviewprocesseswhereverfeasible.AMMRPisnecessaryonlyforimpactswhichwouldbesignificantifnotmitigated.Thefollowingtableconsistsofthemitigationmeasuresassociatedwiththeproposedprojectandprovidesandentryforeachmeasurethatnotesthetimingofthemeasure,theresponsibleentityformitigationmonitoring,anentrytorecordwhenthemitigationmeasurewascompleted,andthemeasureseffectiveness.

Section 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

4‐2


Section4Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

4‐3

Table 4‐1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Mitigation Measure Mitigation

Monitoring Timing Responsible

Monitoring Entity Mitigation Measure

Complete? Effectiveness

Cultural Resources

MM CR‐1: Prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities on the project site, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained in the event that cultural resources are discovered during grading activities. No further disturbance shall occur in the vicinity of the discovery until the archaeologist examines and evaluates the discovery.

Should archaeological resources be found during project ground‐disturbing activities, the Archaeologist shall first determine whether it is a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to Section 21083.2(g) of the PRC or a “historical resource” pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. If the archaeological resource is determined to be a “unique archaeological resource” or a “historical resource”, the Archaeologist shall formulate a mitigation plan in consultation with the City of Pasadena that satisfies the requirements of the above‐referenced sections, and the applicant shall implement the mitigation plan.

If the Archaeologist determines that the archaeological resource is not a “unique archaeological resource” or “historical resource”, s/he will record the site and submit the recordation form to the California Historic Resources Information System at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. The Archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a testing or mitigation plan, following accepted professional practice. The report shall follow guidelines of the California Office of Historic Preservation. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City of Pasadena and to the California Historic Resources Information System at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton.

Prior to start of construction and during construction.

Construction Contractor

MM CR‐2: Prior to the commencement of ground‐disturbing activities (i.e., grading and excavation), a qualified Paleontologist shall be retained and shall attend the pre‐grading meeting. Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted, as determined necessary by the Supervising Paleontologist, during grading and other excavation work. Recommended hours for monitoring activities shall be established by the Supervising Paleontologist. It shall be the responsibility of the Supervising Paleontologist to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City, the appropriate level of monitoring necessary based on the tentative map level grading plans, when available. Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of a qualified Paleontologist. If a fossil discovery occurs during grading operations when a Paleontological Monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the Monitor can survey the area. Any fossils recovered, along with their

Prior to start of construction and during construction.



4‐4





contextual stratigraphic data, shall be donated to the City of Pasadena or County of Los Angeles or other appropriate institution with an educational and research interest in the materials. The Paleontologist shall prepare a report of the results of any findings as part of a testing or mitigation plan following accepted professional practice.

MM CR‐3: If human remains are encountered during excavation activities, all work shall halt and the County Coroner shall be notified (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 5097.98). The Coroner will determine whether the remains are of forensic interest. If the Coroner, with the aid of the qualified Archaeologist, determines that the remains are prehistoric, s/he will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall be responsible for designating the most likely descendant (MLD), who will be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The MLD shall make his/her recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD’s recommendation shall be followed if feasible, and may include scientific removal and non‐destructive analysis of the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials (California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5). If the landowner rejects the MLD’s recommendations, the landowner shall rebury the remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location that will not be subject to further subsurface disturbance (PRC Section 5097.98).

During construction. Construction Contractor

Noise

MM NOISE‐1: Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall prepare an acoustical study demonstrating what sound reducing measures will be incorporated into the construction of the project to ensure the interior noise levels for habitable rooms do not exceed 45dB. This study shall be reviewed and approved as part of the building permits issued for the project. The following are suggested measures that can be used to achieve a noise reduction. The final measures shall be presented in the acoustical analysis and incorporated into the plans submitted for building permits:


a. Air Conditioning or a mechanical ventilation system;

b. Windows and sliding glass doors should be double paned glass and mounted in a low air filtration rate frames (0.5 cfm or less, per American National Standard Institute (ANSI) specifications); and

c. Solid core exterior doors with perimeter weather stripping and threshold seals.

Prior to issuance of building permits.

City of Pasadena Building Department

Section4Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

4‐5






a. Same as No. 1 a‐c;

b. Exterior walls consist of stucco or brick veneer. Wood siding with a one‐half inch thickness fiberboard underlayer may also be used;

c. Glass in both windows and doors should not exceed 20 percent of the floor area in a room; and

d. Rood or attic vents facing the noise source should be baffled.


a. Same as No 2 a‐d;

b. The interior sheetrock of exterior wall assemblies should be attached to studs by resilient channels. Staggered studs or double walls are acceptable alternatives; and

c. Window assemblies should have a laboratory‐tested STC rating of 30 or greater (windows that provide superior noise reduction capability and that are laboratory‐tested are sometimes called “sound rated” windows).

MM‐NOISE‐2: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project, a sound test shall be performed to the satisfaction of the Pasadena Health Department and the Building Division of the Planning Department demonstrating that the interior noise level of habitable rooms do not exceed 45 dB.

Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

City of Pasadena Building Department

MM‐NOISE‐3: The project shall adhere to all applicable requirements of the Noise Restrictions Ordinance during project construction and operation. A Construction Related Noise Plan is required as part of the Construction Staging Plan and must be reviewed by the Building Division and the Department of Transportation and approved prior to the issuance of a grading permit. This plan should show the location of any construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment will be mitigated by such methods as: temporary noise attenuation barriers; preferential location of equipment; and use of current technology and noise suppression equipment.

During construction and operation.


Transportation and Circulation

MM TRANS‐1: The project applicant shall contribute funds to the Neighborhood Traffic Management Capital Improvement Program Fund Number 75210, which would be used to implement traffic management measures to protect neighborhoods potentially influenced by the project’s traffic north of I‐210 and west of St. John Avenue.

Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

City of Pasadena Department of Transportation


4‐6


final environmental impact report...environmental impact report (eir) for the proposed marriott...

Documents