PC - 2010-18 - Adopted Double Tree Hotel Mitigation Measure No. 12 and Approving Conditional Use Permit 01-820 and Design ReviewPC 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, 2009, 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.
Planning Commission Resolution
CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145
June 21, 2010
Page 2 of 13
• 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 13
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 MND 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
Page 4 of 13
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 (..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 13
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 13
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
Paae 7 of 13
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
Page 8 of 13
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
Paqe 9 of 13
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 13
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: ALARCON, ENG, HERRERA, HUNTER, RUIZ
NO: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
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 215` day of June, 2010.
I - J ~4 10
William Alarcon. Chairm r -
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 2151 day of
June, 2010, by the following vote:
YES: ALARCON, ENG, HERRERA, HUNTER, RUIZ
NO:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
c~
Sheri Bermejo, Secretary
Planning Commission Resolution
CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145
June 21, 2010
Page 11 of 13
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 completing a site distance analysis and submitting
improvement plans consistent with the analysis for making the intersection of
Montebello Boulevard at project south access a full access intersection.
(Condition was revised by Planning Commission June 21, 2010)
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)
Planning Commission Resolution
CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145
June 21, 2010
Paqe 12 of 13
year it shall become null and void.
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.
13. Phase I expansion shall consist of not more than the construction a four story
building for 52 guest rooms and a hotel lobby totaling 52,620 square feet. Phase
11 expansion shall consist of not more than the construction of a one-story 12,440
Planning Commission Resolution
CUP MOD (2) 01-820 and DR MOD (1) 07-145
June 21, 2010
Page 13 of 13
square-foot ball room that will seat 500 guests and a four-story parking structure.
(Condition was added by Planning Commission June 21, 2010)
14. Phase I expansion shall provided an improved surface parking lot providing a
minimum of 204 spaces. Phase II expansion shall provide a minimum of 338
parking spaces in a combination of surface parking lot and a 4-story parking
structure. (Condition was added by Planning Commission June 21, 2010)
DOUBLE TREE HOTEL EXPANSION
Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
Prepared for.
The City of Rosemead
8838 P. 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 'free 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
budding permit for construction of Phase 1. 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 verifhing completion of the mitigation measure and date.
The MbIRP 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
around the perimeter of the
Division
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-speeular building materials
Prior to the
Cityy. of
shall be used on exterior of structures to
issuance of a
Rosemead
significantly reduce potential light
budding 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
include mature trees
such trees shall be
,
planted to limit glare and shall not be
Initial
less than the height of the proposed fight
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.
Alll 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 P6I 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
(B\IPs) be implemented by contractors
Department
Initial
to reduce construction noise levels:
ui
ment is
• Ensure that construction e
p
q
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 Ab1
and 6 PM to minimize disruption 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.
construction
Department
Initial
Double Tree Hotel Expansion - Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum Page 3
Dlitigation Monitoring Reporting Program -June 1, 2010
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Enforcement
Verification of
Measure
Milestone
Agency
Compliance
No.
Date
Trans ortation/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.
It
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
g
p
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
iNlitigation Nlonitoring Iteporting Program -June 1, 2010