CC - Item 2B - Ordinance No. 843 Approving Zone Change 05-220TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS OF
R EMEAD CITY COUNCIL
FROM: V;~~BILL CROWE, CITY MANAGER`
DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 2005
r
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 843 APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 05-220
8440 - 8446 DOROTHY STREET
INTRODUCTION
On September 19, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Zone
Change and Planned Development Review for the property located at 8440 - 8446 Dorothy
Street. A copy of the staff report providing a detailed analysis of the project is attached for your
review. After hearing all testimony, the Commission voted 5-0 to recommend City Council
approval of Zone Change 05-220.
The proposal includes a Zone Change from R-2; Light Multi-Family Residential to PD; Planned
Development, located at 8440 - 8446 Dorothy Street. The existing land uses on all three (3)
parcels are light multi-family residential.
ANALYSIS
Tile applicant is proposing this zone change so that the subject properties may be subdivided for
the development of a six (6) unit condominium tract map subdivision with a common driveway.
This zone change will allow for adjustments to the minimum lot size and development standards
for single-family residential developments. The proposed residences will have between 1,645
and 1,948 square feet of floor area. The total floor area for all six (6) units is 12,920 square feet
with a floor area ratio (F.A.R.) of 30% for the entire site. There is also 6,818 square feet of open
space consisting of 2,618 square feet of common open space and 4,200 square feet of private
open space. The units meet the density for Medium Density Residential (0 - 9 units per acre)
and is designed at less than six (6) dwelling units per acre.
During the Planning Commission Meeting held on September 19, 2005, there was no
neighborhood opposition and no appeal of the Commission's decision was received. In order for
the project to proceed, the Development Concept Plan and Zone Change must be considered by
the City Council.
NOV 22 2005
ITEM No,
Rosemead City Council
November 22, 2005
Page 2 oft
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1. INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 843 APPROVING Zone Change 05-220, AMENDING the
Rosemead Zoning designation from R-2; Light-Multi Family Residential to PD; Planned
Development and the Development Concept Plan.
2. ADOPT a NEGATIVE DECLARATION finding that this project will not have any
adverse effects on the environment.
ATTACHMENTS:
ORDINANCE NO. 843
EXHIBIT A: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 19, 2005.
EXHIBIT B: Planning Commission Minutes, dated October 3, 2005.
EXHIBIT C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 05-43, dated October 3, 2005.
EXHIBIT D: Site Plan/Floor Plans/Elevations
•
ORDINANCE NO. 843
0
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
ZONE CHANGE 05-220, CHANGING THE ZONING FROM "R-2; LIGHT
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" ZONE TO "PD; PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT" ZONE LOCATED AT 8440 - 8446 DOROTHY STREET
(APNs: 5288-003-040, 5288-003-041, 5288-003-042).
WHEREAS, Anh L. Trieu, Hubert D. Trieu, Shawn H. Trieu, Thomas M. Trieu, Selso
Ramos and Andrea M. Ramos, filed an application for a Zone Change to change the current "R-2;
Light Multi-Family Residential" zone to the "PD; Planned Development" zone for the development
of a six (6) unit condominium tract map subdivision with a common driveway located at 8440 -
8446 Dorothy Street;
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has an adopted general plan, zoning ordinance, and map,
including specific development standards to control development;
WHEREAS, Sections 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth procedures and
requirements for zone changes;
WHEREAS, on August 31, 2005, an initial study for the draft ordinance was completed
finding that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, a negative
declaration was prepared;
WHEREAS, on August 31, 2005, notices were posted in 8 public locations and 46 notices
were mailed to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property specifying the
public comment period and the time and place for a public hearing pursuant to California
Government Code Section 65091(a)(3);
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
receive testimony and voted to recommend City Council approval of Zone Change 05-220;
WHEREAS, on October 3, 2005 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 05-43,
recommending City Council approval of Zone Change 05-220;
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2005, the City Council held a hearing to receive public
testimony relative to Zone Change 05-220 and Planned Development Review 05-01; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to make
the following determination.
• r►
Ordinance No. 843
Zone Change 05-220
Page 2 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Rosemead as
follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to the City of Rosemead's CEQA Procedures and State CEQA
Guidelines. it has been determined that the adoption of this ordinance will not have potential
significant environmental impacts. This conclusion is based upon the record, initial study and
comments received during the public review period. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been
prepared according to CEQA. The City Council, having final approval authority over this project,
has reviewed and considered any comments received during the public review prior to the approval
of this project. Furthermore, the City Council has exercised its own independent judgment in
reaching the above conclusion. The City Council, therefore, approves the Negative Declaration.
Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulation, Section 753.5(v)(1), the City Council has
determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed
project will have the potential for adverse effect on the wildlife resources or the habitat upon which
the wildlife depends. Furthermore, on the basis of substantial evidence, the City Council hereby
finds any presumption of adverse impact has been adequately rebutted. Therefore pursuant to Fish
and Game Code Section 711.2 and Title XIV, California Code of Regulations, Section 735.5(a)(3),
the City Council finds that the project has a de minimis impact and therefore the payment of Fish and
Game Department filing fees is not required in conjunction with this project.
Section 2. The City Council HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES AND DECLARES that
placing the property in the "PD; Planned Development" zone (Zone Change 05-220) is in the public
interest and necessity and general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the
proposed zone change, in that the change to the "PD; Planned Development" zone will provide a
superior level of planning and protection to the quality and character of the area where the
development is proposed and is consistent with the City's General Plan.
Section 3. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES Zone Change 05-220, amending
Rosemead Zoning map land use designation from "R-2; Light Multi-Family Residential" to "PD;
Planned Development" and the Development Concept Plan for properties located at 8440 - 8446
Dorothy Street (APNs: 5288-003-040, 5288-003-041, 5288-003-042).
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or word of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rosemead
HEREBY DECLARES that it would have passed and adopted this Ordinance, and each and all
provisions thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provisions may be declared to
be invalid.
0
Ordinance No. 843
Zone Change 05-220
Page 3 of 3
L'
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 2005.
JAY T. IMPERIAL, Mayor
ATTEST:
NINA CASTRUITA, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
I, Nina Castruita, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Ordinance No. 843 being:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 05-220, CHANGING THE ZONING
FROM "R-2; LIGHT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" ZONE TO "PD;
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT" ZONE AND DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
PLAN LOCATED AT 8440 - 8446 DOROTHY STREET (APNs: 5288-003-
040, 5288-003-041, 5288-003-042).
was duly introduced and placed upon first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the
22M day of November, 2005, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2005, by the following vote, to
wit:
YES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NO:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NINA CASTRUITA, City Clerk
Staf epor
ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN
AND MEMBERS
ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2005
SUBJECT: ZONE, CHANGE 05-220
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 05-01
8440 - 8446 DOROTHY STREET
ZONE CHANGE FROINI R-2; LIGHT 1\IULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ZONE TO THE 1'D; PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE.
Proiect Description
Anil L. Trieu, Hubert D. Tricu, Shawn H. Trieu, Thomas M. Trieu, Selso Ramos and Andrea M.
Ramos have submitted an application for a Zone Change to change the existing R-2; Light Multi-
Family Residential zone to the PD; Planned Development zone for the development of a six (6) unit
condominium tract nlap subdivision with a common driveway.
Public Notice
On August 31, 2005, forty-six (46) written notices of this public hearing were mailed to property
owners within 300 feet of the subject site. On August 31, 2005, eight (8) notices were posted in
designated public places and filed with the Los Angles County Clerk.
Enviroiullental Analysis
An Initial Study was completed in accordance with the California Enviro xiiental Quality Act
(CEQA). This study reviews the potential environment impacts of the proposed project. This study
has found that there are no potentially significant environmental impacts that could occur with the
proposed Zone Change 05-220 and Planned Development Review 05-01. Therefore, a Draft
Negative Declaration has been prepared. A copy of this initial study is provided as Exhibit "C".
Municipal Code Requirements
Zone Change - Chapter 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth the procedures and
requirements for zone changes and amendments. A zone change may be permitted whenever the
public necessity, convenience, general wel fare or good zoning practice justifies such action. A zone
change must be found consistent with the Rosemead General Plan.
Planned Development Rei,iel>> - Chapter 17.76.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth the
procedures and requirements for planned development review may be established to provide
diversification in the location of structures and other land uses a-bile insuring compliance with the
General Plan and compatibility with existing and future developments in surrounding areas.
Property History & Description
The subject site consists of three (3) parcels totaling approximately 42,736 square feet in size.
The parcel is currently occupied with four (4) single-family residences and accessory structures,
which will be demolished as a result of the project. This project is located within the Zapopail
Target Area and has an open Code Enforcement/Rehabilitation case with a city inspector. The
project will eliminate the problems cited, including overgrown landscape grid deteriorated exterior
materials.
EXHIBIT A
-tOSEMEAD PLANNINC
I
• •
Subiect Site & Surrounding Uses
The site is designated in the General Plan for Medium Density Residential and on the zoning map, it
is designated for R-2; Light Multi-Family Residential zone. The site is surrounded by the following
land uses:
North:
East:
General Plan:
Medium Density Residential
General Plan:
Public Facilities
Zoning:
R-2: Light Multi-Family Residential
Zoning:
R-2; Light Multi-Family Residential
Land Use:
Residence
Land Use:
Nursery
South:
West:
General Plan:
Public Facilities
General Plan:
Medium Density Residential
Zoning:
R-2; Light Multi-Fanuly Residential
Zoning:
R-2; Light Multi-Fanuly Residential
Land Use:
Nursery
Land Use:
Residence
Administrative Comments & Analysis
The applicant proposes to change the current R-2; Light Multi-Fatnily Residential zone to PD;
Planned Development for the development of a six (6) unit condominium tract map subdivision with
a common driveway. The proposed residences will have between 1,645 and 1,948 square feet of
floor area. The total floor area for all six (6) units is 12,920 square feet with a floor area ratio
(F.A.R.) of 30% for the entire site. There is also 6,818 square feet of open space, consisting of 2,618
square feet of common open space and 4,200 square feet of private open space. The PD; Planned
Development zone does not have a maxinuun floor area ratio.
Tentative Tract Map Review
Although the Tentative Tract Map is not being reviewed under this conceptual plan review, it was
distributed to various agencies for their review on August 23, 2005. Responding agencies have made
their comments, which are oil file.
By subdividing the land, the opportunity for property ownership becomes a possibility thus creating a
higher standard of property maintenance. Lastly, the General Plan Land Use element specifies the
density for Medium Density Residential properties as 0 - 9 units per acre. This project equates to
less than 6 (six) units per acre which is a low density design.
There will not be any environmental impacts to the subject area as a result of the Zone Change or
Zone Variance. The current residential land use is consistent with the surrounding residential land
uses.
Zoning Setbacks
This area is currently zoned for R-2; Light Multi-Family Residential however the request is for a
change to the PD; Planned Development zone. The PD; Planned Development zone does not have
specific setback criteria, but the project has been designed to closely replicate the appearance of a
typical single-family development common to this area of the city. The homes have been designed
within the property development standards similar to that of the R-2; Light Multi-Family Residential
zone, as indicated in the table below:
FIGURE 1
ot #
Front
Setback
Side Yard
Setback
0 11oor
Side Yard
Setback
j 2"d Moor
Rear Yard
Setback
Building
Height
l
N/A
15'-0'
.
! 15'-0" i
181-0"
27'-3'/<"
N/A
15' 0 '
15 U"
18'-01, 1
_ _ .
27'-33/4
'
N/A
15'-0"
15'-0"
18'-01 1
27'-33/4"
4
NIA
15'-0"
15'-U"
'
18'-0"
2733Z
5
N/A
-
15'-0"
-
15'-0"
18'-0"
27'-3'/4"
6
N/A
15'-0"
15'-0"
26
'-4'/4"
0 !
Residential Floor Plans
Six (6) single-family residential plans are proposed with this development. Floor plan sizes range
from 1,645 to 1,948 square feet of living area with attached two-car garages and two stories. There
are two (2) different floor plans and four (4) different elevations detailed by the following:
Lots 1 - 5: This plan consists of 1,645 square feet of living area. The first floor includes a
living room, dining room, family room, kitchen, powder room, storage and a463 square foot
two-car garage. The second floor consists of a master bedroom suite (with a walk-in closet
and bathroom), two (2) bedrooms, den, laundry room and one (1) bathroom.
Lot 6: This plan consists of 1,948 square feet of living area. The first floor includes a living
room, dining room, kitchen, bathroom and a 432 square foot two-car garage. 'The second
floor consists of a master bedroom suite (with a walk-in closet and a bathroom), two (2)
bedrooms, den, one (1) bathroom and laundry room.
Architecture
There arc two (2) different residential designs for the proposed project. The applicant has taken the
character of the surrounding neighborhood into consideration in the design of the proposed homes.
The proposed exteriors are light eartlitone and gray colors that will soflen the "looming" presence
that a larger development has the potential to create in a single-family neighborhood. Also,
architectural elements have been added to eliminate impacts of two-story homes that the proposed
project may have on surrounding properties.
The applicant has proposed earthtone exterior color combinations for each unit in the following:
Plan A (Styles 1 - 4) and Plan B: The color and material of the main body of the units will be La
Habra plaster in "Sandstone" or "Villa". The base of the units will be La Habra plaster in "French
Grey" or "Canyon". The wood window shutters will be painted in "Copper Canyon" or "Florida
Palm", the wood window trim and wood molding will be painted in "White Shadow" and garage
doors will be painted in "Chaste White". The proposed unit entrance doors and balcony doors are
proposed in "Chaste White", but staff reconunends that the colors are similar to the color board
which was submitted to the Planting Department, which is a deep brown tone. Each unit will have
an Eagle Tile roof in the "Capistrano" blends. All of the colors and possible combinations are all
complementary to each other.
All of the units also have a combination of architectural accents, including wood window shutters,
clay pipes above the windows, decorative balcony rails and side yard gates. All rails andiron will be
painted in "Tomahawk". Each unit also has a variety of window shapes and sizes, distinctive front
creating front porches and exposed rafter tails under any slightly cantilevered floor area to give the
illusion of support. A variety of roof lines have been incorporated into the project, producing an
assortment of hip and gable roof systems.
Tine colored renderings of the elevations will be available to view at the Planning Commission
Meeting.
Landscapin., and Fencing
Each residence will include new landscaping with a combination of trees, shrubs, and sod. Each lot
will have a combination of 15-gallon and 24" box trees in the front yard as well as low growing
flowers and shrubs. A variety of plants and ground covers will be chosen to create colorful front
yards along the private driveway and looking from Dorothy Street. Although the rear yard areas will
be individually landscaped by the property owner, the land will be prepared for landscaping by the
developer. Each parcel will be equipped with an irrigation system including automatic timers and
rain sensors.
There are existing perimeter walls surrounding the property, including wood and chain link. New
block walls are proposed for the perimeter of the property. Staff recommends that tine perimeter
walls be constructed of decorative split face block with precast concrete caps or a stucco wall
matching the exterior color of the proposed homes. Each individual lot will have walls to separate
the lots. Staff recommends wooden fences at a minimum. Any substandard or deteriorated fencing
will be removed and replaced with a decorative block wall, limited to 4'-0" in the required front yard
setbacks and 6'-0" in the side and rear yards.
0 •
Neighborhood Character
In comparison to surrounding residences, development on the subject site would be greater.
However, the proposed homes are consistent with many of the new planned development projects
recently proposed to the Planning Department for review. Although, the existing lot is occupied with
single-family homes and accessory structures, the new units are compact and are developed as single-
family residential and provide two (2) enclosed parking stalls and two (2) guest parking stalls. These
homes are smaller than similarly approved projects throughout The City of Rosemead.
Staff has worked with the developer in designing a project that will create new single-family housing
in the City without detracting from the character of the existing surrounding neighborhood. In
addition, adverse impacts to the character of the surrounding neighborhood will be mitigated and
architectural interest is added to the project by varying roof ridgelines, setting the second story
further back than the first, tile roofing and other aesthetically pleasing elements. Overall, staff feels
that the addition of this residential development will increase property values and the general
aesthetics of the neighborhood.
R1,',C0I\I1%1EN DA'f iON
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
Recommend APPROVAL to the City Council of Zone Change 05-220 and Plarmed
Development Review 05-01, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit "A".
ADOPT a Negative Declaration for Zone Change 05-220 and Planned Development Review
05-01.
EXHIBITS:
A. Conditions of Approval
B. Tentative Tract Map 063143, Site Plan, Floor Plans & Elevations
C. Initial Study/Negative Declaration
D. Assessor's Parcel Map (APNs: 5288-003-042, 5288-003-041, 5288-003-040)
E. Zoning Map
F. General Plan Map
G. Zone Change Application, dated June 8, 2005
• 0
EXi (IBIT "A"
ZONE CHANGE 05-220
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 05-01
8440 - 8440 Dorothy Street
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SEPTEMBER 19, 2004
Zone Change 05-220 and Planned Development Review 05-01 are approved for a six-lot
single-family residential development, to be developed in accordance with the plans marked
Exhibit "B" dated June 8, 2005 and submitted colored elevations and color and material
sample boards. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for review and
approval by the Planning Department.
Approval of Zone Change 05-220 and Planned Development Review 05-01 shall not take
effect for any purpose until the applicant has filed with the City of Rosemead an affidavit
stating that they are aware of and accept all of the conditions set forth in the letter of approval
and this list of conditions.
3. Zone Change 05-220 and Planned Development Review 05-01 are approved for a two-year
period. Applicant shall make progress towards initiation of proposed use or request an
extension 30 days prior to expiration from the Planning Commission. Otherwise Tentative
Tract Map 063143 shall become null and void.
4. The applicant shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws relative to the approved use
including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff and Health Departments.
Building permits will not be issued in connection with any project until such time as all plan
check fees, and all other applicable fees are paid in full.
6. Prior to issuance of building permits, all school fees shall be paid. The applicant shall
provide the City with written verification of compliance from the Unified School District.
The hours of construction shall be limited from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday - Saturday. No
construction shall take place on Sundays or on any legal holidays without prior approval by
the City.
8. Planning staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to
monitor progress.
The conditions listed on this Exhibit "A" shall be copied directly onto development plans
submitted to the Plamiing and Building Departments for review.
10. Occupancy will not be granted until all improvements required by this approval have been
completed, inspected, and approved by the appropriate department(s).
11. Driveways and parking areas shall be surfaced and improved with Portland concrete cement
as shown on Exhibit "B", and thereafter maintained in good serviceable condition.
12. A wall and fence plan will be required if any perimeter fencing or walls are proposed. The
colors and materials of the proposed fence shall be consistent or compliment the submitted
color and material board and first be approved by the Planning Department prior to
installation.
13. Prior to issuance of Building permits, a landscape and irrigation plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for review, reflecting preliminary approval of
landscape/site plan, commonly referred to as Exhibit "B". Irrigation plan shall include
automatic timers and rain sensors. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed and
completed prior to final Planning Department approval.
! 0
14. All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow preservation
devices, fire valves, A/C condensers, furnaces and other equipment) shall be located away
from public view or adequately screened by landscaping or screening walls so as not to be
seen from the public right-of-way. The Director of Planning before installation shall approve
said screening.
15. No portion of any required fi-ont and/or side yards shall be used for storage of any type.
16. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or trailers. All trash
and debris shall be contained within a trash enclosure.
17. All roof top appurtenances and equipment shall adequately be screened from view to the
satisfaction of the Planning Department.
14. The property shall be graded to drain to the street, but in no case shall such drainage be
allowed to sheet flow across public sidewalk. A grading and/or drainage plan shall be
prepared, submitted to and approved by the Building Official and such grading and drainage
shall take place in accordance with such approved plan.
19. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least 6" tall with a minimum character width of
1/4", contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street. Materials, colors,
location and size of such address numbers shall be approved by the Director of Planning
prior to installation.
20. Applicant shall obtain a public works permit for all work in or adjacent to the public
right-of-way.
21. Applicant shall install and complete all necessary public improvements, including but not
limited to street, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, handicap ramps, and storm drains, along the entire
street frontage of the development site as required by the Director of Planning.
22. All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow preservation
devices, Fire valves and other equipment) shall be screened by screening walls and/or
landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planting Department.
23. All utilities shall be placed underground including facilities and wires for the supply and
distribution of electrical energy, telephone, cable television etc. The tulderground conversion
of these utilities shall consider all future connections to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning.
24. The dwelling unit shall be provided with water conservation fixtures such as low-flush toilets
and low-flow faucets. The hot water heater and lines shall be insulated. Landscaping
irrigation systems shall be designed for high efficiency and irrigation timers programmed for
maximized water usage.
25. All requirements of the Building and Safety Department and Planning Department shall be
complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction.
26. Violation of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation
proceedings.
27. All stamped concrete along the common driveway shall be a medium to dark tone of
grad'.
28. Concrete block wall for the perimeter of the development shall be split face block with
decorative caps and no red blocks, or a stucco wall matching the exterior color of the
proposed homes.
29. All 6'-0" block walls that encroach into any required front yard setback shall be
reduced to 4'-0" in height.
30. The Rosemead Planning Commission must approve any changes to the approved plans.
•
0
31. Each unit shall be constructed exactly as approved; no as-built plans will be accepted.
32. The private driveway shall include red curbs and signage posting the drive area as a
"Fire Lane" no parking allowed.
33. CC & Rs shall be developed for review and approval by the City of Rosemead and shall
include but not be limited to the following:
a. Continued maintenance of all "open space" including landscaped areas by the
homeowners association.
b. Creation of a condominium owners association with bylaws and operating
procedures.
c. Authorized for city enforcement of parking, land use and safety CC&Rs in the
event the condominium association fails to do so.
d. Restrictions of parking to designated areas.
•
0
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project title:
Zone Change 05-220
Planned Development Review 05-01
2. Lead agency name and address
3. Contact person and phone number:
4. Project location:
5. Project sponsor's name and address:
Citv of Rosemead
8838 Cast Valley Blvd.
Rosemead, CA 91770
Brandi M. Jones, Association Planner
Planning Department
(626) 569-2144
8440 - 8446 Dorothy Street
Citv of Rosemead
County of Los Angeles
(APNs 5288-003-040 - 042)
Anh L. Trieu, 6789 Oak Avenue, San Gabriel.
CA 91775
1-1yl of , U., i,Tl-ieu 6789 Oak r Av~e~tue, San
Gabriel, C A 91775 '
Shawn If. Trieu, 230 N. Nicholson Avenue 11C.
Monterey Park, CA 91755
Thomas M. Trieu, 230 N. Nicholson Avenue #C,
Monterey Park, CA 91755
Selso Ramos, 117 N. Segovia Avenue, San
Gabriel, CA 91775
Andrea M. Ramos. 117 N. Segovia Avenue. San
Gabriel, CA 91775
6. General plan designation: High Density Residential
7. Zoning: R-1; Single Family Residential
8. Description of project. (Describe the -whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The project is a request to change the existing R-2: Light Multi-Family Residential zone to a P-D:
Planned Development zone. 'File P-D; Planned Development zone is used to accommodate
various types of development within the guidelines of the General Plan. The existing three (3)
parcels totaling approximately 42,820 square feet are currently developed with multiple
single-family homes and accessory structures.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting. (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
Dorothy is a local street. Properties to the north and west of the site are currently zoned R-2;
Light Multi-Family Residential and occupied with a variety of single-family homes. The entire
EXHIBIT C
• •
I
east and south sides of the property also abuts the R-2; Light Multi-Family Residential zone,
which is currently used as a plant nursery.
The City of Rosemead is a suburb within the Greater Los Angeles area located 10 miles east of'
the City of Los Angeles. It is bounded on the north by the City of Temple City, on the west by
South San Gabriel, on the south by Montebello, and the City of El Monte and South EI Monte on
the east. The Citv of Rosemead is 5.5 square miles in size with a residential population of
approximately 55,296 people.
10. Other Agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement).
The proposed tract map has been forwarded to various agencies, such as Los Angeles County Fire
Department and utility companies, for their review and comment. Responses have been directed
to the lead agency and will be incorporated into the tract map and hearing process. Any changes
cited will be incorporated into the tentative tract map prior to final recordation.
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.
❑ Aesthetics
❑ Biological Resources
❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials
❑ Mineral Resources
❑ Public Services
❑ Utilities / Service Systems
❑ Agriculture Resources
❑ Cultural Resources
❑ l lydrology /Water Quality
❑
Noise
❑
Recreation
❑
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
❑
Air Quality
❑
Geology / Soils
❑
Land use / Planning
❑
Population / Housing
❑
Transportation / Traffic
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
0 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ 1 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 (lie 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. MPACT 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 revision or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
Brandi M. Jones
Printed Name
August 31, 2005
Date
City of Rosemead Planning Department
For
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific
factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,
based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." 'file lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation from Section XVII,
"Earlier Analyses", may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program E.IR, or other CEQA process. an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)
(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of (lie checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
I
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
9. The analysis of each issue should identify: (a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate
each question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significant.
SECTION TWO
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The City of Rosemead has prepared this Initial Study for the purpose of identifying and
evaluating the potential environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed Zone
Change and Plaruied Development review for the subdivision of land for the construction of six
(6) single-family units with a common driveway. It is the intent of this enviromnental document
to address, to the extent foreseeable, the potential environmental impacts that could be expected
to occur with this project.
In addition, this evaluation will serve to determine the level of environmental analysis required
to adequately prepare and adopt a Negative Declaration, and will provide the basis for input from
members of the public and public agencies. Pursuant to Sections 15050, 15051, and 15367 of
the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Rosemead is the Lead Agency in the preparation of this
Initial Study, and any additional environmental documentation required for the project.
The remainder of this section provides the characteristics of the proposed project and a
description of the project location. Section Three of this initial study includes an environmental
checklist that gives an overview of the potential impacts to the environment that may result from
project implementation. Section Pour elaborates on the information contained in the
envirormiental checklist, providing justification for the responses provided in the environmental
checklist.
Proiect Suiunar
Zone Change 05-220 & Planned Development Review 05-01 is a request to change the existing
R-2; Light Multi-Family Residential zone to a P-D; Planned Development zone. The P-D:
Plaruied Development zone is used to accommodate various types of development within the
guidelines of the General Plan. The existing three (3) parcels totaling approximately 42,820
square feet are currently developed with multiple single-family homes and accessory structures.
The proposed project will be in compliance with the requirements of the Rosemead General Plan
and Municipal Code and would be subject to public review before the Rosemead Planning
Department and Plaiming Commission.
Project Location
The proposed project area for Zone Change 05-220 & Planned Development Review 05-01 is located
at 8440 - 8441 Dorothy Street in the R-2; Light Multi-Family Residential zone. The area is located
west of Walnut Grove Avenue, south of Hellman Avenue and north of Garvey Avenue.
h dial Study
Zone Change 05-220
Planned Development Review 05-01
August 31, 2005
• 0
SECTION THREE
EVALUATION Or ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Significant No
ISSUES Impact Incorporata(ion Impact Impact
1) AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a)
Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
❑
❑
❑
0
b)
Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
❑
❑
❑
0
outcropping, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
c)
Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
❑
❑
❑
0
surroundings?
d)
Create a new source of substantial light or
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
❑
❑
❑
0
2) AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In
detennining 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 Dept. 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) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑
Initial Study
Zone Change 05-220
Plamped Development Review 05-01
,4ugust 31, 2005
0 0
SECTION THREE
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Significant No
ISSUES Impact Incorporatation Impact Impact
3) AIR QUALITY. Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management 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) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? ❑ ❑ ❑
c) 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 (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors )7 El El
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ❑
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ❑
d) 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife ❑ ❑ ❑
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
Inilial Study
Zone Change 05-220
Planned Development Review 05-01
lfagust 31, 2005
z
j1
L11
0
El
0
E
SECTION TIIREF,
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
WWI Mitigation
Incorporatation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
❑
❑
❑
0
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water /pct
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling. hydrological interruption,
❑
or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
ol'any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident migratory wildlife corridors, or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources, ❑ ❑ ❑ P1
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, and other ❑ ❑ ❑ 10
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 as ❑ ❑ ❑ 10
defined in 515064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ❑ ❑
pursuant to 515064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Initial Sl111dv
Zone Change 05-220
Planned Development Review 05-01
Angast 31, 2005
0
s
SEC'T'ION THREE
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Significant
InIImrt Inrornnratntion Imnaet
No
d)
Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
❑
❑
❑
cemeteries?
6) GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the
project
a)
Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on (he 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? Refer to Division of Mines
& Geology Special Publication 42.
❑
❑
❑
ii.) Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
❑
iii.) Seismic-rela(ed ground failure,
❑
❑
0
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 risks to
❑
❑
❑
life or collapse?
7) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
NIATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significan( hazard to the public or
a
0
0
a
z
Initial Studio
Zone Change 05-220
Planned Development Review 05-01
August 31. 2005
SECTION THREE
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONNIEWAL IMPACT
SSUES
Potenlially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
lncorporatation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
❑
❑
❑
Z
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 acutel 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
airpotl or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ ❑
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? ❑ ❑ ❑
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where ❑ ❑ ❑
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
S) HYDROLOGY AND NVATER
Initial Sludt,
Zane Change 05-220
Planned Development Review 05-01
August 31, 2005
C
SECTION THREE
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Significant No
ISSUES Impact htcorporafation Impact Impact
QUALITY". Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards of
waste discharge requirements? n ❑ ❑ a
b) Substantially degrade groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or
a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses
or planned uses for which permits have ❑ ❑ ❑ ~
been granted)?
C) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- ❑ ❑ ❑
or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner, which would result in flooding on- El 1:1 El 0
or oft-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water, which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of ❑ ❑ ❑ 10
Polluted run-off?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality? ❑ ❑ ❑
g) Place housing within a I00-year flood
hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood
I lazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
❑ ❑
Map or other flood hazard delineation El El
map?
h) Place within a 100-year floodplain
lnilial Sfrrdv
Zorne Change 05-220
Planned Development Review 05-01
August 31, 2005
SECTION THREE
EVALLIATION OF ENVIRONN'IENTAL IMPACT
Less 'T'han
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With fllitigation Significant No
ISSUES Impact Incorporatation Impact Impact
structures, which would impede or redirect ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, muciflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
9) LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would
the project:
a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑
community?
b), Conffict,%~ith liny applicable laud use plan,
policy or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect? ❑ ❑
c) Conflict ►vith any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
conservation plan?
10) 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
11) NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
Initial Study
Zone Change 05-220
Planned Development Review 05-01
August 31, 2005
•
L
SUCTION THREE
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With NTiligation Significant No
ISSUES IIII paCt Iit cornoratation Impact Impact
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
❑
❑
❑
b)
Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
❑
❑
0
c)
A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
El
El
d)
A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
❑
❑
0
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 expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
❑
❑
❑
levels?
Q
For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
❑
❑
❑
0
0
0
12) POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would
the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructw•e)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? El El r-1 R]
Mitial Studi,
Zone Change 05-220
Planned Development Review 05-01
Ifugast 31, 2005
• •
SECTION THREE
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Significant No
ISSUES Impact Incorporatation Impact Impact
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
13) PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project
result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered government 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:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
C) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
14) RECREATION. Would tile prt~lect:
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?
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ z
IS) TRANSI'OItTA"I'ION/"I'ItAFFIC.
Initial Sim/y
Zone Change 05-220
Planned Development Review 05-01
August 31, 2005
i •
SECTION THREE
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Significant No
ISSUES Impact Incorporatation Impact 1111po i
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the sheet system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at ❑ ❑ z ❑
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads ❑ ❑ ❑
or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in ❑ ❑ ❑ R1
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e. g. farm equipment)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑ ❑ ❑
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
16) UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality ❑ ❑ ❑ z
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause ❑ ❑ ❑
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
Initial Studv
Zone Change 05-220
Planner! Development Review 05-01
August 31, 2005
• 0
SECTION TIIRE'E
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
lncorporatation
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
construction of which could cause
❑
❑
❑ P1
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
❑
❑
❑
e) Result in a determination in the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project, determined that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the ❑ ❑ ❑ a
project's solid waste disposal needs'?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ ❑ ❑ 10
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
17) MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to
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, 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
the past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable ❑ ❑ ❑ m
future projects)?
Initial Srudtl
Zane Change 05-120
Planned Development Review 05-01
August 31, 2005
SECTION TIIItEh,
EVALUATION Or EN N'IRONMEINTAL IMPACT
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Miligalion Significant No
ISSUES Impact lncorporata(ion Impact Impact
c) Does the project have environmental
effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly? El 0 El R]
Initial Stud'
Zone Change 05-220
Planned Development Review 05-01
August 31, 2005
P
0
SECTION POUR
EXPLANATION OF ENVIRONl11ENTAL EVALUATION
1. AESTHETICS (No Impact)
A) Zone Change 05-220 and Planned Development Review 05-01 consists of a Zone
Change trom R-2; Light-Multi Family Residential to P-D; Planned Development
zone. The P-D; Planned Development zone is used to accommodate various types of
development within the guidelines of the General Plan. Areas surrounding the site
are zoned for residential use, both existing and proposed, and therefore, no scenic
vistas exist in the subject area.
13) The subject site consists of three (3) parcels; all of which are currently with multiple
single-family units. There are no scenic resources such as historic buildings, a state
scenic highway, or rock outcropping v~,illiin the subject site or adjacent area that
would be affected or damaged. ]here are existing trees located along the west side of
the property, which the applicant is proposing to remove.
C) The proposed project will not damage nor degrade the visual character of the existing
area since the proposed residential development is consistent with the surrounding
residential land usage.
D) This project has no potential to create a new source of substantial light and glare to
the surrounding properties. The proposed development consists of six (6) single-
family residences with no indication of any outside sources of light that will have an
impact on surrounding properties.
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES (No Impact)
A-C) There are no agricultural resources present at this subject site or to the surrounding
areas. Therefore, this project would not impact any agricultural resources. The city
is highly urbanized and all properties zoned for agriculture are not currently utilized
for farmland purposes. Agriculturally zoned properties in the City consist of vacant
lots, parkland, plant nurseries, and an elementary school. The majority of the project
site is vacant or occupied with a single-family unit with no agricultural resources
present.
3. AIR QUALITY (No Impact)
A) This development will not result in significant degradation of air duality because the
use of the land will be consistent with the existing land uses surrounding the subject
property. Six (6) single- family units do not create significant changes in air quality
because there are not a significant number of trips per day per unit.
Initial Study
Zone Change 05-220
Planned Development Review 05-01
August 31, 2005
• 0
B-C) The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) monitors air quality
in the project general area. According to SCAQMD project screening criteria in the
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Manual, the
proposed project is below the size (177 acres of construction per quarter,
approximately 20,000 vehicles miles traveled or 2,000 trips per day for year 2005)
that is expected to have significant adverse air quality effects either for construction
or for operation. 'File proposed development is projected to result in emissions below
quantitative thresholds established by tile SCAQMD.
D) The implementation of' the project for the development of six (6) single-family
residences will not result in the exposure of substantial concentrations of pollutants.
E) The proposed project will not be a source of objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number
4. 131OLOGICAL RESOURCES (No Impact)
A-B) Since the project area is urbanized, there is no existing habitat or wetland with
endangered and rare species nor is there any significant vegetation in this project area
that may be affected. The implementation of Zone Change 05-220 and Planned
Development 05-01 will not create adverse impacts to the biological resources
because such resources do not exist at the site.
C) The project site is not a site of federally protected wetlands.
E) The subject property consists of three (3) parcels, which are occupied with multiple
single-family residences and accessory structures. There are no native wildlife
species found to occupy the site. In addition, there are no nearby bodies of water or
hydrological features, which may disrupt migratory fish patterns.
F) The project has been sent to all reviewing agencies and has not been determined to be
in conflict with any local, regional, or state conservation plans.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES (No Impact)
A-B) Based on a staff review of the project site, it is determined that there is no recorded
archaeological or historic resources existing that may be affect by the implementation
of this proposed project. Rosemead is a highly urbanized city with few properties in
the city with significant historical and archaeological resources. Measures in Section
15064.5 of the CEQA guidelines will be included in the proposed project to provide
for satisfactory mitigation of any archaeological impact that may result.
C) The subject properties are currently developed with multiple single-family residences
and accessory sURuctures. The proposed project includes the construction of six (6)
Initial Sludi,
Zone Change 05-220
Planned Development Review 05-01
August 31, 2005
E
0
single-family residences. The site does not contain any unique paleontological or
geologic features.
D) The subject property consists of one undeveloped properties and two which are
occupied with single-family residences in a residential area of the City, and it not
expected to disturb an}, human remains.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS (Less Than Significant Impact)
A) The entire City of Rosemead lies in a seismically active region. Though there are
various properties in the city that are situated in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Act, this project area is not one of those properties. There are no known
active surface faults within the project area, which may impact future development.
However, severe ground shaking G-om a regional earthquake would impact not only
the project area but also the entire site and surrounding area. According to the State
of California Seismic Hazard Zones, most of the City of Rosemead is located within
an identified liquefaction zone. There are older structures throughout the city, either
not built or reinforced to meet earthquake standards that are susceptible to loss by
liquefaction.
C-D) As future development occurs in the city, new structures will replace older buildings
and will comply with current codes. Because this project involves new construction,
soil reports will be submitted at Plan Check for review and approval by the City's
Building Department. The soils reports will determine if any methods of mitigation
will be required.
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (No Impact)
A) The implementation of Zone Change 05-220 and Plamned Development 05-01 does
not include the creation and transportation of hazardous materials.
B) "rile proposed project will not involve the release of hazardous materials into the
envirocunent.
C) The existence of any hazardous or toxic materials will be limited to household
quantities of items such as cleaning and maintenance products related to the operation
of the facility.
D) The proposed project is being constructed on residentially zoned property in a
residential area of the City. The proposed use will not create a hazard to the public or
environment.
E-F) Tlie proposed project is not located within two miles of a public or private airport.
Initial Studi,
Zone Change 05-220
Planned Development Review 05-01
August 31, 2005
• 0
G) This proposed project would not impact the implementation of any emergency
response or evacuation plan. The Los Angeles County Fire Department is currently
reviewing this project for adequate access and has reconunended denial. This
reconunendation may be changed to an approval if the following conditions are
appropriately addressed: The proposed driveway shall provide a minimum
unobstructed width of 26 feet, said access shall provide a turn around with a
minimum-turning radius of 32'. Indicate compliance on the tentative map and
resubmit for review/approval.
11) There are no wildlands within the project area or surrounding area so as not to expose
people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (No Impact)
A-1=) The implementation of Zone Change 05-220 and Planed Development 05-01 will
not create adverse impacts to the hydrology and water quality of the area. The
proposed project will not create potential impacts to the volume, drainage pattern, rate
of flow and overall quality of any body of water.
The quality of stormwater runoff is regulated under the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES stormwater permits provide a
mechanism for monitoring the discharge of pollutants and for establishing
appropriate controls to minimize the entrance of such pollutants into stormwater
runoff. The covering Los Angeles County (NPDES No. CAS614001). As co-
permittee, the County requires all development projects in its jurisdiction to comply
with the NPDES requirements for construction and operations as appropriate.
This project was distributed to the San Gabriel County Water District, the water
purveyor of the subject site, for review and continent. The San Gabriel County
Water District stated that they will not install a water main as show on the drawing
unless it is a dedicated street, if it is not going to be a public street, then they will
install meters on Dorothy Street, in the parkway.
G-J) Water-quality impacts depend on the conditions of the community where a project
will be located and what it will involve. The subject site is not located near any water
basin that may be affected. Since the City of Rosemead has been declared by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FENIA) to be in Zone "C", flood insurance
is not mandatory and there is no community panel flood map for the city.
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING (No Impact)
A) The subject site is zoned for R-2; Light Multi-Family Residential and in the General
Plan, its land use designation is Medium Density Residential. The subject property
will be changed to PD: Planned Development zone and the proposed use of the site is
consistent with the current land uses and the City's General Plan and Municipal Code.
Initial Shall,
Zone Change 05-220
Planned Development Review 05-01
August 31, 2005
•
0
Although, the project involves the. subdivision of one (1) parcel into six (6) parcels,
the proposed project will not physically divide the existing community.
B) The proposed lot subdivision and six (6) unit development have been designed to
comply with the requirements as set forth under the land use designations in the
General Plan and the Zoning District.
Aside From the analysis of the project's environmental impacts, extensive review has
been given to the actual design of the proposed project. All proposed structures have
been extensively reviewed by the City's Plaiming, Building, and Engineering
Departments for code compliance and adherence to design guidelines.
C) The proposed project will not conflict with any applicable habitat or community
conservation plan.
10. NIINERAL RESOURCES (No Impact)
A) There are no mineral resources located within the project area so as to result in loss of
availability of such resources.
B) The Rosemead General Plan and Municipal Code do not include an approved land
use plan that indicates a locally important mineral resource. Therefore, the proposed
project will not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource discovery site.
11. NOISE (Less Than Significant Impact)
A) The proposed development will generate construction noise, traffic-related noise, and
the general activity noise. The City of Rosemead has established noise/land use
compatibility guidelines consistent with State of California criteria. According to
Chapter 8.36 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, the Allowable Exterior Noise level
for a residential land use is 60 dBA (decibels) between 10pin and lam and 65 dBA
between 7am and l0pm. The proposed project is expected to comply with these
acceptable levels of noise.
B) Because the proposed project is a subdivision for the development of six (6) single-
family residences, there will be exposure to groundborne vibration or excess
groundborne noise levels. But this is temporary and is prinmrily associated with
initial grading and foundation work, which is done early in the construction process.
C) Since the proposed project will result in the construction of six (6) new structures, it
is expected that the noise level may increase from the previous use. The noise may
be derived from the increase in the number of families that will be living at the
subject site. The proposed project will result in additional pedestrian and vehicular
traffic noises. The increase in noise levels is not considered to be substantial.
Initial Sludv
Zone Change 05-220
Planned Development Review 05-01
Augusl 31, 2005
•
D) Since this project involves the construction of new buildings, there will be a
substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels above existing levels that may
be created due to construction activities. All construction work shall comply with the
timefi-ame and decibel levels indicated in the Citv's noise ordinance.
E-F) The project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip or located within two
miles of an airport and therefore has no noise level impacts on the people residing or
working in the project area.
12. POPULATION AND MOUSING (No Impact)
A) This proposed project will not result in substantial growth in the City's population.
However, since the project involves the construction of six (6) new single-family
residences, there will be an increase in the City's current population as well as the
introduction of a new private street. Although, the applicant is proposing to change
the zone of the subject site from Light Multi-Family Residence to P-D; Planned
Development, the use of the lot will not change. 'File P-D zone is designed to support
low density, single-family residences. This project is proposed to meet the needs of
current homeowners and potential buyers.
B) This proposed subdivision will require that all existing of the existing structures on
site be demolished. Substantial numbers of residents will not be displaced and some
of the owners will be living in the newly constructed units.
C) This project does involve the demolition of multiple residential units, but will not
result in a substantial displacement of residents. These units were not multi-family
rental units.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES (No Impact)
A-B) Because the rate of use is not expected to change significantly due to this
development, it is anticipated that the implementation of this project will create a
minimal increase in the demand for public services, such as fire and police protection.
The City is not currently planning the construction of new or altered goveriunent
facilities needed to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, etc. However,
the impact will not impair services to the City and its residents.
This project was distributed to the County of Los Angeles Sheriffs Department
(Temple City Sheriff's Department), the law enforcement provider for the subject
site, for review and comment. The Sheriffs Department has no objections to this
project; however, addresses must be clearly posted at the driveway entrances.
C-E) Impacts to parks and schools are community-specific and are not expected to be
significant with the implementation of this project. Impacts to schools depend on the
hritial Study
Zone Change 05-220
Planned Development Review 05-01
August 31, 2005
L
site and magnitude of the project, by the student population generated per household
and the capacity of facilities in a given school district. The construction of this
proposed project will increase the area population and thus may increase student
populations at schools.
14. IZF,CREATION (No Impact)
A) Zone Change 05-220 and Planncd Development 05-01 will not significantly impact
the usage of existing recreational facilities in the area. The construction of six (6)
new residences Nvill increase the population size but will not cause substantial
physical deterioration to existing facilities.
B) The project does not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
15. TRANSPORTATIONTFRAFFiC (Less Than Significant Impact)
A) Zone Change 05-220 and Planned Development 05-01 may result in potential less
than significant impacts to traffic and transportation due to the slight intensification of
the land use with the proposed construction of six (6) new single-family residences.
Such a proposed use will result in an increase in vehicle traffic deriving from the
increase in population size. However, the proposed project includes the construction
of six (6) new two-car garages as well as two (2) required guest parking stalls, \-vhich
will reduce the number of cars parked on Dorothy Street.
B) This project has been sent out for review and comment to several agencies including
county agencies and has not been found to exceed service standards established by
the county.
C) The proposed development is a subdivision of one (1) parcel into six (6) parcels and a
zone change from R-2; Light Multi-Family Residential to P-D; Planned
Development. This project shall have no impacts on air traffic patterns.
D) The proposed project consists ol' the construction of six (6) new single-family
residences and the opening of a private street. The development will not substantially
increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses.
L) The Los Angeles County Fire Department and City Engineer have reviewed this
proposal for adequate access. Tile proposed project meets the preliminary comments
of these reviewing agencies and shall be approved prior to final recordation of the
Tentative Tract Map. The developer has incorporated a paved turn-around area
between two units to provide for hire Department use only.
F) The project includes the addition of six (6) new two-car garages which will enable the
facility to meet applicable parking standards as required in Chapter 17.84.020 of the
Rosemead Municipal Code.
Initial Studi,
Zone Change 05-220
Planned Development Review 05-01
August 31, 2005
•
•
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTENIS (No Impact)
A-G) The implementation of the proposed project will not significantly affect the
consumption of natural gas and electricity, the demand for the coin illunlcatlol
system, the regional wastewater treatment system, the stormwater drainage, the solid
waste generation and the demand for water, beyond the providers' supply
infrastructure. The proposed project will not be substantial enough to exceed
established level-of-service standards of the utilities and service svstenls.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (No Impact)
A) Tine implementation of the Zone Change 05-220 and Planned Development 05-01
will not degrade the environmental quality of any fish and wildlife habitat or threaten
to eliminate any plant or animal community. The Zoning District and Land Use
Designation of this site allow for this proposed project to be constructed.
B) The proposed project has few impacts that are less than significant and when
cumulatively considered will not amount to an intensification of adverse effects. The
intent of this proposed project is for the development new homes and the
revitalization of an existing lot and surrounding areas.
C) Based on the findings provided in this enviromnental analysis and on the review of
the plans for this development, the implementation of Zone Change 05-220 and
Planned Development 05-01 will not be a detriment to the City nor will it have
adverse impacts on the surrounding properties. With respect to the architectural
design, proper consideration has been given to the goals and objectives of the General
Plan and Zoning District for this area. It is the opinion of this department that this
proposed project will enhance the existing use and surrounding environment. The
project will not cause adverse effects on human beings.
Initial Studi
Zone Change 05-210
Planned Development Review 05-01
.4ugust 31, 2005
•
R o
I
w
r
_
D
T
1'0
-
1
O J
u
j t
T
l
(
z
rn
U M
I
o
i~
O
IV
i~
I~
< w
rn
I~
r')
V
:U
U
I
I.U
~
W
1
Q
rn 4,
I c7~
I
,
Fc)
o an
as
DELTA
r
lc~! oJ'
E,ARLE AV E.
0
:e I
I
O
I
I
I
I W
g WILLARD
w~ o
sa w
ro
4
! 0 pp
W
•
fTl "
u 00
M
II O
o W
0
0
t T
a
AV E . o
5'C £F.l. PP
1-9 30 SO /CO 50 50 55 £29! rb 7.
u• u , I yq~ 60
W I u' I N w N V ) w u
N~yio;2.
~I _zI° p:c U ~ N 1P 1,
p I :hb, I - J N T V D w I w cam., 4 .U
015 ti I n ti~ o
<v~ I~R1, I ~u J w I cli
£e. - ZZ i3 Sig a 50 50 ss as
N ` a o ~ gyZL7 ° ~
rn $1"M h
$14 2
1 - 426.36 U- gq aS
s o°a'f. 25034 (n T 56 !/0
fTl 2~ L 4 ~''~30 O
$ 8Y3~ a
MI 7 q3b 3
D~
e a. O ~ A Io ro n c < y-I
o W
n AV x !!6 w ° cn w
J
njUn F ? 60
C, ,s r
0
AVE.
c
n
~ R
EXHIBIT D
C~
~r , , I T, , " t • .
lit
V. 'JI
j~._.. ' _ p ~'f• 3700 r
...~.,.-~..~•...1.`.. ^'.f' ~I Ili ~l~•' t,..y_.~..._~._~._~. >.....r .........r._~
1 I1 ~ I ~~~1 Q~~,
J r 1 ~ r~'1 `mil 1 I ~""II {1.>L
Z"I
. ~ 1. 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ' 1 l i ~ ~`~r~
1 I
F 4 .~.~J"~.~..~--".....~• ~ ~ ` t •5 01 t_ . L._.
'1QIklrA Q M14~AI
#[.'tVAlllly111~~1~,^vi',Rre.J rrtra~xMM little,
~ ~ 1, ti.,, i~ . I 'i. 441x•• u.
r ~ r~i~ ~Id~'1 PJ FLU. 11 ~'1 °+•+r~ ~ i~{t o 1~1 , ti I6~ ! ~"`'fl, u;.+
tsaRRi~ 141R»rrrpan.7n~tsEO•rmx.ermpla►n~IPM11...r~~~+..~~•
ICI _ .Y4n r. L7.1 , T~~ • 7' f . i"-, y !M N- Q`0.
-~:i~:..... f0 •-F~A `"':~w....pn+r.~++q w.r-~,..pr~•"`r 4.ler.:' ( ~ ` ,
NMPiM1J11f
ria hilJyaAlfll Pryry IJNfi;Itl/ftlUfnl rrY 1T1 trl1U r111 f11/ UItbHY I I '1 r I;W1 4 ~Il lJ rt 1.1M 1111 NIf, i 'n1 rr} I,•. hi1/HlIb HIIN{i.....
..~j I' Y91fP r'1 R,I - e~l.7em~ If! {
n
fNV 1 y l r.. 11 ~t P I fff ~IV
lyt
P' j , r l yr
^(-'-r~, . 1. j^"~ -L-1 L
r~'•1 ~n ~'1. 1J1 1 t~T rl ~ i I v~
t I .a. ` I I I k:41
< 11 i a r~' , + Via,
r. r . • ~ r• s r
64
- car L,7 1Lt' rr T^ /P•'T r.. I~:tr.'. I', l ~.y~! r (
.12
~I,Pw~rrrr.x. P,v .:rr► . ~rl I wl.' 1r`~ ~ / 1 r r i i, 1~ 1
11t~ r r''M ' ~1 I
u !RRAIYYAF,I~'i Il~r) I w1.~1 I'(Y lit
• ~ ~ ....._r, t I ~ ..JAI .P.r r n . _ _ I ~"r I ~ •i ~ 'a rv7.il
Q` r~~ ,I HPi047Mr.~:_.; rrrr. YySi`i;i*llltu.i7::,
6.,~ ~i lY ` LP r d yS I,/ ~dl'r°""'net,~ + ,a,l n1 P~t°'41 I
~r
,~rw.••• t, T~ 1.'iLlnr I ,
A\ \ ~Jfl~ 1~nM ~LhK ~_~}II
AV
IIIIUUill111111111~11111'.II111a1In11UI111U11111'~t flf, I IIIIIntIV,°,rII1RIh ~~~ry1 ~~t) `1111~~11 J4UlUrl~`j1 anll ir'll,'ll 11.I,;.~U!11~I .1{kLA 11LLL11 .HUUJ WiYN~'UUf ~4+irrM+ll L!;~Hl.(IIrM.41NMIMyP*
O ~ mot' C:7 I• ' , J ~ c-r Il~S....~..--•J ~<~1'~~11•" 'J"r I
)
{ L!Y , I "F III tl e:u.rtHrw►wwl tol duwuuro-Oll1111 nslulfY11r.1 /~.1 ;lug 6u►► "
LI.
1 > ~I r~7~~ , LLI) I•. IM I.F I r~
I ;
~ ~2 1
4EW
I , J~A~4 ~ ti~r~ l~~r ~ 1 I , ~ 1 I I„ '~I w.~ I`
I•~p(, I +~~.e11't V~~ 1~1 4 Pt t\., 1 ' ~IP``y+ 11 1-~R dY I
~ilYTllftf~t!41 ffff(fit.1 1
MI.
LL < L~
LLt
1 I L FERN CI.W.m i~~ I _ II { II
~~nn~ r+ r' { I'L fa rTl L .
r W EP~ 1. R~ 1 J/ ~nl lr y\+ j j-,G7 I ? I!
/r C ,j'. I~. ~I, ~a 'PC.i ft~,~ ~1f •7, Il I~ J4
L ~i"; Z . ~ tj. CI'1 ~1 6~1luuuti ,Ii wLL1WAleU "11.1r tq- '~LrtPYrlwrT.l+s1+.. Tf~7rle,rrflrllrlitlYTim
t w.>' I ^ 1,~ g r~'!~~'Jr I. Myw4~ ......,,~.I I r U1` L7,,
1 Y n
{ , , I tll u1Nlr tl~'r11M1~l;PIP IIH1 11 rr16,111.1„ 1110011 EXHIBIT E II„1Iwllnlll
it ~t wwuu unl TM' 41
,,a~>In1L~•f~ . I • ( ~ _'I►.>,:olltnQa,l,: l ry•'\ . 'afl~. I ~ . '
f9 ; 1:t.,.,.,-.r, l_~1 r. ICI: \ r 1•,Pr 8y 4 r
a~
it ..~C,.'I~.''' 1te'~~~6^il'7 ('^'~^'i. ,,.,I 1.,. •~/~5. !;l$M - ~..'Cf~"•!Y.s1 I I:.... •vl~d~"s'~
0
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Derulty Residential
ooco I
Doooo Mixed UN: Residential/Commarc a
Office/Light Industrial
Mixed Use: Light Industrial/Commercial
Commercial
Public Facilities
CO m
FIGURE LU-6
Land Use Policy
Planning Area 6
City of Rosemead
General Plan
/BELAND/ASSOCIATES
0
am ~Y
LU-18
EXHIBIT F
PLANNING AREA
ZONE CHANGE
APPLICATION SUTPPLKXRNT (1)
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, PLANWD%C DBPARTMKNT
8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD
ROSEKKAD, CA 91770
(818) 288-6671
SITE ADDRESS: ~)C,Mo L wr 51. DATE:
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST/PROJECT:C.J C~Ot.15?'.1~T~p 'DEl"~tGK~'D
~!)f~_L~lsl~ol~slTS ~~La1.1 2tooo SP Z,ZS~ S#?
Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning:
Existing General Plan Designation: I~~i 1U1~.1 T'~C~SLT~f Dda= 1 D-FrrJA-t.___
Address the following statements on a separate sheet.
1. The proposed change of zone meets the intent and is consistent with the
General Plan designation applicable to the area.
2. The proposed change of zone provides for the logical and best use for the
property or properties involved, and does not constitute a "spot zoning"
situation.
3. The proposed change of zone is necessary to provide for the general welfare
and benefit of the public at large.
4. The public necessity supports the proposed change. There is a real need in
the community for more of the type of uses permitted by the zone requested.
5. The property involved in the proposed rezoning is more suitable for the
uses permitted in the proposed zone than for the uses permitted in the
present zone.
6. The uses permitted by the proposed designation are not detrimental to
surrounding properties.
SIGNATURE:
(FEE S1350
^L/ZC
DATE.
EXHIBIT G
0
PROJECT: 6 Detached Dwelling Units
Planned Dcvelopment at City of Rosemead.
LOCATION: 8444 Dorothy Street
r:
APN: 528-800-304-0, 528-800-304-1, 528-800-304-2
1. The proposed Zone Change from existing R-2 to PD will meet the intent and is
consistent with the general plan designation for IVlid-density residential use and is
applicable the neighborhood context. (-NGOIuM -lx0PIT`r)
2. The proposed Change of Lone to PD zone is for the best use and high quality
design of this irregular shape ofproperty: the building volumes and uses are
consistent to the neighborhood area and will not constitute a "spot zoning"
situation.
3. 'File proposed Change of Zone to PD zone is for the best use and high duality
design of this irregular shape of property; the development will bring high quality
of IlTsing desiWi to the area and i5 necessary to pro,yide.tor the general welfare
and benefit of the public at large.
4. The proposed Change of Zone makes the development feasible.. It will provide 6
housing units inventory to the community.
5. The proposed Change of Zone to PD is to make the subdivision applicable and
provide housing units owned by tenants; while the development cannot be
subdivided in the existing R-2 zone.
6. The proposed designation is consistent as residential use in the area and will not
be detrimental to the surrounding properties.
Applicant: Jimmy Lee
Dare: June 8, 2005
Z >t~
f't"L7IC-C
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
CONDITIONAL USE PER14IT APPLICATION
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST AFFIDAVIT
Site Address:
8444 DOROTHY STREET
P-J
Date: MAY 31, 2005
Description of Request/Project:
AFFIDAVIT
City of Rosemead }
County of Los Angeles )
State of California )
I, SUSAN MORENO , hereby certify that the
names and addresses of all persons to whom all property is assessed as they
appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County of Los Angeles
within the described and for a distance of three hundred (300) feet from the
exterior boundaries of property described as:
Street Address(es): 8444 DOROTHY ST
Signed:
Assessor's Parcel No.(s):
5 , _ ,ark 41 , 042
Print Name(s): SUSAN MORENO
Mailing Address: 12106 LAMBERT ROAD
Phone: (626) 350-5944
M
City/State/Zip: EL MONTE, CA 91732 Date: AY 3 1, 2 0 05
subscribed and sworn to before me this 31st day of MAY
NOTARY PUBLIC
FL/RADIUS
20 0405
ANA PANTCUA
_ Ccmmllron t 156776e
Nofay Puf~Ne - CcNloorio
La Ar~s+« County
MyComm. E Y►MMC7 1A
•
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
October 3, 2005
CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the City of Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order
by Chairman Loi at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers of the Rosemead City Hall at 8838 East Valley
Boulevard, Rosemead.
Commissioner Loi led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commissioner Lopez delivered the invocation.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Chairman Loi, Commissioners Breen, Herrera, Kelty and Lopez
ABSENT: None
EX OFFICIO: Bermejo. Johnson and Tone
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of September 19, 2005
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BREEN, SECONDED BY COMMISSONER LOPEZ, that the
minutes of the City of Rosemead Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 19, 2005, be
APPROVED as submitted.
Vote results:
YES: BREEN, HERRERA, KELTY, LOI and LOPEZ
NO: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Chairman Loi declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
2. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS:
Planning Director Johnson explained the public hearing process and the right to appeal Planning
Commission decisions to the City Council.
3. PUBLIC HEARING:
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-1021 - 8772 Valley Boulevard (Pho King Restaurant)
Angel Liu , of Pho King Restaurant, has submitted a conditional use permit application for a new
On-Sale Beer and Wine (Type 41) ABC license for a bona fide public eating establishment, located
in the C3-D (Medium Commercial in a Design Overlay) Zone.
EXHIBIT B
i
0
Presentation: Assistant Planner Sherri Bermejo
Staff Recommendation: APPROVE- subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A" for six
(6) months.
Chairman Loi called for questions from the Commissioners.
Chairman Loi questioned the adequacy of parking for the restaurant. Planning Assistant
Bermejo reviewed parking plan.
Applicant(s): In the audience.
Chairman Loi opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application.
Raul Pardo, 8772 Valley Boulevard, represented the applicant. Mr. Pardo asked if the
Commissioners had received the letter the applicant had prepared for them. Planning Assistant
Bermejo noted that the letter is Attachment B to the Staff Report.
Mr. Pardo said that the applicant is a new owner of the business and that the past history of the
property should not reflect negatively on the new owner. He further stated that they are only
applying for a liquor license and do not feel that all the conditions of approval are appropriate
under the circumstances. The applicant does not want to remove the karaoke machine which
they are using as a public address system. The applicant also wishes to retain the parquet dance
floor because they may wish to apply for an entertainment license eventually. Also, Mr. Pardo
said the applicant does not wish to move the service counter into the kitchen as this would be
very expensive and the counter is currently used by clients when seminars are conducted in the
dining room. He further stated that he could not understand the requirement to remove the lotto
machine.
Planning Director Johnson said that during his inspection of the property he noted that the
karaoke machine is set up for use as a karaoke machine and not a public address system. He
recommended that the conditions of approval remain unchanged because the physical layout of
the building lends itself to the same type of problems that occurred in the past.
Barrish Balin, a business associate of the applicant, stated that the applicant is willing to remove
the karaoke machine and replace it with a computer. He said the applicant is still reluctant to
remove the stage and parquet dance floor because they may want to apply for an entertainment
license eventually.
Commissioner Kelty said that if Ms. Lui, the owner, would assure the Comtissioners that the
service counter would be used only for wine and beer, the parquet floor would not be used for
dancing and the stage used only for seminar speakers he would be willing to consider deleting
Conditions 23 and 27 and add a new condition requiring the modification of the karaoke system
to a presentation room.
Planning Director Johnson said that staff recommends that the conditions remained unchanged to
reduce the possibility of reoccurrence of the very serious problems experienced in the past.
Public hearing was opened to those who wished to OPPOSE the application:
None.
There being no one further wishing to address the Commission; Chairman Loi closed the public
hearing segment for this project.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELTY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BREEN to
APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 05-1021, subject to conditions listed in "Exhibit A" except
Conditions 23 and 27.
Vote results:
YES: BREEN, HERRERA, KELTY, LOI AND LOPEZ
NO: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Chairman Loi declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
B. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 061523/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-968 - 9129 Valley
Boulevard.
Chin-Yuen Chen has submitted an application for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide three (3)
existing parcels for the development of a mixed-use residential and commercial project consisting of
two (2) buildings. Building "A" consists of 9,103 square feet of office and restaurant uses and
Building "B" consists of sixteen (16) condominium units totaling 22,426 square feet above 11,098
square feet of office.
Staff Recommendation: CONTINUE to October 17, 2005.
C. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 063143/ZONE CHANGE 05-219/ZONE VARIANCE 05-332
(DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN) - 4433 Walnut Grove Avenue.
Ivan K. Ho has submitted an application for a Tentative Tract Map subdivision for eight (8) detached
condominium units with a common driveway. The applicant is also requesting a Zone Change from
R-1 (Single Family Residence) to R-3 (Medium Multi-Family Residence) zone and a Zone Variance
to deviate from the minimum required side yard setback.
Presentation: Planning Director Johnson presented the staff report.
Staff Recommendation: APPROVE- subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A" for two (2)
years.
Chairman Loi asked for questions from the Commissioners.
None
Applicant(s): In the audience.
Chairman Loi opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application.
0 0
Simon Lee, the architect for the project, represented the applicant. Mr. Lee briefly described the
project and offered to answer any questions for the Commissioners.
Public hearing was opened to those who wished to OPPOSE the application:
Ms. Dana Cevalis, 4102 Bartlett Avenue, asked if the units had yards. Commissioner Kelty
showed her where the plans showed yards for each unit.
There being no one further wishing to address the Commission, Chairman Loi closed the public
hearing segment for this project.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HERRERA, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOPEZ, to
APPROVE Tentative Tract Map 063143/Zone Change 05-219/Zone Variance 05-332, subject to
conditions listed in "Exhibit A".
Vote results:
YES: BREEN, HERRERA, KELTY, LOPEZ AND LOT
NO: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Chairman Loi declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR-These items are considered to be routine actions that may be considered in
one motion by the Planning Commission. Any interested party may request an item from the consent
calendar to be discussed separately.
A. RESOLUTION 05-42 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-1020, FOR AN ON-SALE BEER AND
WINE (TYPE 41) ABC LICENSE IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EATING
ESTABLISHMENT, LOCATED AT 9544 VALLEY BOULEVARD, IN THE C-313
(MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE. (APN: 8593-002-038).
B. RESOLUTION 05-43 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 05-220, TO CHANGE THE CURRENT R-2 (LIGHT
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE TO THE PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT)
ZONE; AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 05-01 (CONCEPTUAL), FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A SIX (6) UNIT CONDOMINIUM TRACT MAP SUBDIVISION
WITH A COMMON DRIVEWAY, LOCATED AT 8440-8444 DOROTHY STREET.
(APN: 5288-003-040, -041, -042).
C. RESOLUTION 05-44 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 05-130, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
LANDSCAPED PARKING LOT, LOCATED AT 8951-8959 VALLEY BOULEVARD IN
•
0
THE CBD-D (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE.
(APN's: 5391-012-036. -037,-038).
D. RESOLUTION 05-45 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-1019 AND ZONE VARIANCE 05-335
FOR THE ADDITION OF A SECOND STORY 558 SQUARE FOOT SECONDARY UNIT
AND THE REDUCTION OF THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD
SETBACK, LOCATED AT 3879 NORTH DELTA AVENUE IN THE R-1 (SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE (APN 5371-005-028).
Chairman Loi presented the resolutions by title only.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LOPEZ, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BREEN, to waive
further reading and adopt said resolutions.
Vote results:
YES: BREEN, HERRERA, KELTY, LOPEZ and LOI
NO: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Chairman Loi declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION FROM THE AUDIENCE
Ms. Dolly Leong, 8455 Mission Drive, said that Planned Development Review 94-7 (Modification) was
approved on July 6, 2004, subject to conditions, according to the minutes of that meeting. She stated
that Condition Number 9 says that violation of the conditions will result in a citation and the initiation
of revocation proceedings. Ms. Leong claims that to date the conditions have not been met by the
property owner and she asked for the status of this case.
Planning Director Johnson advised that this is an ongoing Code Enforcement case that has been referred
to the City Attorney.
Ms. Barbara Delory, 4030 Bartlett Avenue, asked for the status of the Valley Hotel case. She described
several incidents of illegal activity and the overall poor condition of the property. Ms. Delory said the
neighbors are most concerned about the type of clientele the hotel attracts. She also displayed pictures
of the trash enclosures and mentioned that the street sweeper cannot gain access to clean the street at the
Valley Hotel because of low hanging branches.
Planning Director Johnson said that city staff has met with the owners of the hotel and their attorney and
set conditions for compliance. The hotel owner has begun clean up and remodeling. They are also
required to develop a new landscaping plan. He further noted that the city will continue to follow up on
the situation.
9
r
Ms. Dana Cevalis, 4102 Bartlett Avenue, said she also lives behind the Valley Hotel and she described
several incidents of illegal activity and said that she has been threatened for reporting these incidents to
the Sheriff's Department.
Planning Director Johnson said that the city will continue to work with the property owner and their
legal representative until the situation is satisfactorily resolved or until the business is closed.
6. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS AND STAFF
Planning Director Johnson announced that Nancy Valderrama, City Clerk, will retire at the end of this
month. He also said that the City Council will set a date for the special recall election at their October
11 meeting.
Planning Director Johnson said that the notice for the re-hearing on the Wal-Mart Environmental Impact
Report scheduled for December 13 have been mailed and posted. He further explained that the purpose
of the re-hearing was to review alternate city sites appropriate for Wal-Mart.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no other busuiess to come before the commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
B WJ/BT
•
PC RESOLUTION 05-43
11
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 05-220, TO CHANGE THE CURRENT R-2
(LIGHT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE TO THE PD (PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT) ZONE; AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 05-01
(CONCEPTUAL), FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SIX (6) UNIT
CONDOMINIUM TRACT MAP SUBDIVISION WITH A COMMON
DRIVEWAY, LOCATED AT 8440-8444 DOROTHY STREET. (APN: 5288-
003-040 - 042).
WHEREAS, Mr. Jimmy Lee, filed an application for a Zone Change to change the
current R-2 (Light Multi-Family Residential) Zone to the PD (Planned Development) Zone;
and a Planned Development Review for the development of a six (6) unit condominium tract
map subdivision with a common driveway located at 8440-8444 Dorothy Street; and
WHEREAS, Rosemead's General Plan designates the subject property for Medium Density
Residential uses; and
WHEREAS, Rosemead's Zoning Map designates the site for R-2 (Light Multi-Family
Residential) Zone, and
WHEREAS, Sections 17.116 and 17.76.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code set forth
procedures and requirements for Zone Changes and Planned Development Reviews; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has an adopted General Plan and zoning ordinance
including specific development standards to control development; and
WHEREAS, Sections 17.116 and 17.124 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the
Planning Commission to consider and recommend proposed zone changes to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on August 31, 2005, an initial study for the proposed Zone Change and Planned
Development Review was completed finding that the proposed project could not have a significant
effect on the environment, a negative declaration was prepared; and
WHEREAS, on August 31, 2005, notices were posted in eight (8) public locations and 46
notices were sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property specifying
the public comment period and the time and place for a public hearing pursuant to California
Government Code Section 65091(a)(3), and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
receive testimony relative to Zone Change 05-220 and Planned Development Review 05-01; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to
make the following determination.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Rosemead as follows:
Section 1. The Planning Commission HEREBY DETERMINES that a Negative Declaration
shall be adopted for Zone Change 05-220 and Planned Development Review 05-01. An initial study
was completed to analyze potential environmental impacts pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). This study analyzes the potential environmental impacts that could be created
from the proposed amendment. The study was sent to all responsible agencies, and noticed in eight
(8) public locations, soliciting comments for a 21-day period prior to the Planting Commission
hearing. This study found that there would be no potential significant environmental impacts. The
initial study for Zone Change 05-220 and Planned Development Review 05-01 are attached hereto
EXHIBIT C
• •
and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that changing
the land use designation to Light Multi-Family Residential and placing the property in the PD
(Planned Development) Zone is in the best interest of the public necessity and general welfare, and
good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed zone change and general plan
amendment.
Section 3. The Planning Commission FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES that Zone
Change 05-220 and Planned Development Review 05-01 are consistent with the Rosemead General
Plan as follows:
A. Land Use: The General Plan designation will remain Medium-Density Residential and will
allow for the proposed residential properties to be consistent with City codes and land uses in
the surrounding area. The density allowed in the General Plan is 0-9 units per acre. This
development is designed at less than 6 units per acre which is a low density design.
B. Circulation: Zone Change 05-220 and Plarmed Development 05-01 may result in potential
less than significant impacts to traffic and transportation due to the slight intensification of
the land use with the proposed construction of six (6) new single-family residences. Such a
proposed use will result in an increase in vehicle traffic deriving from the increase in
population size. However, the proposed project includes the construction of six (6) new two-
car garages as well as two (2) required guest parking stalls, which will reduce the number of
cars parked on Dorothy Street
C. Housing: The proposed project will not result in substantial growth in the City's population.
However, since the project involves the construction of six (6) new single-family residences,
there will be an increase in the City's current population as well as the introduction of a new
private street. Although, the applicant is proposing to change the zone of the subject site
from R-2; Light Multi-Family Residence to P-D; Planned Development, the use of the lot
will not change. The P-D zone is designed to support low density, single-family residences.
This project is proposed to meet the needs of current homeowners and potential buyers.
This proposed subdivision will require that all of the existing structures on site be
demolished. Substantial numbers of residents will not be displaced and some of the owners
will be living in the newly constructed units.
This project does involve the demolition of multiple residential units, but will not create
undue burden on any public facilities.
D. Resource Management: No resources will be impacted, because the use of the subject
properties is for single-family residences and will remain residential in nature with the
adoption of these entitlements.
E. Noise: This development will not generate any permanent impacts to noise levels for the
surrounding area. The proposed project will result in additional pedestrian and vehicular
traffic noises, but is not considered to be substantial. ]here will be a temporary increase in
ambient noise levels above the existing levels due to construction activities. An initial study
was completed and its findings have determined that this development could not have a
significant effect on the environment.
F. Public Safety: There will be not be a significant increase in population or density as a result
of the Zone Change and Tentative Tract Map, so the need for more public safety and public
areas is not impacted. The entire City of Rosemead is located in Flood Zone C (flood
insurance is not mandatory) and is free from any flood hazard designations.
Section 5. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS APPROVAL to the City
Council for Zone Change 05-220, amending Rosemead Zoning map designation from "R-1 (Single-
Family Residential)" to "PD (Planned Development)" and Planned Development Review 05-01
approving the development concept plan, for the property located at 8440-8444 Dorothy Street,
(APNs: 5288-003-040, 041, 042).
Section 6. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on
September 19. 2005, by the following vote:
YES: KELTY, LOL BREEN, HERRERA. LOPEZ
NO: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Section 7. The secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall transmit
copies of same to the applicant and Rosemead City Clerk.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 3`d day of October, 2005.
v
Duc Loi, Chairperson
CERTIFICA"PION
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on the 3rd day of October, 2005, by the following
vote:
YES: KELTY, LOI, BREEN, HERRERA, LOPEZ
NO: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE '
Bradford,461mison, Secretary
0 0
EXHIBIT "A"
ZONE CHANCE 05-220
PLANNED DrVELOPMEN"I' REVIEW 05-01
8440 - 8446 Dorolliy Street
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SEPTEMBER 19, 2004
Zone Change 05-220 and Plaluled Development Review 05-01 are approved for a six-lot
single-family residential development, to be developed in accordance with the plans marked
Exhibit "B" dated June 8, 2005 and submitted colored elevations and color and material
sample boards. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for review and
approval by the Planning Department.
Approval of Zone Change 05-220 and Planned Development Review 05-01 shall not take
effect for any purpose until the applicant leas tiled with tile. City of Rosemead an affidavit
stating that they are aware of and accept all o I'the conditions set forth in the letter of approval
and this list of conditions.
3. Zone Change 05-220 and Planned Development Review 05-01 are approved for a two-year
period. Applicant shall make progress towards initiation of proposed use or request an
extension 30 days prior to expiration from the Planning Commission. Otherwise Tentative
Tract Map 063143 shall become null and void.
4. The applicant shall comply with all Federal. State and local laws relative to the approved use
including the requirements ofthe Planning. Building, Fire, Sheriff and Health Departments.
5. Building permits will not be issued in connection with any project until such tinge as all plan
check fees, and all other applicable fees are paid in full.
6. Prior to issuance of building pennits, all school fees shall be paid. The applicant shall
provide the City with written verification ofconlpliance from the Unified School District.
7. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday - Saturday. No
construction shall take place oil Sundays or (ill any legal holidays without prior approval by
the City.
8. Planning staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to
monitor progress.
9. The conditions listed on this Exhibit "A" shall be copied directly onto development plans
submitted to the Planning and Building Departments for review.
10. Occupancy will not be granted until all improvements required by this approval have been
completed, inspected, and approved by the appropriate department(s).
11. Driveways and parking areas shall be surfaced and improved with Portland concrete cement
as shown on Exhibit "B", and thereafter niaintained in good serviceable condition.
12. A wall and fence plan will be required if any pcrinicter fencing or walls are proposed. The
colors and materials of the proposed fence shall be consistent or compliment (lie submitted
color and material board and first be approved by the Planting Department prior to
installation.
13. Prior to issuance of Building permits, a landscape and irrigation plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for revieir, reflecting preliminary approval of
landscape/site plan, commonly referred (o as I?,xhihit "B". Irrigation plan shall include
automatic timers and rain sensors. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed and
completed prior to final Planning Department approval.
0 0
14. All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow preservation
devices, fire valves, A/C condensers, furnaces and other equipment) shall be located away
from public view or adequately screened by landscaping or screening walls so as not to be
seen from the public right-of-way. The DirectorofPlantiing before installation shall approve
said screening.
15. No portion of any required front and/or side vards shall be used for storage of any type.
16. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles. vehicle parts, equipment or trailers. All trash
and debris shall be contained within a trash enclosure.
17. All roof top appurtenances and equipment shall adequately be screened from view to the
satisfaction of the Planning Department.
18. The properly shall be graded to drain to the street, but in no case shall such drainage be
allowed to sheet flow across public sidewalk. A grading and/or drainage plan shall be
prepared, submitted to and approved by the Building Official and such grading and drainage
shall take place in accordance with such approved plan.
19. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least 6" tal l with a minimum character width of
1/4". contrasting in color and easily visible at drivel's level from the street. Materials, colors,
location and size of such address numbers shall be approved by the Director of Planning
prior to installation.
20. Applicant shall obtain a public works permit for all work in or adjacent to the public
right-of-way.
21. Applicant shall install and complete all necessary public improvements, including but not
linuted to street, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, handicap ramps, and storm drains, along the entire
street frontage of the development site as required by the Director of Planning.
22. All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow preservation
devices, fire valves and other equipment) shall be screened by screening walls and/or
landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Department.
23. All utilities shall be placed underground includinP, facilities and wires for the supply and
distribution of electrical energy, telephone, cable television et.c. The underground conversion
of these utilities shall consider all ftiture connections to the satisfaction of the Director- of
Planning.
24. The dwelling unit shall be provided with water conservation fixtures such as low-flush toilets
and low-flow faucets. The hot water heater and lines shall be insulated. Landscaping
irrigation systems shall be designed for high efficiency and irrigation timers progranuraed for
maximized water usage.
25. All requirements of the Building and Safety I >epartment and Plan-ling Department shall be
complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction.
26. Violation of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation
proceedings.
27. All stamped concrete along the common driveway shall be a medium to dark tone of
gray.
28. Concrete block wall for the perimeter of the development shall be split face block with
decorative caps and no red blocks, or a stucco wall matching the exterior color of (lie
proposed homes.
29. All 6'-0" block Nvalls that encroach into any required front yard setback shall be
reduced to 4'-0" in height.
30. The Rosemead Planning Commission must approve any changes to the approved plans.
i
11
31. Each unit shall be constructed exactly as approved; uo as-built plans will be accepted.
32. The private driveway shall include red curbs and signage posting the drive area as a
"hire Lane" no parking allowed.
33. CU & Its shall be developed for review and approval by the City of Rosemead and shall
include but not be limited to the followin;,:
a. Continued maintenance of all "open space" including laudscaped areas by the
homeowners association.
b. Creation of a condominium owners association with bylaws and operating
procedures.
c. Authorization for city enforcement of parking, land use and safety CC&Rs in
(lie event (lie condominium association fails to do so.
d. Restrictions of parking to designated areas.
I