Loading...
PC - Item 4A - Conditional Use Permit 01-820ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: JUNE 21, 2010 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION (2) 01-820 DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION (1) 07-145 MODIFICATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES APPROVED UNDER THE ADOPTED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE DOUBLE TREE HOTEL EXPANSION Summary On July 7, 2008, the Rosemead Planning Commission approved Resolution 08-13 (Exhibit A) that approved Conditional Use Permit Modification 01-820 and Design Review 07-145, subject to conditions of approval for the addition of 54 guest rooms with a lobby totaling 54,739 square feet, a 12,440 square foot ballroom and an attached 86,527 square foot parking structure to the existing Double Tree Hotel. Resolution 08- 13 also adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") (Exhibit B) and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ("MMRP") (Exhibit C). Ms. Sue Lee of CHCS, Inc. has submitted Conditional Use Permit Modification (2) 01- 820 and Design Review Modification (1) 07-145 on behalf of the Double Tree Hotel (Sunshine Inn Limited Partnership) requesting to eliminate mitigation measure #12 of the adopted MMRP as a project condition (Condition of Approval #34 in Resolution 08- 13). Mitigation Measure #12 requires the project applicant to pay for the cost to install a traffic signal system at the northern entrance to the Double Tree Hotel site prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase I construction. Environmental Determination: An Addendum has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") in response to the request to eliminate Mitigation Measure #12. The Addendum assesses the environmental effects Planning Commission Staff Report CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145 June 21, 2010 Page 2 of 10 of the proposed project revisions in terms of whether the impacts would be substantially different from and/or more severe than the impacts identified in the 2008 Mitigated Negative Declaration. If approved, this Addendum would eliminate Mitigation Measure #12 of the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program with a replacement mitigation measure. The replacement mitigation measure states, "The project applicant shall pay a total of $5,712.00 into the City's traffic mitigation fund to cover the applicant's fair share (1.4%) of the project cost to install a traffic signal system at the northern project entrance. This total fee also includes an allowance of 20% of the project cost for design and construction management." Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10-18 findings and subject to twelve (12) conditions outlined in Exhibit "D", considering an Addendum (Exhibit E) to the MND and MMRP, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, APPROVING Conditional Use Permit Modification (2) 01-820 and Design Review Modification (1) 07-145. Property History and Description The Double Tree Hotel is located at 888 Montebello Boulevard, which is south of the Pomona Freeway (60), west of San Gabriel Boulevard, and south of Town Center Drive. The subject site consists of approximately 6.83 acres. The site is developed with a 150- guest room hotel and 192 surface parking spaces. There is a vacant lot at the south end of the site that was formerly developed with surface parking for the current hotel. The following is an aerial photo of the site. Aerial Map from CityGIS Planning Commission Staff Report CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145 June 21, 2010 Pace 3 of 10 The approved Double Tree Hotel Expansion project includes the expansion of the existing Double Tree Hotel in two phases. Phase I includes a four-story addition for 52 guest rooms and a hotel lobby that totals 52,620 square feet and surface parking for 204 cars. Phase II includes the construction of a one-story 12,440 square foot ballroom that will seat 500 guests and a 86,527 square foot four-story parking structure for 267 cars. The project approval included a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Modification to allow the construction of the hotel expansion, ballroom, and parking structure. Because the site is in the C-3D Medium Commercial zone with a Design Overlay, the project also included a Design Review by the Planning Commission per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.72.050. Site & Surrounding Land Uses The site is designated in the General Plan for Commercial use and on the zoning map it is designated C-3D (Medium Commercial with Design Overlay). The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North General Plan: Commercial Zoning: P-D (Planned Development) and R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Land Use: Town Center Drive, Pomona Freeway, Commercial, and Single-Family Residential South: General Plan: Commercial Zoning: C-31D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) Land Use: Television Station East: General Plan: Commercial and Los Angeles County Zoning: C-3 (Medium Commercial) Land Use: Hotel, San Gabriel Boulevard West: General Plan: Commercial Zoning: C-3 (Medium Commercial) Land Use: Montebello Town Center Administrative Analysis The applicant is requesting to eliminate Mitigation Measure #12 (Condition of Approval #34) as set forth in the project approvals of July 7, 2008. Mitigation Measure #12 requires that the project applicant pay for the total cost to install a traffic signal system at the northern entrance to the Double Tree Hotel site prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase I construction. The current request to pay only a share of the total cost is due to both economic reasons and a revised traffic analysis which supports that the Planning Commission Staff Report CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145 June 21, 2010 Page 4 of 10 signal is not warranted until the year 2020, as opposed to being warranted immediately. The cost to install a traffic signal system is estimated at approximately $300,000. The original traffic report that was prepared for the Double Tree Hotel Expansion project approved in July 2008 evaluated the need for a traffic signal at either the north project entrance or the south project driveway. The traffic report determined that a traffic signal was warranted at the north project entrance for the evening peak hour based on existing traffic numbers combined with future estimated traffic numbers coming from the hotel expansion. As a result, the project was conditioned to pay the total cost to install a traffic signal at the main project entrance. In order to eliminate the need for the traffic signal system, the applicant proposes to modify the project traffic distribution at both the north and south project driveways. To determine if the request would change the project impacts, the City required the applicant to prepare a Focused Traffic Analysis. Therefore, a January 21, 2010 Focused Traffic Analysis (Exhibit F) was prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc. The Focused Traffic Analysis analyzes cumulative plus proposed project traffic conditions for the project driveway accesses under a revised traffic distribution scenario. This new Focused Traffic Analysis supplements the Double Tree Hotel Expansion Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised) prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc on April 1, 2008, and the Double Tree Hotel Expansion Focused Traffic Analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc. dated June 11, 2008. These original reports have been attached as Exhibits "G" and "H" respectively. The January 21, 2010 traffic analysis studied the cumulative plus project weekday morning and evening peak hours and Saturday mid-day peak hour traffic at Montebello Boulevard and the north and south project driveways, which are presently unsignalized intersections. The 2010 proposed traffic distribution would maintain the north project driveway as a cross street stop controlled intersection that restricts east-west left turn movements from the site and the adjacent Montebello Town Center shopping center. The intersection at the south project entrance and Montebello Boulevard is now proposed as a full access intersection. The revised project traffic distribution of the January 21, 2010 analysis improves the LOS of the project driveways. The improved level of service at the north project driveway, based on the January 21, 2010 traffic analysis, occurs as a result of the full access south project driveway. The revised access to both project driveways distributes the project traffic and thus improves the LOS. With this improvement, the current traffic volumes do not warrant a traffic signal at either the north or the south project driveway entrance at the project opening timeline. The City acknowledges that traffic patterns and volumes can change and sometime in the future the AM and/or PM traffic volumes may warrant a traffic signal at either or both Planning Commission Staff Report CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145 June 21, 2010 Page 5 of 10 project entrances. For this reason, the City's Traffic Consultant requested an analysis for both project access points discerning when each project access point might warrant the installation of a traffic signal. For the intersection of Montebello Boulevard/north project driveway, a traffic signal was calculated to be warranted during the evening peak hour in the year 2020. The installation of a traffic signal at the Montebello Boulevard/south project driveway was calculated to be warranted during the evening peak hour in the year 2038. Since the traffic signal at the north project driveway is within less than ten years of the project opening timeline, staff is recommending that Mitigation Measure #12 be revised to require the applicant to pay a fair share of the project cost, including an allowance for design and construction management for that signal. Staff is not requiring the project applicant to pair a fair share of the cost to install a traffic signal at the south project driveway in the year 2038 due to the long time frame of that need. Municipal Code Requirements Section 17.112.030(20) of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) describes the grounds for approving a hotel with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Chapter 17.16 does not contain standards for the modification of a CUP, therefore, City staff has applied the same standards to Ms. Lee's request for a modification that were applied to the original CUP Modification application. Conditional Use Permit Modification 01-820 was approved by the Rosemead Planning Commission on July 7, 2008 subject to conditions of approval outlined in Resolution 08- 13. Resolution 08-13 also adopted a MND and a MMRP. As stated above, in the absence of specific findings for a modification in the Code, Staff is applying the requirements for the initial grant of the approval to the applicant's request for a modification. The following are findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use Permit and Staffs analysis of each: • The granting of such conditional use permit will be in harmony with the elements or objectives of the General Plan. The project site is designated in the General Plan as Commercial and on the zoning map, it is designated C-3D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay). The proposed use is in conformity with the General Plan, in that C-31D zoning is a corresponding zone district with the Commercial General Plan land use category. Section 17.112.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) allows "hotels and motels" in the C-3, CBD and M-1 zones, upon the granting of a CUP. The CUP will continue to be in harmony with the elements and objections of the General Plan with the modification of mitigation measure #12. • The establishment, maintenance or conduct of the use for which the conditional use permit is sought will not, under the particular case, be detrimental to the Planning Commission Staff Report CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145 June 21, 2010 Page 6 of 10 health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. The modification of mitigation measure #12 will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. A new Focused Traffic Analysis, dated January 21, 2010, studied the cumulative plus project weekday morning and evening peak hours and Saturday mid-day peak hour traffic at Montebello Boulevard and the north and south project driveways, which are presently unsignalized intersections. The proposed traffic distribution would maintain the north project driveway as a cross street stop controlled intersection that restricts east-west left turn movements from the site and the adjacent Montebello Town Center shopping center. The intersection at the south project entrance and Montebello Boulevard is proposed as a full access intersection. The revised project traffic distribution of the January 21, 2010 analysis improves the LOS of the project driveways. The improved level of service at the north project driveway, based on the January 21, 2010 traffic analysis, occurs as a result of the full access south project driveway. The revised access to both project driveways distributes the project traffic and thus improves the LOS. With this improvement, the current traffic volumes do not warrant a traffic signal at either the north or the south project driveway entrance at the project opening timeline. However, since a traffic signal system was calculated to be warranted during the evening peak hour in the year 2020, mitigation measure #12 will require the applicant to pay its fair share of the project cost, including an allowance for design and construction management for that signal. • The granting of such conditional use permit will not be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare. A new Focused Traffic Analysis, dated January 21, 2010, studied the cumulative plus project weekday morning and evening peak hours and Saturday mid-day peak hour traffic at Montebello Boulevard and the north and south project driveways, which are presently unsignalized intersections. The revised project traffic distribution of the January 21, 2010 analysis improves the LOS of the project driveways. The improved level of service at the north project driveway, based on the January 21, 2010 traffic analysis, occurs as a result of the full access south project driveway. The revised access to both project driveways distributes the project traffic and thus improves the LOS. With this improvement, the current traffic volumes do not warrant a traffic signal at either the north or the south project driveway entrance at the project opening timeline. However, since a traffic signal system was calculated to be warranted during the evening peak hour in the year 2020, mitigation measure #12 will require the applicant to pay its Planning Commission Staff Report CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145 June 21, 2010 Paae 7 of 10 fair share of the project cost, including an allowance for design and construction management for that signal. Additionally, the property owner will be required to adhere to all other conditions of approval and mitigation measures that were approved in July 2008. Therefore, the proposed modification will not be detrimental or injurious to the general welfare of the City. Section 17.72.030 of the RMC states that design review procedures shall be followed for all improvements involving visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior fagade or landscaping. There being no specific criteria for modification of a design review, Staff has applied these same criteria for modification of a design review. As with the conditional use permit, on July 7, 2008, the Planning Commission determined that the design review met all the requisite standards required by Section 17.72.050 of the RMC. Design Review 07-145 was approved by the Rosemead Planning Commission on July 7, 2008 subject to conditions of approval outlined in Resolution 08-13. Resolution 08-13 also adopted a MND and a MMRP. As stated above, in the absence of specific findings for a modification in the Code, Staff is applying the requirements for the initial grant of the approval to the applicant's request for a modification. The following are findings that must be made in order to approve a Design Review and Staffs analysis of each: • The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed structure and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; and Design Review 07-145 was approved by the Rosemead Planning Commission on July 7, 2008. The proposed modification deals with a revised mitigation measure to address traffic and circulation within the public right-of-way. The modification of mitigation measure #12 will not affect the approved on-site improvements for the Double Tree Hotel expansion. • The plan for the proposed structure and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. Design Review 07-145 was approved by the Rosemead Planning Commission on July 7, 2008. The proposed modification deals with a revised mitigation measure to address traffic and circulation within the public right-of-way. The modification of mitigation measure #12 will not affect the approved on-site improvements for the Double Tree Hotel expansion. Additionally, the property owner will be required to adhere to all other conditions of approval and mitigation Planning Commission Staff Report CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145 June 21, 2010 Paae 8 of 10 measures that were approved in July 2008, which address noise, vibrations, and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. • The proposed structure or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing building or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. Design Review 07-145 was approved by the Rosemead Planning Commission on July 7, 2008. The proposed modification deals with a revised mitigation measure to address traffic and circulation within the public right-of-way. The modification of mitigation measure #12 will not affect the approved on-site improvements for the Double Tree Hotel expansion. Additionally, the property owner will be required to adhere to all other conditions of approval and mitigation measures that were approved in July 2008. • The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style; and Design Review 07-145 was approved by the Rosemead Planning Commission on July 7, 2008. The proposed modification deals with a revised mitigation measure to address traffic and circulation within the public right-of-way. The modification of mitigation measure #12 will not affect the approved on-site improvements for the Double Tree Hotel expansion. Additionally, the property owner will be required to adhere to all other conditions of approval and mitigation measures that were approved in July 2008. Furthermore, the Double Tree Hotel is not located within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part. of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style. • The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of the Rosemead Municipal Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and Design Review 07-145 was approved by the Rosemead Planning Commission on July 7, 2008. The proposed modification deals with a revised mitigation Planning Commission Staff Report CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145 June 21, 2010 Paqe 9 of 10 measure to address traffic and circulation within the public right-of-way. The modification of mitigation measure #12 will not affect the approved on-site improvements for the Double Tree Hotel expansion. Additionally, the property owner will be required to adhere to all other conditions of approval and mitigation measures that were approved in July 2008. • The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. Design Review 07-145 was approved by the Rosemead Planning Commission on July 7, 2008. The proposed modification deals with a revised mitigation measure to address traffic and circulation within the public right-of-way. Proper consideration has been given to the functional aspect of the site development, such as automobile circulation. A new Focused Traffic Analysis, dated January 21, 2010, studied the cumulative plus project weekday morning and evening peak hours and Saturday mid-day peak hour traffic at Montebello Boulevard and the north and south project driveways, which are presently, unsignalized intersections. The proposed traffic distribution would maintain the north project driveway as a cross street stop controlled intersection that restricts east-west left turn movements from the site and the adjacent Montebello Town Center shopping center. The intersection at the south project entrance and Montebello Boulevard is proposed as a full access intersection. The revised project traffic distribution of the January 21, 2010 analysis improves the LOS of the project driveways. The improved level of service at the north project driveway, based on the January 21, 2010 traffic analysis, occurs as a result of the full access south project driveway. The revised access to both project driveways distributes the project traffic and thus improves the LOS. With this improvement, the current traffic volumes do not warrant a traffic signal at either the north or the south project driveway entrance at the project opening timeline. However, since a traffic signal system was calculated to be warranted during the evening peak hour in the year 2020, mitigation measure #12 will require the applicant to pay a fair share of the project cost, including an allowance for design and construction management for that signal. The modification of mitigation measure #12 will not affect the approved on-site improvements for the Double Tree Hotel expansion. Additionally, the property owner will be required to adhere to all other conditions of approval and mitigation measures that were approved in July 2008. Planning Commission Staff Report CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145 June 21, 2010 Paae 10 of 10 PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a 300' radius public hearing notice to forty-four (44) property owners, publication in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, public locations and on the subject site. Prepared by: Sheri Bermejo Principal Planner Exhibits: and postings of the notice at the six (6) bmitted by: Community D€velopment Director A. Resolution 08-13 B. Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated June 2, 2008 C. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, dated June 2008 D. Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-18 and Attachment "A". Conditions of Approval E. Addendum, dated June 3, 2010 F. Kunzman Associates Focused Traffic Analysis, January 21, 2010 G. Double Tree Hotel Expansion Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised), April 28, 2008 H. Double Tree Hotel Expansion Focused Traffic Analysis, June 11, 2008 1. Assessor's Parcel Map (APNs 5271-002-061 to 5271-002-065) EXHIBIT "A" PC RESOLUTION 08-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-820 (MOD) AND DESIGN REVIEW 07-145 FOR THE ADDITION OF 54 GUEST ROOMS WITH A LOBBY TOTALING 54,739 SQUARE FEET, A 12,440 SQUARE FOOT BALL-ROOM AND AN ATTACHED 86,527 SQUARE FOOT PARKING STRUTURE TO AN EXISTING DOUBLE TREE HOTEL LOCATED AT 888 MONTEBELLO BOULEVARD, IN THE C-3D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE (APN: 5271-002-061). WHEREAS, on April 23, 2007, CHCS, filed Conditional Use Permit 01-820(MOD) and Design Review 07-145 applications proposing addition to an existing Double Tree hotel consisting of two phases. Phase I will include 54 new guest rooms along with an attached lobby totaling approximately 54,739 square-feet. Phase II will include construction of a one-story 12,440 square-foot ball-room with seating capacity for 500 guests and an attached 86,527 square-foot 4-story parking structure with approximately 197 parking spaces located at 888 Montebello Boulevard; and WHEREAS, 888 Montebello Blvd is located in the C-31D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) Zone; and WHEREAS, Section 17.112.030 (20) of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) permits hotels in the C-3, CBD, and M zones upon the granting of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.112.010 sets the following criteria required for granting Conditional Use Permits. The criteria require that: The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use so applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood thereof, not be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City. WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Section 17.112.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve or deny Conditional Use Permits; and WHEREAS, Sections 17.112.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code specifies the criteria by which a Conditional Use Permit may be granted; and WHEREAS, notices were sent to property owners within a 300 foot radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in public locations, specifying the availability Exhibit A of the application, including the date, time and location of the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 01-820 (MOD) and Design Review 07-145 and WHEREAS, on July 7, 2008, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Conditional Use Permit 01-820 (MOD) and Design Review 07-145 and WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order 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 makes a finding of environmental adequacy with the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the proposed hotel addition and hereby ADOPTS the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, as the environmental clearance for Conditional Use Permit 01-820 (MOD) and Design Review 07-145. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Conditional Use Permit 01-820 (MOD) and Design Review 07-145 according to the Criteria of Chapter 17.112.010 and 17.112.030 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use so applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood thereof; FINDING: The site will be operated in accordance with applicable City zoning regulations, and the proposed hotel addition is in conformity with the commercial developments in and around the project site. Regular site inspections by the Planning Division and the Sheriffs Department will ensure that the hotel is monitored for conformance with the conditions of approval, Municipal Code, State and Federal regulations relating to maintenance and operation of a hotel. Therefore the proposed hotel establishment will not infringe upon the health, safety and comfort of residents residing or living in the surrounding neighborhood. B. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use so applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood. FINDING: The proposed hotel is located within an established commercial zoning district of the City. The proposed hotel addition is surrounded by a variety of commercial land uses including a shopping mall, hotels and retail stores. The proposed hotel addition will be constructed with adequate vehicular access and clearly designated pedestrian walkways which will enhance public safety and promote property improvements. Therefore, 2 the proposed hotel addition is consistent with the adjoining commercial land uses and will not be detrimental to the surrounding residential properties or injurious to the commercial property improvements in the neighborhood or within close proximity to the project site. C. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use so applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental or injurious to the general welfare of the City. FINDING: The proposed hotel addition will not endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the general welfare of the City, as conditions of approval will be enforceable upon the issuance of this Use Permit and the proposed structures will be constructed according to current Building Code requirements. Additionally, the property owner will be required to adhere to the City's Property Maintenance Ordinance during the course of hotel construction and operation. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the subject property will be inspected by applicable agencies to ensure that applicable development standards have been complied with. Therefore, the proposed addition or hotel operation will not be detrimental or injurious to the general welfare of the City. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY APPROVES Conditional Use Permit 01-820 (MOD), Design Review 07-145 and ADOPTS the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan to allow the expansion of the existing Double Tree Hotel located at 888 Montebello Boulevard. SECTION 4. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on July 7, 2008, by the following vote: YES: KUNIOKA, VUU AND LOPEZ NO: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CAM SECTION 5. The secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and to the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 7th of Jul 2008. Daniel Lopez, Chairman CERTIFICATION 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 7th day of July, 2008, by the following vote: YES: KUNIOKA, VUU AND LOPEZ NO: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:CAM Matt Ev ' ecretary EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-820(MOD) AND DR07-145 888 Montebello Boulevard (Doubletree Hotel) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL July 7, 2008 Conditional Use Permit 01-820 (MOD) and Design Review 07-145 are approved for a hotel addition consisting of two phases. Phase 1 will include the addition of 54 new guest rooms along with an attached lobby totaling approximately 54,739 square-feet. Phase II will include construction of a one-story 12,440 square-foot ball-room with seating capacity for 500 guests and an attached 86,527 square foot 4-story parking structure with approximately 197 parking spaces. Phase II will also include a 25-foot wide emergency access road located to the southeast of the site to allow public safety access. This emergency access shall not permit public access and shall remain closed at all times. It will only be accessed by the Fire Department in case of an emergency which may impede site access through Montebello Blvd. 2. Approval of Conditional Use Permit 01-820 (MOD) and Design Review 07-145 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. Conditional Use Permit 01-820 (MOD),and Design Review 07-145 are approved for a two-year period. The applicant shall initiate the proposed use or request an extension within 30-calender days prior to expiration from the Planning Commission approval date. Otherwise Conditional Use Permit 01-820(MOD) and Design Review 07-145 shall become null and void. 4. The Planning Commission hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and/or approve minor modifications to the approved plans. 5. 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. City staff shall access the subject property at any time during construction to monitor progress and after construction to monitor compliance. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for Phase I, the applicant shall submit a Lot Line Adjustment application to the Planning Division and the Certificate of Compliance shall be recorded at the Los Angeles County Recorder/County Clerk before the building permit is issued. 8. Occupancy will not be granted until all improvements required by this approval have been completed, inspected, and approved by the appropriate department(s). 9. This conditional use permit and Design Review is granted or approved with the City of Rosemead and its Planning Commission and City Council retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit-including the conditions of approval-based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation of right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or approved underthe Rosemead Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed on this conditional use permit and Design Review. 10. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding againstthe City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval of the Planning Commission and/or city council concerning the project, which action is brought within the time period provided by law. 11. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or trailers. All trash and debris shall be contained within a city approved trash enclosure. 12. Violation of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. 13. The proposed trash enclosure shall be built of split-face CMU material and a covered roof to prevent storm water pollution. The trash enclosure shall include a dark-brown decorative cornice to resemble the foam molding used on the hotel building. 14. Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase I, the project proponent shall paythe project's 1.4% fair share contribution to the City of Montebello for installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of San Gabriel Blvd and Plaza Drive. 15. All outdoor lighting fixtures shall be low pressure sodium and shall face downwards to minimize glare to adjacent properties. Prior to building permit issuance for Phase I, the applicant shall submit a photometric survey and lighting cut sheets showing all proposed lighting fixtures to the Planning Division for review and approval. 16. The proposed parking structure in phase II shall be constructed of smooth stucco finish or smooth finish concrete block and shall incorporate colors and materials used on the hotel building. The parking structure cornice shall be designed with the same dark-brown decorative foam trim similar in pattern & material as the hotel cornice. 17. The proposed balcony above the porte-cochere shall be extended across the entire driveway for the entire length of the porte-cochere to promote outdoor usage. 18. Prior to grading of the site for phase I, all existing mature trees in the parking lot shall be preserved and transplanted in the overall landscaping of the site. 19. Vehicles exceeding eighty (80) inches in width shall not be permitted to park in the hotel parking lot used exclusively for hotel customers. Noncommercial and recreational vehicles or motor homes shall be permitted to park in such parking areas provided that at least one designated recreational vehicle parking space which is a minimum of ten (10) feet by thirty (30) feet is provided for each twenty five (25) rooms in the hotel complex. 20. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least six (6) inches tall with a minimum character width of % inches, contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street. The location, color and size of such sign shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Division. 21. Prior to issuance of occupancy permit, the applicant shall install a modern security system. A security system shall be designed to the reasonable satisfaction of the Sheriffs Department and Planning Division which shall include surveillance of arrivals and departures of guests. It shall be the responsibility of the hotel manager to maintain all recorded data in safe and secure custody. The recorded tapes or CDs shall be kept by the hotel manager for a period of not less than two years from recordation date and shall be surrendered to law enforcement agencies upon request. 22. The conditions listed on this exhibit shall be copied directly onto any development plans subsequently submitted to the Planning and Building Divisions for review. 23. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti-free state. Any new graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours. A 24-hour, Graffiti Hotline can be called at (626) 569-2345 for assistance. 24. The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed and litter free state in accordance with Sections 8.32.010-8.32.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, which pertains to the storage, accumulation, collection, and disposal of garbage, rubbish, trash, and debris. All trash containers shall be stored in the appropriate trash enclosure at all times. 25. Motion-activated lights shall be installed in the vehicle parking areas and pedestrian walk ways prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for Phase I. 26. All designated parking spaces shall be striped in accordance with Chapter 17.84 of the Rosemead Municipal Code and the approved plans. The parking space markers including double striping, wheel stops and handicap parking shall be maintained periodically according to city standards and to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 27. Prior to issuance of any building permit for phase I, the applicant shall submit a final landscaping and irrigation plan to the Planning Division for approval. The landscape and irrigation plan shall include a sprinkler system with automatic timers and moisture sensors. The new planting materials shall include a combination of drought tolerant 48" box trees, 5-gallon shrubs, and low growing flowers to minimize water consumption. 28. All roof top appurtenances and mechanical equipments shall adequately be screened such that they are not visible from adjacent public street or adjoining properties. All roof top equipments location shall first be approved by the Planning Division before installation. 29. No room shall be let on an hourly rate or other short-time rates nor advertised in any way to be available at hourly or other short-time rates. 30. No guest shall be allowed to sell merchandise or services to the public from the hotel or from the subject site. 31. The parking structure in phase II shall be staffed with cameras, such cameras shall be positioned in front of the. parking structure to obtain a better line of sight and enhance public safety. 32. Hotel patrons shall be prohibited from parking in the Montebello Town Center without the express permission of the owners of Montebello Town Center. Unless such permission is granted by the owners of Montebello Town Center, the hotel management shall advise its customers notto park in the Montebello Town Center at any time. The hotel management shall post a written notice in the hotel lobby and in the hotel parking lot informing customers of this condition.(modified by Planning Commission on 7-7-08) 33. Before building permit issuance for Phase II, the property owner shall make an arrangement with Montebello Town Center management or any other adjacent commercial property to provide temporary parking for Double Tree Hotel customers during construction. Before issuance of the building permit for the parking structure, the applicant shall submit evidence to the Planning Division that such temporary parking will be available during construction of Phase II. 34. All Mitigation Measures as stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be implemented by the applicant and enforced by the City of Rosemead or any other responsible agency. 35. The proposed planter located next to the lounge on the east side of phase I shall be designed such that it promotes outdoor usage. The design shall enable hotel patrons to use this area as a sitting or dinning area. The final design including colors and materials shall be approved by the Planning Division. Prior to issuance of the building permit for phase 1, the applicant shall submit a final design of this area including color and materials to the Planning Division for approval. 36. The proposed building cornice and trims shall be dark-brown in color to anchor the building on site. Sample colors and materials shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval before issuance of a building permit for phase I. 37. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit and, when acceptable, the City shall approve a site-specific and design-specific geotechnical investigation, prepared in accordance with the "Manual for Preparation of Geotechnical Reports" (County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, February 2000, Revised May 8, 2001) or such other standards as may be established by the City Engineer and City Building Official. That investigation as prepared by a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist, will determine the precise nature of excavation, footing and associated details that, when implemented will ensure that the project is constructed in accordance with and in recognition of existing site-specific conditions. Each of the recommendations contained in that investigation will become project-specific conditions and construction activities will be monitored to ensure the implementation of those measures. 38. Hotel management shall not charge for on-site self parking at any time. The Hotel management shall not charge for valet parking during construction of phase IL(added by Planning Commission on7-7-08) 9 DOUBLE TREE HOTEL EXPANSION MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Prepared for: The City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 (626) 569-2100 Prepared by: Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. 18551 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 140 Irvine, California 92612 (949) 520-0503 JUNE 2008 Exhibit C 1.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 1.1 Introduction This is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Double Tree Hotel Expansion project. It has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code §21081.6 which, among other things, states that when a governmental agency adopts or certifies a CEQA document that contains the environmental review of a proposed project, "The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation." The City of Rosemead is the lead agency for the project, and is therefore, responsible for administering and implementing the MMRP. The decision-makers must define specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements to be enforced during project implementation prior to final approval of the proposed project. 1.2 Project Overview The project includes the proposed expansion to the existing Double Tree Hotel in two phases to add 52 guest rooms, a hotel lobby, a 12,492 square foot ballroom for 500 guess and a 4-level parking structure for 373 cars. Phase I includes the construction of a four-story building for 52 guest rooms and a hotel lobby that total 52,620 square feet. Phase I also includes parking for 240 cars. Phase 11 includes the construction of a one-story 12,492 square foot ballroom that will seat 500 guests. A four-story parking structure totaling 86,527 square feet for 373 cars will also be constructed as part of Phase II. 1.3 Monitoring and Reporting Procedures This MMRP includes the following information: (1) mitigation measures that will either eliminate or lessen the potential impact from the project; (2) the monitoring milestone or phase during which the measure should be complied with or carried out; (3) the enforcement agency responsible for monitoring mitigation measure compliance; and (4) the initials of the person verifying the mitigation measure was completed and the date of verification. The MMRP will be in place through all phases of a project including project design (preconstruction), project approval, project construction, and operation (both prior to and post-occupancy). The City will ensure that monitoring is documented through periodic reports and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. The designated environmental monitor will track and document compliance with mitigation measures, note any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to rectify problems. Each mitigation measure is listed and categorized by impact area, with an accompanying discussion of: • The phase of the project during which the measure should be monitored; ❑ Project review and prior to project approval ❑ During grading or building plan check review and prior to issuance of a grading or building permit ❑ On-going during construction ❑ Throughout the life of the project • The enforcement agency; and • The initials of the person verifying completion of the mitigation measure and date. The MMRP is provided as Table 1 (Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program). Double Tree Hotel Expansion - Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2008 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 2 Table 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Enforcement Verification of Measure Milestone Agency Compliance No. Aesthetics 1. The Applicant shall install dense landscaping, Prior to the City of Rosemead acceptable to the Planning Division, around the issuance of a Building perimeter of the buildings, building setbacks, Phase I Department and throughout the surface parking lot to occupancy Initial reduce light and glare impacts to areas north, permit east, south, and west of the site. Date 2. Only non-specular building materials shall be Prior to the City of Rosemead used on exterior of structures to significantly issuance of a Building reduce potential light reflection and glare to a building permit Department less than significant impact. Windows shall for each phase Initial have an anti-glare coating. Date 3. A parking lot lighting plan shall be prepared Prior to the City of Rosemead that limits, to the maximum extent possible, issuance of a Building glare on to off-site locations. The parking lot Phase I building Department plan shall include mature trees, such trees shall permit be planted to limit glare and shall not be less than the height of the proposed light poles at Initial maturity. All new trees shall be a minimum if 48-inch box trees. Date 4. All windows shall be recessed a minimum of Prior to the City of Rosemead four (4) inches to minimize glare. issuance of a Building building permit Department Initial for each phase Date Geology and Soils 5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Prior to the City of Rosemead project developer shall submit documentation to issuance of a Building the City's satisfaction that the project will not be Phase I grading Department subject to liquefaction permit Initial Date Noise 6. All construction activities should be limited to the On-going City of Rosemead hours between 7 AM to 8 PM Monday through throughout Building Saturday. All construction shall be prohibited on project Department Sundays and national holidays. construction Initial Date 7. All building foundation and parking structure On-going City of Rosemead excavation shall be restricted to the hours of 8 throughout Building Double Tree Hotel Expansion - Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2008 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 3 Mitigation Mitigation Measure I Monitoring Enforcement Verification of Measure Milestone Agency Compliance No. AM to 5 PM Monday through Friday. project Department construction Initial Date 8. The developer shall require by contract Prior to the start City of Rosemead specifications that the following constructing best of Phase I Building management practices (BMPs) be implemented construction Department by contractors to reduce construction noise levels: Initial • Ensure that . construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards. All power construction equipment Date shall utilize noise shielding and muffling devices. • Locate the construction staging area and noise-generating equipment away from the existing hotel, where feasible. • Schedule high noise-producing activities between the hours of 8 AM and 6 PM to minimize disruption to sensitive uses such as ' hotel guests. 9. Construction activities shall be scheduled so as to On-going City of Rosemead avoid operating several pieces of equipment throughout Building simultaneously, which generates high noise project Department levels, construction Initial Date Trans ortation/Traffic 10. The project applicant shall pay a fair share of the Prior to the City of Rosemead cost to install a traffic signal at San Gabriel issuance of an Building Boulevard at Plaza Drive prior to the issuance of occupancy Department Initial an occupancy permit for the ball room. The fair perm t for the share contribution shall not exceed 1.4% of the ballroom Date cost of the traffic signal. 11. The project applicant shall pay the cost to Prior to the City of Rosemead construct the following intersection issuance of an Building improvements prior to the issuance of an occupancy Department occupancy permit for the hotel: permit for the Initial • Strip an eastbound free right turn lane at the hotel intersection of San Gabriel Boulevard at Date Plaza Drive. Double Tree Hotel Expansion - Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2008 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 4 Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Enforcement Verification of Measure Milestone Agency Compliance No. 12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Prior to the City of Rosemead Phase I the applicant shall pay for the cost to issuance of a Building install a traffic signal at the northern project Phase I building Department entrance. permit Initial Date Utilities/Service Systems 13. Prior to the issuance of a grading pernnt, the project Prior to the City of Rosemead developer shall provide a plan acceptable to the City issuance of a Public Works that retains all increased volume of surface water to Phase I grading Department ensure the project does not discharge any greater permit Initial quantity of surface water compared to the current condition. A plan to retain all increased surface Date water quantity on-site shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The plan shall include an on-site retention basin and adequate metering or other method acceptable to the City so the project does not discharge any greater quantity of surface water from the site than current conditions. Double Tree Hotel Expansion - Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2008 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 5 EXHIBIT "D" PC RESOLUTION 10-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONSIDERING AN ADDENDUM TO THE ADOPTED DOUBLE TREE HOTEL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARTION FOR THE MODIFICATION OF MITIGATION MEASURE NO. 12, AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (MODIFICATION 2) 01-820 AND DESIGN REVIEW (MODIFICATION 1) 07-145. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 888 MONTEBELLO BOULEVARD, IN THE C-3D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE (APN: 5271-002-061 to 5271-002-065). WHEREAS, on July 7, 2008, the Rosemead Planning Commission approved Resolution 08-13 that approved Conditional Use Permit Modification 01-820 and Design Review 07-145, subject to conditions of approval for the addition of 54 guest rooms with a lobby totaling 54,739 square feet, a 12,440 square foot ballroom and an attached 86,527 square foot parking structure to the existing Double Tree Hotel located at 888 Montebello Boulevard in the C-31D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 2008, the Planning Commission ADOPTED a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, as the environmental clearance for Conditional Use Permit 01-820 (MOD) and Design, Review 07-145 pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and WHEREAS, on November 3, 2010, Sue Lee of CHCH, Inc submitted Conditional Use Permit Modification (2) 01-820 and Design Review Modification (1) 07-145 on behalf of the Double Tree Hotel (Sunshine Inn Limited Partnership) requesting to eliminate mitigation measure #12 of the adopted MMRP as a condition (Condition of Approval #34 in Resolution 08-13), for the project located at 888 Montebello Boulevard; and WHEREAS, Section 17.112.030 (20) of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) permits hotels in the C-3, CBD, and M zones upon the granting of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). WHEREAS, Section 17.112.010 sets the following criteria required for granting Conditional Use Permits: • The granting of such conditional use permit will be in harmony with the elements or objectives of the General Plan. Exhibit D Planning Commission Resolution CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145 June 21, 2010 Page 2 of 12 • The establishment, maintenance or conduct of the use for which the conditional use permit is sought will not, under the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. • The granting of such conditional use permit will not be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare. WHEREAS, Section 17.72.030 of the RMC states that design review procedures shall be followed for all improvements involving visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior fagade or landscaping, and WHEREAS, Section 17.72.050 sets the criteria by which the Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application: • The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed structure and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; • The plan for the proposed structure and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. • The proposed structure or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing building or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. • The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style. • The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and • The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been Planning Commission Resolution CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145 June 21, 2010 Page 3 of 12 given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has applied the criteria for a conditional use permit and design review to the applicant's request for the modification of the conditions and mitigation measures of the subject conditional use permit and design review; and WHEREAS, on June 10, 2010, forty-four (44) notices were sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in six (6) public locations and on-site, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit (MOD 2) 01- 820 and Design Review (MOD 1) 07-145, and on June 11, 2010, the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune; and WHEREAS, on June 21, 2010, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Conditional Use Permit (MOD 2) 01-820 and Design Review (MOD 1) 07-145; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission fully studied the proposed Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, environmental findings, and considered all public comments; WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: SECTION 1. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 Findings. The Planning Commission hereby finds that: 1. An Addendum instead of a subsequent MND has been prepared, as Conditional Use Permit (MOD 2) 01-820 and Design Review (MOD 1) 07-145 is not proposed to make substantial changes to the project that would require major revisions to the previous MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and 2. An Addendum instead of a subsequent MIND has been prepared, as Conditional Use Permit (MOD 2) 01-820 and Design Review (MOD 1) 07-145 did not cause substantial changes to occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which would have required major revisions to the previous MND Planning Commission Resolution CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145 June 21, 2010 Pape 4 of 12 due to involvement of new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and 3. An Addendum instead of a subsequent MND has been prepared, as no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous MND was adopted as complete, shows any of the following: a) Conditional Use Permit (MOD 2) 01-820 and Design Review (MOD 1) 07-145 will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous MND, b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous MND, c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. FINDING: Only minor revision to the project mitigation measures are proposed by Conditional Use Permit (MOD 2) 01-820 and Design Review (MOD 1) 07-145. The environmental effects of Conditional Use Permit (MOD 2) 01-820 and Design Review (MOD 1) 07-145 were assessed in terms of whether the impacts would be substantially different from and/or more severe than the impacts identified in the 2008 Mitigated Negative Declaration. Each impact topic is described below: A. No Substantial Change in the Project. There are no substantial changes in the Project. Rather, there is a clear and straight forward explanation to support the request to delete the condition of approval that requires the project applicant to pay for the cost to install a traffic signal at the project entrance prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase I. There are no new significant environmental or traffic and circulation effects or any substantial increases in the severity of any previously identified traffic and circulation effect with the elimination of the traffic signal. No major revision or modification to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration is required. The adopted project mitigation measures will continue to be more than adequate to mitigate all project traffic impacts. B. No Substantial Changes in Circumstances. There are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect. The clarification provided herein to eliminate the installation of a traffic signal at the project entrance will not result in new or substantially increased environmental or traffic and circulation effects resulting from the project. Planning Commission Resolution CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145 June 21, 2010 Page 5 of 12 C. No New Information of Substantial Importance. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted that shows the project will have one or more significant effects or substantially more severe effects not discussed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Except for the new information regarding the proposed elimination of the traffic signal at the project entrance, the project and its traffic impacts all remain the same as contemplated and evaluated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. There are no mitigation measures that were considerably different from those analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration that would substantially reduce the environmental effects related to project traffic. Consequently, there is no new information indicating that new significant or substantially more severe environmental effects would result from the traffic generated by the project. SECTION 2 - CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 Findings. The Planning Commission hereby finds that: 1. The Addendum to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act based on evidence presented in Section 1 of this resolution; and 2. The Addendum to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was presented to the Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prior to approving the project such that a Planning Commission public hearing was held on June 21, 2010. 3. The Addendum to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis in that the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been subject to comment and revision by City staff and reflects the independent judgment of the Rosemead Planning Commission. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that the modification of the plan does not in any way alter the findings previously made by the Planning Commission to approve Conditional Use Permit Modification 01-820. On July 7, 2008, the Planning Commission determined that the conditional use permit met all the requisite standards set forth. Staff is only applying the requirements for the initial grant of the approval to the applicant's request for a modification. The facts do Planning Commission Resolution CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145 June 21, 2010 Page 6 of 12 exist to justify approving Conditional Use Permit Modification (2) 01-820 according to the criteria of Section 17.112.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. The granting of such conditional use permit will be in harmony with the elements or objectives of the General Plan. FINDING: The project site is designated in the General Plan as Commercial and on the zoning map, it is designated C-3D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay). The proposed use is in conformity with the General Plan, in that C-3D zoning is a corresponding zone district with the Commercial General Plan land use category. Section 17.112.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) allows "hotels and motels" in the C-3, CBD and M-1 zones, upon the granting of a CUP. The CUP will continue to be in harmony with the elements and objections of the General Plan with the modification of mitigation measure #12. B. The establishment, maintenance or conduct of the use for which the conditional use permit is sought will not, under the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. FINDING: The modification of mitigation measure #12 will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. A new Focused Traffic Analysis, dated January 21, 2010, studied the cumulative plus project weekday morning and evening peak hours and Saturday mid-day peak hour traffic at Montebello Boulevard and the north and south project driveways, which are presently unsignalized intersections. The proposed traffic distribution would maintain the north project driveway as a cross street stop controlled intersection that restricts east-west left turn movements from the site and the adjacent Montebello Town Center shopping 'center. The intersection at the south project entrance and Montebello Boulevard is proposed as a full access intersection. The revised project traffic distribution of the January 21, 2010 analysis improves the LOS of the project driveways. The improved level of service at the north project driveway, based on the January 21, 2010 traffic analysis, occurs as a result of the full access south project driveway. The revised access to both project driveways distributes the project traffic and thus improves the LOS. With this improvement, the current traffic volumes do not warrant a traffic signal at either the north or the south project driveway entrance at the project opening timeline. However, since a traffic signal system was calculated to be warranted during the evening peak hour in the year 2020, mitigation measure #12 will require the applicant to pay a fair share of the project cost, including an allowance for design and construction management for that signal. C. The granting of such conditional use permit will not be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare. Planning Commission Resolution CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145 June 21, 2010 Page 7 of 12 FINDING: A new Focused Traffic Analysis, dated January 21, 2010, studied the cumulative plus project weekday morning and evening peak hours and Saturday mid- day peak hour traffic at Montebello Boulevard and the north and south project driveways, which are presently unsignalized intersections. The intersection at the south project entrance and Montebello Boulevard is proposed as a full access intersection. The revised project traffic distribution of the January 21, 2010 analysis improves the LOS of the project driveways. The improved level of service at the north project driveway, based on the January 21, 2010 traffic analysis, occurs as a result of the full access south project driveway. The revised access to both project driveways distributes the project traffic and thus improves the LOS. With this improvement, the current traffic volumes do not warrant a traffic signal at either the north or the south project driveway entrance at the project opening timeline. However, since a traffic signal system was calculated to be warranted during the evening peak hour in the year 2020, mitigation measure #12 will require the applicant to pay a fair share of the project cost, including an allowance for design and construction management for that signal. Additionally, the property owner will be required to adhere to all other conditions of approval and mitigation measures that were approved in July 2008. Therefore, the proposed modification will not be detrimental or injurious to the general welfare of the City. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that the modification of the plan does not in any way alter the findings previously made by the Planning Commission to approve Design Review 07-145. On July 7, 2008, the Planning Commission determined that the design review met all the requisite standards set forth. Staff is only applying the requirements for the initial grant of the approval to the applicant's request for a modification. The facts do exist to justify approving Design Review (MOD 1) 07-145 according to the criteria of Section 17.72.050 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed structure and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; and FINDING: Design Review 07-145 was approved by the Rosemead Planning Commission on July 7, 2008. The proposed modification deals with a revised mitigation measure to address traffic and circulation within the public right-of-way. The modification of mitigation measure #12 will not affect the approved on-site improvements for the Double Tree Hotel expansion. B. The plan for the proposed structure and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the Planning Commission Resolution CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145 June 21, 2010 Paae 8 of 12 environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. FINDING: Design Review 07-145 was approved by the Rosemead Planning Commission on July 7, 2008. The proposed modification deals with a revised mitigation measure to address traffic and circulation within the public right-of-way. The modification of mitigation measure #12 will not affect the approved on-site improvements for the Double Tree Hotel expansion. Additionally, the property owner will be required to adhere to all other conditions of approval and mitigation measures that were approved in July 2008, which address noise, vibrations, and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. C. The proposed structure or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing building or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. FINDING: Design Review 07-145 was approved by the Rosemead Planning Commission on July 7, 2008. The proposed modification deals with a revised mitigation measure to address traffic and circulation within the public right-of-way. The modification of mitigation measure #12 will not affect the approved on-site improvements for the Double Tree Hotel expansion. Additionally, the property owner will be required to adhere to all other conditions of approval and mitigation measures that were approved in July 2008. D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style; and FINDING: Design Review 07-145 was approved by the Rosemead Planning Commission on July 7, 2008. The proposed modification deals with a revised mitigation measure to address traffic and circulation within the public right-of-way. The modification of mitigation measure #12 will not affect the approved on-site improvements for the Double Tree Hotel expansion. Additionally, the property owner will be required to adhere to all other conditions of approval and mitigation measures that were approved in July 2008. Furthermore, the Double Tree Hotel is not located within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style. Planning Commission Resolution CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145 June 21, 2010 Paoe 9 of 12 E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of the Rosemead Municipal Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and FINDING: Design Review 07-145 was approved by the Rosemead Planning Commission on July 7, 2008. The proposed modification deals with a revised mitigation measure to address traffic and circulation within the public right-of-way. The modification of mitigation measure #12 will not affect the approved on-site improvements for the Double Tree Hotel expansion. Additionally, the property owner will be required to adhere to all other conditions of approval and mitigation measures that were approved in July 2008. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. FINDING: Design Review 07-145 was approved by the Rosemead Planning Commission on July 7, 2008. The proposed modification deals with a revised mitigation measure to address traffic and circulation within the public right-of-way. Proper consideration has been given to the functional aspect of the site development, such as automobile circulation. A new Focused Traffic Analysis, dated January 21, 2010, studied the cumulative plus project weekday morning and evening peak hours and Saturday mid-day peak hour traffic at Montebello Boulevard and the north and south project driveways, which are presently unsignalized intersections. The proposed traffic distribution would maintain the north project driveway as a cross street stop controlled intersection that restricts east-west left turn movements from the site and the adjacent Montebello Town Center shopping center. The intersection at the south project entrance and Montebello Boulevard is proposed as a full access intersection. The revised project traffic distribution of the January 21, 2010 analysis improves the LOS of the project driveways. The improved level of service at the north project driveway, based on the January 21, 2010 traffic analysis, occurs as a result of the full access south project driveway. The revised access to both project driveways distributes the project traffic and thus improves the LOS. With this improvement, the current traffic volumes do not warrant a traffic signal at either the north or the south project driveway entrance at the project opening timeline. However, since a traffic signal system was calculated to be warranted during the evening peak hour in the year 2020, mitigation measure #12 will require the applicant to pay a fair share of the project cost, including an allowance for design and construction management for that signal. The modification of mitigation measure #12 will not affect the approved on-site improvements for the Double Tree Hotel expansion. Additionally, the property owner will be required to Planning Commission Resolution CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145 June 21, 2010 Page 10 of 12 adhere to all other conditions of approval and mitigation measures that were approved in July 2008. SECTION 5. The Planning Commission HEREBY APPROVES Conditional Use Permit Modification (2) 01-820 and Design Review Modification (1) 07-145 modifying Mitigation Measure No. 12 to require the project applicant to pay a total of $5,712.00 into the City's traffic mitigation fund to cover the applicant's fair share (1.4%) of the project cost to install a traffic signal system at the northern project entrance, instead of the full cost of the traffic signal system, subject to the conditions listed in Attachment "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 6. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on June 21, 2010, by the following vote: YES: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SECTION 6. The secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED, this 21St day of June, 2010. William Alarcon, Chairman CERTIFICATION 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 this 21St day of June, 2010, by the following vote: YES: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Stan Wong, Secretary Planning Commission Resolution CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145 June 21, 2010 Page 11 of 12 ATTACHMENT "A" CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (MOD 2) 01-820 AND DESIGN REVIEW (MOD 1) 07-145 DOUBLE HOTEL, 888 MONTEBELLO BOULEVARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL June 21, 2010 1. Conditional Use Permit Modification (2) 01-820 and Design Review Modification (1) 07-145 shall be in compliance and remain in compliance with all Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit Modification (1) 01-820 and Design Review 07-145, in addition to the Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit Modification (2) 01-820 and Design Review Modification (1) 07-145. 2. All Mitigation Measures as stated in the Addendum Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be implemented by the applicant and enforced by the City of Rosemead or any other responsible agency. 3. The project applicant shall make all improvements to the south drive access to accommodate the movements allowed in the January 21, 2010 Focused Traffic Analysis. This includes making the intersection of Montebello Boulevard at project south access a full access intersection. 4. Approval of Conditional Use Permit Modification (2) 01-820 and Design Review Modification (1) 07-145 shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant has filed with the City of Rosemead a notarized affidavit stating that he/she is aware of and accepts all of the conditions of approval as set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions, within ten (10) days from the Planning Commission approval date. 5. Conditional Use Permit Modification (2) 01-820 and Design Review Modification (1) 07-145 are approved for a period of one (1) year. The applicant shall commence the proposed use or request an extension within 30-calendar days prior to expiration. The one (1) year initial approval period shall be effective from the Planning Commission approval date. For the purpose of this petition, project commencement shall be defined as beginning the permitting process with the Planning and Building Divisions, so long as the project is not abandoned. If Conditional Use Permit Modification (2) 01-820 and Design Review Modification (1) 07-145 have been unused, abandoned or discontinued for a period of one (1) year it shall become null and void. Planning Commission Resolution CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145 June 21, 2010 Paae 12 of 12 6. The Planning Commission hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make,or approve minor modifications to the approved Plans where necessary. 7. Conditional Use Permit Modification (2) 01-820 and Design Review Modification (1) 07-145 are granted or approved with the City and its Planning Commission and City Council retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit--including the conditions of approval--based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation of right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the city, its Planning Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or approved under the Rosemead Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed on Conditional Use Permit Modification (2) 01-820 and Design Review Modification (1) 07-145. 8. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning the project, which action is brought within the time period provided by law. 9. The onsite public hearing notice posting shall be removed within 30 days from the end of the 10-day appeal period of Conditional Use Permit Modification (2) 01-820 and Design Review Modification (1) 07-145. 10.The developer shall provide a courtesy notice of the start of construction to the occupants of abutting properties ten days prior to construction commencement and provide a copy of the notice to the Planning Division. 11. The applicant shall obtain a public works permit for all work in or adjacent to the public right-of-way. 12.Violation of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. D -JA4 t bl 1._ Ali I .,l - 5r . Double Tree Hotel Expansion Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum Double Tree Hotel 888 Montebello Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 Lead Agency City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, CA 91770 626-569-2100 Contact: Sheri Bermejo, Principal Planner Project Proponent Sunshine Inn Limited Partnership 888 Montebello Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 June 3, 2010 Exhibit E DOUBLE TREE HOTEL EXPANSION AlITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ADDENDUM I. INTRODUCTION On July 7, 2008, the Rosemead Planning Commission approved Resolution 08-13 that approved Conditional Use Permit 01-820 (MOD) and Design Review 07-145, subject to conditions of approval outlined in Exhibit "B" to Resolution 08-13, for the addition of 54 guest rooms with a lobby totaling 54,739 square feet, a 12,440 square foot ballroom and an attached 86,527 square foot parking structure (the "Project") to the existing Double Tree Hotel. Resolution 08-13 also adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") (State Clearinghouse #2007071010) and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ("MMRP"). A Notice of Determination ("NOD") was filed on July 8, 2008 with the Los Angeles County Clerk in compliance with California Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Environmental Quality Act Section 15373 acknowledging the approval of the project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City of Rosemead (the "City") prepared this Addendum pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ( "CEQA") in response to the request by the project applicant (Sunshine Inn Limited Partnership) to eliminate mitigation measure #12 of the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as a project condition (Condition of Approval #34 in Resolution 08-13).. Mitigation Measure #12 requires the project applicant to pay for the cost to install a traffic signal at the northern entrance to the Double Tree Hotel site prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase I construction. If approved, this Addendum would eliminate Mitigation Measure #12 of the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program with a replacement mitigation measure. The replacement mitigation measure states, "The project applicant shall pay a total of $5,712.00 into the City's traffic mitigation fund to cover the applicant's fair share (1.4%) of the project cost to install a traffic signal system at the northern project entrance. This total fee also includes an allowance of 20% of the project cost for design and construction management " II. PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM CEQA authorizes a lead or responsible agency to prepare an Addendum to a previously adopted MND if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines 515162 requiring the preparation of a Subsequent MND or CEQA Guidelines 515163 requiring the preparation of a supplement to an MND have occurred. A subsequent MND is not required unless (i) substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (ii) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (iii) new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR or negative declaration was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted shows any of the following: (a) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (b) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (c) mitigation Double Tree Hotel Expansion - Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum Page 1 June 3, 2010 DOUBLE TREE HOTEL EXPANSION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ADDENDUM measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives (Public Resources Code §21166; CEQA Guidelines §15162). Given that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a Subsequent Negative Declaration are present with the mitigation measure change and only a minor technical change to the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration is necessary to reflect the elimination of a traffic signal at the project entrance, an Addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration is the proper environmental document (CEQA Guidelines §15164). CEQA requires that the decision making body consider the Addendum along with and in conjunction with the final Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to making a decision on whether or not to approve the removal of the condition of approval to install a traffic signal at the project entrance. A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162 should be included in an Addendum or elsewhere in the record and must be supported by substantial evidence. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15164, the City, as the lead agency, has prepared this Addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. As further described below, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 515162, the City has determined that the clarifications provided herein will result in none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines 515162 requiring the preparation of a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration. III. PROJECT BACKGROUND The approved Double Tree Hotel Expansion project includes the expansion of the existing Double Tree Hotel in two phases. Phase I includes a four-story addition for 52 guest rooms and a hotel lobby that total 52,620 square feet and surface parking for 204 cars. Phase II includes the construction of a one-story 12,440 square foot ballroom that will seat 500 guests and a 86,527 square foot four-story parking structure for 267 cars. The project approval included a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Modification to allow the construction of the hotel expansion, ballroom, and parking structure. Because the site is in the C3- D Medium Commercial zone with a Design Overlay, the project also included Design Review by the Planning Commission per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.72.050. A traffic report' was prepared for the Double Tree Hotel Expansion project that evaluated the need for a traffic signal at either the north project entrance or the south project driveway. The traffic report determined that a traffic signal was warranted at the north project entrance for the evening peak hour based on existing and future estimated traffic numbers. As a result, the project was I Double Tree Hotel Expansion Traffic Analysis, Kunzman Associates, April 28, 2008. Double Tree Hotel Expansion -Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum Page 2 June 3, 2010 DOUBLE TREE HOTEL EXPANSION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ADDENDUM conditioned to pay for the cost to install a traffic signal at the main project entrance prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase I. IV. SCOPE OF ADDENDUM The scope of this Addendum is to provide information in support of the elimination of the project condition for the project applicant to pay the cost to install a traffic signal at the northern project entrance prior to the issuance of a building permit to construct Phase I. Any public comment on this Addendum shall be limited to this one area. V. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ADDENDUM IS THE PROPER METHOD TO DELETE AN ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURE The City finds that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requires the preparation of a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration. Specifically, the City has determined the following: No Substantial Change in the Project. There are no substantial changes in the Project. Rather, there is a clear and straight forward explanation to support the request to delete the condition of approval that requires the project applicant to pay for the cost to install a traffic signal at the project entrance prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase I. There are no new significant environmental or traffic and circulation effects or any substantial increases in the severity of any previously identified traffic and circulation effect with the elimination of the traffic signal. No major revision or modification to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration is required. The adopted project mitigation measures will continue to be more than adequate to mitigate all project traffic impacts. No Substantial Changes in Circumstances. There are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect. The clarification provided herein to eliminate the installation of a traffic signal at the project entrance will not result in new or substantially increased environmental or traffic and circulation effects resulting from the project. No New Information of Substantial Importance. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted that shows the project will have one or more significant effects or substantially more severe effects not discussed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Except for the new information regarding the proposed elimination of the traffic signal at the project entrance, the project and its traffic impacts all remain the same as contemplated and evaluated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. There are no mitigation measures that were considerably different from those analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration that would substantially reduce the environmerital effects related to project traffic. Consequently, there is no new information indicating that new significant or substantially more severe environmental effects would result from the traffic generated by the project. Double Tree Hotel Expansion - Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum Page 3 June 3, 2010 DOUBLE TREE HOTEL EXPANSION MITIGATED NEGATIvE DECLARATION ADDENDUM VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT CHANGE Following the project applicant's request to delete the cost to install a traffic signal at the main project entrance (north entrance), the City commissioned a focused traffic analysis. The purpose of the focused traffic study was to determine if. 1) a traffic signal is required at the project entrance (north or south) during either the morning (AM) or evening (PM) peak hours; and 2) if a traffic signal is not warranted at either entrance would there be any other potential traffic impacts with the deletion of the required traffic signal. The project applicant hired Kuzman and Associates to prepare the focused traffic analysis. The focused traffic analysis is included as Appendix A of the Addendum. The traffic analysis studied the cumulative plus project weekday morning and evening peak hours and Saturday mid-day peak hour traffic at Montebello Boulevard and the north and south project driveways, which are presently unsignalized intersections. The north project driveway is currently a cross street stop controlled intersection that restricts east-west left turn movements from the site and the adjacent Montebello Town Center shopping center. The intersection at the south project entrance and Montebello Boulevard is proposed as a full access intersection. The focused traffic analysis concludes that the cumulative plus project traffic conditions do not warrant traffic signals at either project driveway (north or south) based on the revised project traffic distributions. While the traffic report that was prepared for the MND showed a PM peak hour traffic level of service' (LOS) F at the north project driveway a recent traffic analysis, January 21, 2010, shows a LOS A at the north driveway for the AM peak hour and LOS B for the PM peak hour. For the south project entrance the MND traffic report showed LOS B and the recent, January 21, 2010, traffic analysis showed LOS A in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour. In conclusion, the revised project traffic distribution of the January 21, 2010 analysis indicates the LOS of the project driveways has improved since early 2008. The improved level of service at the north project driveway, based on the January 21, 2010 traffic analysis, supports this conclusion. In addition,I the current traffic volumes do not warrant a traffic signal at the north or south project driveway entrance at the project opening timeline. The City acknowledges that traffic patterns and volumes can change and sometime in the future the AM and/or PM traffic volumes may warrant a traffic signal at either or both project entrances. For this reason, the City of Rosemead requested an analysis for both project access points discerning when each project access point would warrant the installation of a traffic signal. For the intersection of Montebello Boulevard/north project driveway, a traffic signal was calculated to be warranted during the evening peak hour in 2020. The installation of a traffic signal at the Montebello Boulevard/south project driveway was calculated to be warranted during the evening peak hour in 2038. Since the traffic signal at the north project driveway is within less than ten years of the project opening timeline, the City will require the applicant to pay a fair share of the project cost, including an allowance for design and construction management for that signal. The City will not require the z City of Rosemead Double Tree Hotel Expansion Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised) April 28, 2008, Kunzman Associates, Appendix C, Cumulative Plus Project Evening Peak Hour, page 7-1 Double Tree Hotel Expansion - Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum Page 4 June 3, 2010 DOUBLE TREE HOTEL EXPANSION MITIGATFD NEGATIVE DECLARATION ADDENDUM project applicant to pair a fair share of the cost to install a traffic signal at the south project driveway in the year 2038 due to the long time frame of that need. VII. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM At its July 7, 2008 hearing, the Rosemead Planning Commission approved a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 Code which, among other things, states that when a governmental agency adopts or certifies a CEQA document that contains the environmental review of a proposed project, "The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation." Mitigation Measure #12 of the adopted MMRP states, "Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase I the applicant shall pay for the cost to install a traffic signal at the northern project entrance. If, as the Lead Agency, the Rosemead Planning Commission approves to delete Mitigation Measure #12 the Planning Commission must also approve an updated MMRP. An updated MMRP reflecting the deletion of Mitigation Measure #12 has been submitted to the Rosemead Planning Commission for approval along with this Addendum. In its place, a new mitigation measure is recommended. The new replacement Mitigation Measure #12 requires, "The project applicant shall pay a total of $5,712.00 into the City's traffic mitigation fund to cover the applicant's fair share (1.4%) of the project cost to install a traffic signal system at the northern project entrance. This total fee also includes an allowance of 20% of the project cost for design and construction management " Pursuant to CEQA Section 15164, the adopted MND, as updated with this Addendum, can be relied upon for documentation of the effects of the revised project on the environment. Because the change in the project with the deletion of the requirement to install a traffic signal at the north project entrance do not exceed the thresholds outlined in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, no further analysis of the environmental impacts of the project is required in a Supplemental/Subsequent MND. Based on all of the data presented above and in the adopted MND, it is recommended that the proposed elimination of the north project entrance traffic signal be processes for compliance with CEQA as an Addendum to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed elimination of the traffic signal does not alter the conclusions contained in the MND as adopted by the Rosemead Planning Commission on July 7, 2008. The analysis presented above of the proposed elimination of the north project entrance traffic signal justifies the preparation of an Addendum to the adopted MND. This Addendum to the Double Tree Hotel Expansion Mitigated Negative Declaration includes information necessary to make the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration adequate under CEQA for the proposed project change. This Addendum includes the adopted MND, this document, including attachments, and all staff reports and information submitted to the decision makers regarding environmental issues affected by the expansion to the Double Tree Hotel. This Addendum is intended as an additional information document to provide decision makers and others, as appropriate, with an objective assessment of the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed deletion of the north project entrance traffic signal. Double Tree Hotel Expansion - Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendutn Page 5 June 3, 2010 DOUBLE TREE HOTEL EXPANSION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ADDENDUM VIII. CONCLUSION The earlier traffic analysis presented in the MND that was prepared for the Double Tree Hotel Expansion project was used as a basis for analysis in this Addendum, updated with current focused traffic information. Upon review of the MND, the information contained in this Addendum and all of the supporting evidence, it is the conclusion of this Addendum that the potential impacts associated with removing the traffic signal will not be any significantly greater or different than those identified in the adopted MND. There are no new significant impacts that result from the project. This Addendum provides an update of the project site and the mitigation measures required in the MND to control potential project impacts to less than significant impact. This Addendum provides the City with the information supporting the conclusion that the deletion of the requirement to install a traffic signal at the north project entrance will not cause substantial physical changes in the environment that would require preparation and processing a new negative declaration or an environmental impact report. Such documentation would only be required due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect on the original project. The facts cited above and provided in this Addendum allow the City to use an Addendum in accordance with Section 15164(a) of the State of California CEQA Guidelines for this project. The Rosemead Planning Commission serves as the CEQA Lead Agency for this project. It is recommended that the Addendum be adopted as the appropriate CEQA environmental determination for the elimination of a traffic signal at the north project entrance to the Double Tree Hotel prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase I construction. Double Tree Hotel Expansion - Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum Page 6 June 3, 2010 APPENDIX Kunzman Associates Focused Traffic Analysis, January 21, 2010 Please Refer to Exhibit F on the CD DOUBLE TREE HOTEL EXPANSION Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Prepared for. The City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 (626) 569-2100 Prepared by. Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. 18551 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 140 Irvine, California 92612 (949) 520-0503 June 1, 2010 1.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 1.1 INTRODUCTION This is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Double Tree Hotel Expansion Addendum project. It has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code §21081.6 which, among other things, states that when a governmental agency adopts or certifies a CEQA document that contains the environmental review of a proposed project, "The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation." The City of Rosemead is the lead agency for the project, and is therefore, responsible for administering and implementing the MMRP. The decision-makers must define specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements to be enforced during project implementation prior to final approval of the proposed project. At its July 7, 2008 hearing, the Rosemead Planning Commission approved a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 Code for the project. Mitigation Measure #12 of the adopted MMRP has been deleted to eliminate the requirement of the project developer to install a traffic signal at the north project entrance prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of Phase L The revised traffic analysis concludes the installation of a traffic signal at the north project entrance prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase I construction is not required. As a result, the City, based on the revised traffic study, replaced Mitigation Measure #12 adopted July 7, 2008 with a new mitigation measure to reflect the current traffic conditions and a need of a traffic signal at the project entrance. This MMRP has a new Mitigation Measure #12 that replaces the previous measure. 1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW The project includes the proposed expansion to the existing Double Tree Hotel in two phases to add 52 guest rooms, a hotel lobby, a 12,440 square foot ballroom for 500 guests and a 4-level parking structure for 267 cars. Phase I includes the construction of a four-story building for 52 guest rooms and a hotel lobby that total 52,620 square feet. Phase I also includes surface parking for 204 cars. Phase II includes the construction of a one-story 12,440 square foot ballroom that will seat 500 guests. A four-story parking structure totaling 86,527 square feet for 267 cars will also be constructed as part of Phase II. 1.3 MONITORING AND REPORTING PROCEDURES This MMRP includes the following information: (1) mitigation measures that will either eliminate or lessen the potential impact from the project; (2) the monitoring milestone or phase during which the measure should be complied with or carried out; (3) the enforcement agency responsible for monitoring mitigation measure compliance; and (4) the initials of the person verifying the mitigation measure was completed and the date of verification. Double Tree Hotel Expansion - Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum Page 1 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program - June 1, 2010 The MMRP will be in place through all phases of a project including project design (preconstruction), project approval, project construction, and operation (both prior to and post- occupancy). The City will ensure that monitoring is documented through periodic reports and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. The designated environmental monitor will track and document compliance with mitigation measures, note any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to rectify problems. Each mitigation measure is listed and categorized by impact area, with an accompanying discussion of • The phase of the project during which the measure should be monitored; ❑ Project review and prior to project approval ❑ During grading or building plan check review and prior to issuance of a grading or building permit ❑ On-going during construction ❑ Throughout the life of the project • The enforcement agency; and • The initials of the person verifying completion of the mitigation measure and date. The MMRP is provided as Table 1 (Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program). Table 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Enforcement Verification of Measure Milestone Agency Compliance No. Aesthetics 1. The Applicant shall install dense Prior to the City of landscaping, acceptable to the Planning issuance of a Rosemead Division, around the perimeter of the Phase I Building buildings, building setbacks, and occupancy Department Initial throughout the surface parking lot to permit reduce light and glare impacts to areas north, east, south, and west of the site. Date 2. Only non-specular building materials Prior to the City of shall be used on exterior of structures to issuance of a Rosemead significantly reduce potential light building permit Building reflection and glare to a less than for each phase Department initial significant impact. Windows shall have an anti-glare coating. Date 3. A parking lot lighting plan shall be Prior to the City of prepared that limits, to the maximum issuance of a Rosemead extent possible, glare on to off-site Phase I Building locations. The parking lot plan shall building permit Department such trees shall be include mature trees , planted to limit glare and shall not be Initial less than the height of the proposed light poles at maturity. All new trees shall be Date 'a minimum if 48-inch box trees. Double Tree Hotel Expansion - Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum Page 2 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program - June 1, 2010 Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Enforcement Verification of Measure Milestone Agency Compliance No. 4. All windows shall be recessed a Prior to the City of minimum of four (4) inches to minimize issuance of a Rosemead glare. building permit Building Initial for each phase Department Date Geology and Soils 5. Prior to the issuance of a grading Prior to the City of permit, the project developer shall issuance of a Rosemead submit documentation to the City's Phase I grading Building satisfaction that the project will not be permit Department Initial subject to liquefaction Date Noise 6. All construction activities should be On-going City of limited to the hours between 7 AM to 8 throughout Rosemead PM Monday through Saturday. All project Building construction shall be prohibited on construction Department Initial Sundays and national holidays. Date 7. All building foundation and parking On-going City of structure excavation shall be restricted to throughout Rosemead the hours of 8 AM to 5 PM Monday project Building through Friday. construction Department Initial Date 8. The developer shall require by contract Prior to the City of specifications that the following start of Phase I Rosemead constructing best management practices construction Building (BMPs) be implemented by contractors Department Initial to reduce construction noise levels: ment is • Ensure that construction e ui q p properly muffled according to industry Date standards. All power construction equipment shall utilize noise shielding and muffling devices. • Locate the construction staging area and noise-generating equipment away from the existing hotel, where feasible. • Schedule high noise-producing activities between the hours of 8 AM and 6 PM to minimize dismption to sensitive uses such as hotel guests. 9. Construction activities shall be scheduled On-going City of so as to avoid operating several pieces of throughout Rosemead equipment simultaneously which project Building , generates high noise levels. constniction Department Initial Double Tree Hotel Expansion - Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum Page 3 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program -)une 1, 2010 Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Enforcement Verification of Measure Milestone Agency Compliance No. Date Trans ortati on/Traffic 10. The project applicant shall pay a fair Prior to the City of share of the cost to install a traffic signal issuance of an Rosemead at San Gabriel Boulevard at Plaza Drive occupancy Building Initial prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the Department permit for the ball room. The fair share ballroom. Date contribution shall not exceed 1.4% of the cost of the traffic signal. 11. The project applicant shall pay the cost Prior to the City of to construct the following intersection issuance of an Rosemead improvements prior to the issuance of occupancy Building an occupancy permit for the hotel: permit for the Department Initial ht turn lane • Stri an eastbound free ri hotel p g at the intersection of San Gabriel Date Boulevard at Plaza Drive. 12. The project applicant shall pay a total of Prior to the City of $5,712.00 into the City's traffic mitigation issuance of a Rosemead fund to cover the applicant's fair share Phase I Building (1.4%) of the project cost to install a building permit Department initial traffic signal system at the northern project entrance. This total fee also Date includes an allowance of 20% of the project cost for design and construction management. Utilities/Service Systems 13. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, Prior to the City of the project developer shall provide a plan issuance of a Rosemead Public acceptable to the City that retains all Phase I grading Works increased volume of surface water to permit Department Initial ensure the project does not discharge any greater quantity of surface water compared Date to the current condition. A plan to retain all increased surface water quantity on-site shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The plan shall include an on site retention basin and adequate metering or other method acceptable to the City so the project does not discharge any greater quantity of surface water from the site than current conditions. Double Tree Hotel Expansion - Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum Page 4 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program - June 1, 2010 _wa Uvn ^ o$ e "'~OCy,q "Q Vi<q ¢d~b~N MnmV \ ai0oo~:nNO ~mggroo 4vN q 0 N f ( f f t w I~ r -a m QP F0 p N R O O End N I I .M rr NN N ~ Exhibit I