City Council - Item II. B+B1 - Minimum Parking RequirementsTO: HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
FROM: FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER
DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 2000 .
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 816- AMENDMENT TO SECTION 17.84.010 OF THE
ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE, WHEREIN ANY CONSTRUCTION
OR REMODELING DONE TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL OR
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WHERE WORK DONE TO THE STRUCTURE .
IS GREATER THAN FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($15,000)
VALUATION, THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE
PROVIDED. SPECIFIC CRITERIA MAY EXEMPT SINGLE-FAMILY
HOME ADDITIONS FROM MEETING THE MINIMUM PARKING
REQUIREMENT.
BACKGROUND
Municipal Code Amendment 00-01 is intended to increase the improvement valuation, which
initiates the minimum parking requirements for commercial and industrial buildings. The
amendment also, under certain criteria, may exempt some single-family homes from the
minimum two-car garage requirement. This is a City Wide proposal, primarily affecting the
City's Residential, Commercial, and Light Industrial zoning districts.
This staff-initiated amendment is supported by a regional, twenty-one city survey of municipal
parking threshold requirements for commercial, industrial and residential zones. Compounding
factors such as construction cost increases (measured in dollars per square foot) since the current
code's adoption in 1975, is included within the assessment.
Based on the findings, staff is recommending amending Section 17.84.010 of the Rosemead
Municipal Code to increase the dollar valuation which initiates the minimum parking
requirements for commercial and industrial buildings from $10,000 to $15,000. This ordinance
also establishes specific criteria which .would allow exemptions for minor residential
improvements to properties that contain a single family residential dwelling. This exemption
PlDV 14 2000
, dB/
i r r. i.I No.
staf epor
Municipal Code Amendment 00-01
Ordinance No. 816
Page 2 of 3
would only apply to some of the older dwellings that were constructed with either a one car
garage or a carport. These properties would have to meet the following criteria:
1. There have been no previous additions to the residence.
2. The proposed addition is less than or equal to 120 square feet.
3. The placement of the addition does not prevent future construction of an enclosed
garage structure.
DISCUSSION
On September 13, 2000, an. initial, study was prepared in accordance with state and local
environmental regulations to analyze the potential environmental impacts that could occur from
the proposed code amendment. The findings of the study indicate that the proposed project could
not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been
prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Staff finds that the Ordinance itself will serve to reduce potential environmental impacts to a
level of insignificance without eliminating business opportunities or home improvements.
Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The study was sent to all responsible agencies, and noticed
in 10 public locations, soliciting comments for more than a 21-day period prior to the Planning
Commission hearing.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the negative declaration, approve Municipal Code
Amendment 00-01, introduce and place Ordinance No. 816 on first reading and schedule the
item for a 2"d reading at the meeting of November 28, 2000.
EXHIBITS
A. Ordinance No.816
B. Planning Commission Minutes, dated October 16, 2000
C. Staff Report, dated October 16, 2000
D. Resolution No. 00-39
ORDINANCE NO. 816
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING MUNICIPAL CODE
AMENDMENT NO. 00-01, AMENDING SECTION 17.84.010 OF THE ROSEMEAD
MUNICIPAL CODE, WHEREIN ANY CONSTRUCTION DONE TO AN EXISTING
COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WHERE WORK DONE TO THE
STRUCTURE IS GREATER THAN FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($15,000)
VALUATION, THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED.
SPECIFIC CRITERIA MAY EXEMPT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ADDITIONS FROM
MEETING THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES AND DECLARES that
Municipal Code Amendment No. 00-01 meets the City's goals and objectives as follows:
A. The City Council of the City of Rosemead wishes to promote the City of Rosemead's
interest in protecting and preserving the quality and character of the residential, commercial, and
industrial areas in the City, and the quality of life through effective land use planning; and
B. It is the purpose and intent of the Ordinance to provide for the reasonable and uniform
regulation of parking standards for home and business uses in the City of Rosemead. It is
recognized that such parking standards are appropriate for the Commercial, Industrial and
Residential Zoning Districts. It is therefore the purpose of this Ordinance to establish minimum
parking requirements which in turn will protect the public health, safety, and welfare, minimize
the potential adverse impacts related to parking demand, and maintain local property values; and
C. The City staff has prepared an initial study pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). This study has determined that the proposed zoning amendments will not
have any adverse impact on the environment, and accordingly has prepared and recommends
adoption of Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to the City of Rosemead's CEQA Procedures and State CEQA -
Guidelines, it has been determined that the adoption of this ordinance will not have a significant
impact.on the environment. This conclusion is based upon the record, initial study and
comments received during the pubic review period. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been
prepared according to CEQA. The City Council, having final approval authority over this
project, has reviewed and considered any comments received during the public review prior to
the approval of this project. Furthermore, the City Council has exercised its own independent
judgment in reaching the above conclusion. The City Council, therefore, approves the Negative
Declaration.
Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulation, Section 753.5(v)(1), the City Council has
determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed
EXHIBIT "A"
Municipal Code Amendment 00-01
Ordinance No. 816
Page 1 of 4
project will have the potential for adverse effect on the wildlife resources or the habitat upon
which the wildlife depends. Furthermore, on the basis of substantial evidence, the City Council
hereby finds any presumption of adverse impact has been adequately rebutted. Therefore,
pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.2 and Title XIV, California Code of Regulations,
Section 735.5(a)(3), the City Council finds that the project has a de minimis impact and therefore
the payment of Fish and Game Department-filing fees is not required in conjunction with this
project.
SECTION 3. The City Council HEREBY AMENDS Section 17.84.010 by adding to
"Automobile Parking Requirements Generally" as the following wherein for each business,
commercial, manufacturing,. or industrial building hereafter erected, converted, reconstructed, or
enlarged, where the work done to the structure is greater than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000)
valuation, there shall be provided and maintained off-street parking facilities to accommodate the
motor vehicles used by occupants, customers, clientele, and employees of such building or
structure. The aggregate amount of parking space for each type of use shall not be less than that
stated in this chapter. Required parking space or spaces shall be in addition to required driveways
and necessary or required turn areas. For each Single-family detached dwelling there, shall be
provided a parking spaces (enclosed garage) as required by this chapter, provided however, that
compliance may be deferred if the Planning Director finds each of the following facts: The
proposed addition does not exceed 120 square-feet and no other building permits for additions
have been issued for the subject dwelling, and that there has been no conversion of required
automobile parking spaces to any other use on the subject property, and that the proposed
addition does not, by virtue of its placement on the subject property, preclude future construction
of an enclosed garage per the City's development standards:
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or word of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decisions shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rosemead
HEREBY DECLARES that it would have passed and adopted this Ordinance, and each and all
provisions thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provisions may be
declared to be invalid.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause same
to be published as required by law.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 14`h day of November , 2000.
MARGARET CLARK,
Mayor
Municipal Code Amendment 00-01
Ordinance No. 816
Page 3 of 4
ATTEST:
NANCY VALDERRAMA, City Clerk
Municipal Code Amendment 00-01
Ordinance No. 816
Page 3 of 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF ROSEMEAD )
I, Nancy Valderrama, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 816 being:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA APPROVING MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT NO.
00-01, AMENDING SECTION 17.84.010 OF .THE ROSEMEAD
MUNICIPAL CODE, WHEREIN ANY CONSTRUCTION. OR
REMODELING DONE TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL OR
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, WHERE WORK DONE TO THE.
STRUCTURE IS GREATER THAN FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS
($15,000) VALUATION, THE MINIMUM PARKING
REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED. SPECIFIC CRITERIA
MAY EXEMPT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ADDITIONS FROM
MEETING THE MINIMUM PARKING STANDARD.
was duly introduced and placed upon first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the
14th day of November, 2000, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at
a regular meeting of the City Council on the 28th day of November, 2000, by the following vote,,
to wit:
AYES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NANCY VALDERRAMA, City Clerk
OCTOBER 16, 2000 -
PLANNING CONABSSION MINUTES
PAGE 3
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Chairman Ortiz declared said motion duly carried and so ordered
UP an Ortiz oAnerl thespublic he rangy thoae INFAYOR the apphcnttow
P'^•?3-~ x~:'S'as~2~'~~.~"~""°".+'V^~+m.,,,, ',ss„r°&,"~P _ ' .
P~ubl~„c liearuig~as gPened loMilime who,~vttihed~loOPPOSE the~njlPltcation:;
Non~ue,
EXHIBIT B
I'resentatio ~0 lammn 't' Johnson
u t oris f %Tie comrn~ssiolt s to theJstr~f ;
OCTOBER 16, 2000
PLANNING CONAASSION MINUTES
PAGE 4
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-803--9000 East Garvey Avenue, Units CID
A request by Maggie Nguyen, dba "V & L Restaurant," for the transfer an existing beer and
wine (Type 41) ABC license in conjunction with an eating establishment located in the M-1,
Light Manufacturing zone.
Presentation: Planning Director Johnson
Staff reconmten(lation: CONTINUE-to the November 6 Regular Planning Commission
meeting.
Applicant(s): In the audience.
Questions from the commissioners to the staff.•
None.
Chairman Ortiz opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR gjthis application:
The applicant, Ms. Maggie Nguyen of 4900 Overland, Culver City, pledged full
cooperation in rectifying all outstanding violations; however, Ms. Nguyen requested
clarification pertaining to two (2) items: Firstly, forasmuch as condition number twelve
(412) relates to the acquiring of a business license, Ms. Nguyen emphasized having.
already fulfilled this obligation back in May of 2000. Secondly, the respondent was
further distressed by condition number four (94); wherein, the prohibition of coin-
operated video games is specified. Given that confusion develops between business
licenses and occupancy permits, Director Johnson urged the applicant to present her
license receipt to the Planning Department for validation, furthermore, the director
deemed condition four (4) to be alluding to a variance or supplementary CUP
requirement intended for four (4) or more video games. Nevertheless, Director
Johnson vowed to further investigate the contradiction.
Public hearing was opened to those mho wished to OPPOSE the application:
ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
October 16, 2000
CASE NO.: . Municipal Code Amendment 00-01
REQUEST: Amendment to Rosemead Municipal Code 17.84.010;
"Automobile Parking Requirements Generally", wherein
any construction or remodeling done to an existing
commercial or industrial building where work done to the
structure is greater than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000)
valuation, the minimum parking requirements shall be
provided. Specific criteria may exempt single-family home
additions from meeting the minimum-parking requirement.
LOCATION: City Wide (Single-Family Residential, Commercial, and
Light Industrial Zones)
APPLICANT: City of Rosemead, Planning Department
8838 E. Valley Blvd.
Rosemead, CA 91770
PUBLIC HEARING: Notices were posted at ten public locations and in the
newspaper on September 14, 2000
EXHIBITS:. A. Draft Ordinance
B. Initial Environmental Study.
C. Year 1979 and 2000 Building Valuation Data Sheet
D. Survey of Zoning Codes
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An initial study was completed on September 16, 2000. This study has been prepared in
accordance with state and local environmental regulations to analyze the potential environmental
impacts that could be created from the proposed project.
Municipal Code Amendment 00-01 has been created to increase the improvement valuation cost
which initiates the minimum parking requirements for commercial and industrial buildings. The
amendment also, under certain criteria, may exempt some single-family homes from providing
the minimum two-car garage requirement.
EXHIBIT C
Staff finds that the Ordinance itself will serve to reduce potential environmental impacts to a
level of insignificance without eliminating business opportunities or home improvements.
Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The study was sent to all responsible agencies, and noticed
in 10 public locations, soliciting comments for more than a 21-day period prior to the Planning
Commission hearing.
ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYSIS
Municipal Code Amendment 00-01 is intended to increase the improvement valuation, which
initiates the minimum parking requirements for commercial and industrial buildings. The
amendment also, under certain criteria, may exempt some single-family homes from the
minimum two-car garage requirement. This is a City Wide proposal, primarily affecting the
City's Residential, Commercial, and Light Industrial zoning districts.
This staff-initiated amendment is based on encouraging building improvements for commercial
and industrial businesses lacking the minimum-parking requirements. Likewise, the code
amendment enables homeowners to. make interior improvements or minor additions without
incurring the additional cost of anew two-car garage and driveway. A regional wide survey of
21 surrounding cities has shown that most cities either allow up to 50% of the existing floor area
or allow the construction up to the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) without triggering current
parking requirements. Only two cities in the survey had similar dollar valuation thresholds that
may prompt current parking requirements; Baldwin Park and Monrovia.
However, improvement valuation dollar thresholds for these cities far exceed the City's current
threshold of $2,000.00. In 1979, four years after the $2,000.00 improvement valuation was
adopted into the code, only 83 square feet of commercial building was allowable. Today, a
$2,000.00 valuation may only cover a fraction of that square footage. Below is a sample of
allowable building areas from the years 1979 and 2000 if a $2000.00 valuation were to be
applied for a residential or business addition.
Table A
Building Type
1979/ dollars pcr
SS valuation
1979
2000/ dollars per
SS valuation
2000
Residential
$30
57 square feet
$65
30 square feet
Commercial *
$24
83 square feet
$48
41 square feet
Industrial
$14
143 square feet
$25
80 square feet
if a $15,000.00 valuation were to be applied for a business addition, the square footage changes
are as follows:
Table B.
Building Type
2000
Commercial *
309 square feet
Industrial
600 square feet
* The occupancy category "Stores" used as proxy for Commercial buildings. To adjust for 1975 valuation, allow
10% decrease in dollars per square foot.
Noticeably, dollars per square foot have dramatically increased since 1979. Table A suggest that
a $2000.00 addition today will decrease the square footage area from 38% to 56% of a
hypothetical addition in 1979. Table B, using the proposed $15,000 valuation the square footage
increases allows for a more rational, cost=to-benefit construction or remodeling decision.
Increasing the dollar valuation to $15,000.00 is a sensible method by which the City can allow a
small expansion or remodeling work without imposing new parking requirements for businesses.
To a degree, the code amendment affords the opportunity for business owners to improve their
buildings. Still, at a regional level, the $15,000.00 valuation is a relatively low figure. Insofar as,
most commercial additions or remodeling of significant size will certainly exceed the threshold
and in this manner, off-street parking improvements can be imposed. Essentially, most
businesses in the City have already maximized their respective lots and can no longer afford, in
terms of parking supply, to expand. As a result of this amendment, little or no impacts are
expected because of the current commercial density situation and due to the fact that many
occupancy uses are regulated by strict parking standards i.e. fast food, restaurants.
The code amendment also makes a provision for minor improvements to single-family homes.
Essentially, single-family homes, excluding multiple dwellings, may be exempt from providing
the two-car garage requirement if the Planning Director finds each of the following facts:
1. That there is a 120 square-foot maximum of any first-time building addition;
2. That the existing parking spaces are utilized as such, and;
3. That the building addition is of a suitable location which will not conflict with any future
construction of an enclosed two-car garage.
Based on these findings, Staff believes that homeowners may benefit from this amendment
because it allows qualified properties to legalize, upgrade and improve residences. Some
businesses with the intention of expanding or remolding will benefit from the increased threshold
valuation, while most are expected to exceed the threshold, thus be made to increase parking
availability. Clearly, the new amendment is more comprehensive and has a positive objective for
the residents and the business community.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Negative Declaration and recommend
City Council Approval of Municipal Code Amendment 00-01.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM.
1.
Project title:
Municipal Code Amendment 00-01
2.
3.
Lead agency name and address:
Contact person and phone number:
City of Rosemead
8838 East Valley Blvd.
Rosemead, CA 91770
Bradford Johnson, Planning Director
Planning Department
(626) 569-2140
4. Project location:. City-Wide
City of Rosemead
County of Los Angeles
5. Project sponsor's name and address: City of Rosemead
8838 East Valley Blvd.
Rosemead, CA 91770
6. General plan designation: All land use designations
7. Zoning: All zoning districts
8. Description of project. (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
This project will include an amendment to Rosemead Municipal Code 17.84.010; "Automobile
Parking Requirements Generally", wherein any construction done to an existing commercial or
industrial building where work done to the structure is greater than fifteen thousand dollars
($15,000) valuation, the minimum parking requirements shall be provided. For each Single-
family detached dwelling there shall be provided a two-car garage, however, the Planning
Director may find exception to the parking requirement based on a 120 square-foot maximum of
any first-time building addition, that the existing parking spaces are utilized as such, and that the
building addition is of a suitable location which will not conflict with any future construction of
an enclosed two-car garage.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting. (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
The City of Rosemead is a suburb located within the San Gabriel Valley region, 10 miles east of
downtown Los Angeles. The City if bounded by the following communities: On the north by the
cities of Temple City and San Gabriel, on the west by unincorporated South San Gabriel, on the
south by Montebello, and by El Monte and South El Monte on the east. The City is approximately
5.5 square miles in area or 2,344 acres, which contains an estimated residential population of
56,664 people.
10. Other Agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement).
EXHIBIT B
Approval by other agencies is not required as part of this amendment.
ENVIRONMENTALTACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affect by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist.on the following pages.
❑ Aesthetics
❑ Biological Resources
❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials
❑ Mineral Resources
❑ Public Services
❑ Utilities / Service Systems
❑ Agriculture Resources
❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Hydrology /Water Quality
❑
Noise
❑
Recreation
❑
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
❑
Air Quality
❑
Geology / Soils
❑
Land use / Planning
❑
Population / Housing
❑
Transportation / Traffic
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Q I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A -MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project may have a "potentially significant impact" or "potential]y-
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revision or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
o~
Signature
FR"'-p -
j-Print Name
y~ &/b D
Data
For
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact` answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A "No Impact' answer is adequately-supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific
factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,
based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involve. including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. Once the lead agency, has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from `Potentially Significant Impact' to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation from Section XVII,
"Earlier Analyses", may be cross-referenced)..
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)
(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist'references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should.be cited in the discussion.
8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
9. The analysis of each issue should identify: (a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate
each question, and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance.
Less 1......
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Significant No
ISSUES Impact Incorporatation Impact Impact
1) AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcropping, and historic buildings within ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
This Municipal.Code Amendment proposal has a less than significant effect on scenic vistas or resources. The
proposal will, however, improve the visual character of older residential districts because the proposal retains the
minimum requirement of a two-car garage when beyond the minimum threshold. Thus, discouraging automobile
parking within yard setbacks and reducing the parking demand on public streets.
2) AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In
determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site .
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency to non- ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? ❑ ❑ ❑ ID
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ o
Evaluation ofEnvironmenlalImpacts -Municipal Code.9mendment 00-01
_ Less 'tua~
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Significant No
ISSUES Impact Incorporatation Impact Impact
The parking requirement proposal affects residential, industrial, and commercial districts only. While there are
agricultural zoning districts within the City, the area of land in terms of acreage devoted to these uses is minimal and
insignificant. Agricultural zones represent less than 73 acres or less than 2.4% of the cit}tivide total. The vast
majority of the City's agricultural zones are utilized as public parks therefore any agricultural land uses will be less
than significantly impacted.
3) AIR QUALITY. Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to
make the following determinations. Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?.
❑
❑
❑
Q
b)
Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
❑
❑
❑
ID
projected air quality violation?
c)
Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under .
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
_
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
❑
❑
❑
0
d)
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
❑
❑
❑
Q
pollutant concentrations?
e)
Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
❑
❑
❑
0
In relation to the proposal, less than significant impacts to air quality are anticipated since a raised improvement
evaluation, in essence, exempts off-street parking improvements below the proposed threshold valuation for
commercial and industrial buildings. In effect, this may limit additional parking requirements, possibly reducing
short-term construction related emissions. Additions to single family homes may also be exempt from additional
parking requirements. Again, short-term construction related emissions could be reduced. .
4) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
Evaluation ofErnvironmentalImpacts - Municipal Code Amendment 00-01
-
ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less 'i tan
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporatation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Imps
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
❑
❑
❑
❑
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any,
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
❑
❑
❑
Q
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
❑
❑
❑
0
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources, ED ~ Q
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, and other ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
The City is almost entirely developed with commercial and residential uses, no known significant natural vegetation
or habitat exist. The flood control channels are concrete lined and do not support sensitive or special status plants or
animal species. As such, less than significant impacts to biological resources will occur as a result of the parking
requirement proposal.
Evaluation oJEnvironmentalImpacts - Municipal Code Amendment 00-01
Less'rnan
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Significant
No
ISSUES
Impact
Incorporatation
Impact
Impact
5) CULTURAL RESOURCES. WOULD
THE PROJECT:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
❑
❑
❑
Q
defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the .
significance of an archaeological resource
❑
❑
❑
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
❑
❑
❑
Q
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
❑
❑
❑
Q
cemeteries?
The City is almost entirely developed with commercial and residential uses with no recorded archeological or
historic resources. As such, less than significant impacts to cultural resources is anticipated as a result of this
Municipal Code Amendment proposal.
6) GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the
project
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects. including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
-
& Geology Special Publication 42-,
❑
❑
❑
Q
ii.) Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
❑
0
iii.) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
❑
❑
iv.) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
❑
❑
❑
0
v.) Landslides?
❑
❑
0
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
❑
❑
0
Evaluation of EnvirotvMntal bnpacts - Municipal Code /l mendment 00-01
Less 7 nan
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Significant No
ISSUES Impact Incorporatation Impact Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or El 13 collapse? 0
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Q
code (1994), creating substantial risks to ❑ 71
life or collapse?
The City of Rosemead, like most of the Southern California region, is located in a seismically active area. Some
active faults in the surrounding region, such as Whittier fault zone, have a potential to inflict substantial damage to
the City. Locally, the Alquist-Priolo fault zone occupies a northwest to southeast oriented swath at the southern end
of the City. Potential geological disturbances within this zone can include surface fault ruptures. The Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act mitigates structural damage by preventing new construction on known fault traces.
Only several large low-density residential blocks reside in this zone and it would be expected that those older
residences will incur structural damage if not constructed to meet earthquake standards. Topographically, residential
zones in the City, are relatively level, therefore, soil erosion or related impacts are less than significant.
7) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous E] El Q
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment? 13 El Q
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle -
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter El
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site, which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5. and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?,
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts - Municipal Code Amendment 00-01
-
ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less 'i nan
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporatation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
residing or working in the project area?
❑
❑
❑
Q
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result in
a safer hazard for people residing or
❑
0
❑
0
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically_
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
❑
❑
❑
Q
plan?
It) Expose people or structures to the risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland '
fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where ❑ ❑ ❑
residences are intermixed with wildlands? '
This Municipal Code Amendment proposal will not pose as a hazard to the public or the environment. The potential
risk of upsetting some hazardous materials is minimal and any emission, release of any non-acutely hazardous
substance is not anticipated to result in a significant impact. The City is aware that residential garages often store
household hazardous waste products i.e. paints, motor oil etc, and has mitigated illegal dumping of these materials
through waste roundup campaigns. The proposed municipal code amendment is not anticipated to result in any
significant hazards or hazardous material impacts.
8) HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY. Would the project: .
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements? ❑ ❑ O ❑
b) Substantially degrade groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or
a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses
or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)? - ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts - Municipal CodeAmendmew 00-01
Less 'r nan
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Significant No
ISSUES Impact Incorporatation Impact Impact
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner, which would result in flooding on- ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water, which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
polluted run-off?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-vear flood ❑ ❑ ❑ ID
hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation
map? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
h) Place within a I00-year floodplain
structures, which would impede or redirect ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
Eliminating the requirement for additional construction, at least 400 square feet and a subsequent increase in
driveway width, may result (on a citvivide scale) in a reduction of surface runoff. Flooding does not pose as
significant risk due to a large storm drainage capacity of the four major flood control channels traversing the City.
No flooding is expected due to dam or levee failure and the City's interior location eliminates the possibility, of a
tsunami or seiche. Overall the Municipal Code.Amendment proposal will have a less than significant impact to
water quality and hydrology systems.
9) LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would
the project:
a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
community?
b) Conflict with an applicable land use plan,
policy or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning
Evaluation of Environmental hnpacts-Adunicipal Code Amendment 00-01
Less 'i uan
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Significant No
ISSUES Impact Incorporatation Impact Impact
plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
conservation plan?
A new monetary threshold that would initiate parking improvements does not conflict with any applicable land use
plan. The proposal does not change the City's density requirements per General Plan and doesn't affect the open
space objectives also outlined in the General Plan. The City of Rosemead is a higlily urbanized community that has
not developed a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
lo) MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
There are no known important mineral resources recorded within the City. The above impacts do not apply to
projects like the one involved
11) NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies? ❑ ❑ ❑ : 0
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts - Municipal Code Amendment 00-01
Less 'i nan
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Significant No
ISSUES Impact Incorporatation Impact Impact
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working ❑ ❑ ❑
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
area to excessive noise levels?
The Municipal Code Amendment requirement proposal is not anticipated to produce any significant ambient not
other than normal construction noise levels, which will not exceed the City's noise ordinance. The noise impacts
produced by airstrips do not apply to projects like the one involved.
12) POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would
the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new hones and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
❑ ❑ ❑
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
The existing residential parking requirement complements population growth by requiring adequate residential
parking for new homes. This proposal allows older, existing houses to accommodate small expansions without the
implication of an increase in family size. The proposal, by design, does not anticipate an induced increase/decrease
in population nor displacement of existing housing. Therefore impacts to population and housing, direct or indirect,
are less than significant.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts-Municipal Code Amendment 00-01
Less 'r nan
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Significant No
ISSUES Impact Incorporatation Impact Impact
13) PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project
result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered government facilities, need
for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to '
maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for am'
of the public services:
❑
❑
❑
Q
a)
Fire protection?
b)
Police protection?
❑
❑
❑
Q
C)
Schools?
❑
❑
❑
Q
d)'
Parks?
❑
❑
❑
Q
e)
Other public facilities?
❑
❑
❑
Q
The Municipal Code Amendment proposal is not anticipated to disrupt or interfere with the objectives of any public
service. No new public service facilities will be constructed as part of this Municipal Code Amendment. therefore
the above impacts do not apply to projects like the one involved.
14) RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
This Municipal Code Amendment proposal is not anticipated to impact City recreational facilities. No new
recreational facilities will be required and as a result of this proposal, the ten municipal recreation areas will have a
less than a significant impact.
15) TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC.
Would the project:
Evaluation ofEnviroronentalImpacts - Municipal Code Amendment 00-01
Less 't nan
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Significant No
ISSUES Impact Incorporrtation Impact Impact
a)
Cause an increase in traffic, which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
❑
❑
❑
Q
b)
Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways?
❑
❑
❑
Q
c)
Result in a change in air traffic patterns.
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety . risks?
d)
Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e. g. faun equipment)?
❑
❑
❑
Q
e)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
-
❑
❑
❑
Q
f)
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
❑
❑
Q
o
This Municipal Code Amendment is not anticipated to induce an increase in traffic load and capacity on the street
system. As a result of this Municipal Code Amendment proposal, the City can expect a decrease in the residential
parking capacity by disallowing older, existing homes to expand without providing a two-car garage (when meeting
the specified criteria). Assuming an increase in automobile ownership rates per household, an increase in on-street
parking can be anticipated. This parking spillover may produce some less than significant impacts to traffic safety
and congestion on smaller two-lane streets.
16) UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality El ❑ ❑ Q
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
Evaluation ojEnvironmenta!Impacts-Municipal Code Amendment 00-01
Less 1 nan
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Significant No
ISSUES
Impact
Incorporatation
Impact Impact
storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
❑
❑
❑ Q
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a detennination in the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project, determined that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local. ❑ ❑ ❑ 2
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
The Municipal Code Amendment proposal does not require nor will it result in a need for new wastewater or storm
water facilities. This Municipal Code Amendment proposal is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on
utilities and service systems.
17) MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?,
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
❑ ❑
o.
Evaluation of Erivironmentallmpacts-Municipal Code Amendment 00-01
_ Less ..jan
_ Potentialic Significant Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Significant No
ISSUES Impact Incorporatation Impact Impact
viewed in connection with the effects of
the past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable ❑ ❑ ❑
future projects)? ,
c) Does the project have environmental
effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either ❑ ❑ ❑ 10
directly or indirectly?
This Municipal Code Amendment proposal is not anticipated to degrade environmental quality, which may include
animal habitats and plant communities or any known endangered species. Cumulatively, the proposal does not
conflict with any past, current, or anticipated future developments nor does it put into conflict short-term zoning
objectives with any long-term goals of the General Plan. No direct or indirect adverse effect on human beings is
anticipated as a result of this Municipal Code Amendment. Conclusively, the Municipal Code Amendment proposal
is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on the environment since the City is virtually built out and many
of the environmental quality issues do not apply to this kind of proposal.
Evaluation ofEnvironmenmlImpacts -Municipal Code Amendment 00-01
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
California Environmental Quality Act
Negative Declaration
The City of Rosemead has completed an initial study of the following project in accordance with
State environmental guidelines:
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Date: October 16,2000 Case No.: Municipal Code Amendment 00-01
Address of Project: City"ide Assessor`s Parcel No.: Citywide
Applicant/Owner: City of Rosemead
Address of Applicant/Owners: 8838 E.Valley Blvd.. Rosemead, Ca 91770
Project Description and Location: A Citywide amendment to Rosemead Municipal Code Section
17.94.010; "Automobile Parking Requirements Generally", wherein any construction done to an
existing commercial or industrial building where work done to the structure is greater than fifteen
thousand dollars ($15,000) valuation, the minimum parking requirements shall be provided.
Specific criteria may exempt single-family home additions from meeting the minimum parking
requirement.
11. DETERMINATION
In accordance with the City of Rosemead's procedures or compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine
whether the proposed Citywide project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination:
✓ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to
the project, and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
The attached Initial Study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential
environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required
for the project.
III. FINDINGS
Based on the findings of the Initial Study, the proposed project will not have a significant effect
on the environment for the following reasons:
1. As discussed in the preceding sections, Municipal Code Amendment 00-01 does not
have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, including
effects on animals or plants, or to eliminate historic or prehistoric sites.
2. As discussed in the preceding sections, both short-term and long-term environmental
effects associated with Municipal Code Amendment 00-01 will be less than significant.
3. When impacts associated with Municipal Code Amendment 00-01 are considered alone
or in combination with other impacts, the project-related impacts are insignificant.
4. The above discussions do not identify any substantial adverse impacts to people as a
result of Municipal Code Amendment 00-01.
5., This declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Rosemead
-X e c fvv
Signature & Title Date
10/11/00 14:39 FAX 6952120
Edhol~
fire,
1 0 din
19,
val~af2t) 'UN
Data
Building Valuation Data
At the request of numerous building officials.
Building Standards offers the following building
valuation data representing average costs for most
buildings. Because residential buildings are the most
common for many cities, two general classes are con-
sidered for these, one for "average" construction and
the other for"good." Adjustments should be made for
special architectural or structural features and loca-
tion of the project. Often higher or lower unit costs .
may result.
The unit costs are intended to comply with the
definition of "valuation" in Section 423 of the
Uniform Building Code.and thus include archileo
tural, structural, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical
work, except as specifically listed below. It also in.
cludes the contractor's profit which should not be
omitted If he has a financial interest In the proiect
The determination of plan check fee. I.' prolects
rtviewed by the tnternatioval Conference of Building
Officials will be based on valuation computed from
these figures.
Cost per
October, 1979 Square rapt
Occupancy and Type
1. APARTMENT H
'Type I o 550.50 42.20
Typ -Mason.ry
for Type IIt)............ 39.20 32,10
Type V-Wood Frame 34.40 28.30
Type I -Basement Garage . 1 B.90
2. BANKS:
*Type I or f I F.R........... 67.30
Type 111-1-Hour 56.90
Type 111-N 54.70
Type V-1-Hour 48.00
Type V-N . 45.60
WILLDAN
.ASSOC ROSEMEAP Z0021002
Type 1 or 11 F.R.......
Type III-1-Hour
49.00
`.e-nnxt. t
RCONDITIONING:
Type III-N
3940
37
00
Commercial 2.80
Type V-1-Hour . . .
.
35
30
Residential 240
Type V-N .
.
33.10
SPRINKLER SYSTEMS:.......... 1.30
4. CONVALESCENT HOSPITALS
:
'Add 0.8 percent to total cost for each story over thre
*Type I or I I F.R............
65.90
e.
Type III-1-Hour........
54.10
Type V-l-Hour.........
43.20
S. DWELLINGS:
Type V-Masonry
T
43.30 3
_
ype V-Wood Frame-....
39.60 0
0
easements-
.
Regional Modifier
Finished
10.30
s
Unfinished
6. HOSPITALS:
8.00 6.00
The following modifiers are recommended for use
i
'Type 1 or II F.R...........
40
84
n conjunction with the Building Valuation, Data. in
addition, certain local conditions may require further
Type III -1-Hour
.
73
80
modifications. To use these modifiers merely multiply
Type V-l-Hour.........
.
63
60
the listed cost per square foot by the appropriate
7. HOTELS AND MOTELS:
.
regional modifier. For example:
'Type 1 or 11 F.R.....
46
80
To adjust cost of a wood frame dwelling of average
Type III
-1-Hout
.
construction lot the Delaware area, select Regional
.
Type III-N
41.40
flodifier 0.87 and unit cost from Valuation Daa,
$30
1
-
39.20
.
0.
Type V-1-Hour .
36.50
Type V-N .
34.10
0.87 x $30,10. $2619(adjusted cost per square foot)
8. INDUSTRIAL PUNTS:
Type I or II F.R......
Type 11 -1.Hour
30.20
Eastern United States Modifier
Mo
difi
Type II-(Stock)...
19.20
17.00
Connecticut
.
. . . . . . . .
0.90
Delaware
Type 111-l-Hour
Type III-N
22.20
. 0.87
District of Columbia.......... 0.90
. .
Tilt-up
20.00
14.20
Florida , 0.79
Georgia
7
Type V-1-Hour.........
19.20
0.7
Maine
TYPeV-N
9. MEDICAL OFFICES:
17.00
0.84
Maryland............
. . . . . . 0.82
*Type I or 11 F,R........... .
60.20
Massachusetts 0,90
New Hampshire
0
Type III
Type II) - N
46.20 -
.83
New Jersey . 0.95
. . . . . .
Type V-1-Hour
43.80
41
20
New York
. Type V-N
.
00
39
New York City . . . . . . . . . . 0.97
10. OFFICES: -
'
.
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.90
North Carolina .
0
77
Type I or II F.R...........
53.00
.
Pennsylvania
Type III-1-Hour
39.30
Philadelphia
0
93
- Type III - N.
36.90
.
..Other 0
90
Type V-1-Hour
32.90
.
. . . . . . Rhode Island .
0
90
T V=
30.60
.
South Carolina,
0
74
11. PRIVATE ATE GARAGES:
.
Vermont. 0
81
Wood Frame............
9.90
.
Virginia
77
0
Masonry
Open Carports
13.00
5
30
.
.
West Virginia - 0.90
12. PUBLIC GARAGES:
.
Central United States
'Type I or 11 F.R............
25.80
Alabama 0.77
Typell-N
17.10
Arkansas................... 0.79
Type lil-l-Hour
20.60
Illinois 0.93
Type III-N
17.10
Indiana 0.87
Type v-1-Hour
11.10
Iowa........................ 0.88
13. RESTAURANTS: -
Kansas 0.82
Type III-1-Hour
48.50
Kentucky 0.84
Type III-N. .
46.30
Louisiana................... 0.83
Type V-1-Hour
42.40
Michigan 0.90
Type V-N
40.00
Minnesota 0.89
74. STORES:
Mississippi 0.78
*Type I or 11 F.R............
40
40
Missouri 0.84
Type III-1-Hour - ,
.
30.80
Nebraska 0.83
Type Ill-N
28.60
North Dakota................ 0.89
Type V-l-Hour.........
Ohio 0.90
Type V-N
24
40
Oklahoma 0.81
15. SCHOOLS:
.
South Dakota 0.87
Type I or If F.R...........
48,90
Tennessee 0.79
Type III-1-Hour
41.40
Texas 0.82
Type III-N
39.20
Wisconsin 0.88
Type V-1-Hour
37.20
Western United States
16. SERVICE STATIONS:
Alaska
1
37
Type 11-N
"
37.20
.
.
Arizona
0
92
Type 111-1-Hour......
40.50
.
California
Type
V-l-Hour.....,...
25.70
LOS Angeles :
1
00
Canopies
17. THEATERS:
12.80
.
Lake Tahoe...... 1 7
Type i or I I F.R.....
56.70
San Francisco....... . 1.'04
Other
Type
III-1-Hour
41.70
1.01
Colorado
0
89
Type lit-N
39.50
.
Hawaii......
1
19
Type V-1-Hour
38.90
.
Idaho, _
.
0
89
Type V-N
18. WAREHOUSES:
36.60
.
.
Montana . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . 0.85
-
Type I or I I F.R...........
25.60
Nevada 0.97
New Mexico. . .
82
0
Type 11 or V-1-Hour
1
7,pp
.
Type II or V-N,.......
4
-
Type III-1-Hour
.
Type III-N............
16.60
,
EXHIBIT C
_A;
WILLDAN
BUILDING VALUATION DATA SHE,ET*
(DOLLARS PER SQUARE FOOT) _
Effective Date: April 2000
Supersedes: April 1999
v" a -=-i
TINCL#'
~C
*~.'I OR 11 F R^"'y'
i 4 TYPE
"..Ilx, "HR . N~:ill '~N ,u.,
OF'CDNSTRUC
s„}illl""~'I HR'L:!2
iTION'-;m,'rx
* AllNSs
'.-V .1?HR '"°a
ftbtlxr`Vw;N
.ADartments - Good
x _
105.3D
90.50
86.20
83.90
79.90
Apartments - Averaoe
x'
86.30
74.65
71.10
66.00
62.90
Apartments - Bsmnt. Gr .
35.00
Auditoriums
x
101.80
74.80
71.00
78.40
74.60
75.20
70 40
Banks
x
142.16
105.80
102.50
116.40
112.30
105.80
101.50
Barns/Stables
15.00
Bowling Alleys
x
51.50
48,40
55.70
52,40
38.90
Churches
x
'96.60
73.40
7[).00
79.50
76.21)
74.60
71)40
Convalescent Hospitals
x
133.90
94.10
96.40
91,10
Fire Stations
x
110.80.
73.50
69.60
80.20
76.90
76.30
71.80
Homes for Elderly
x
100.80
82.60
79.20
85.80
82.50
83.10
80.30
Hotels and Motels
x
97.70
85.OD
81.20
74.50
73.00
Industrial Plants
53.20
37.00
34.00
40.80
3840
38.40
35.20
Tilt Up Industrial Plant
28.00
Medical Offices
x
115.50
90.00
85.70
94.60
90.90
88.10
85.20
Offices
x
103.60
70.10
66.90
75.30
7210
70.BO
67.50
Public Buildings
x
119.10
97.20
93.10
100.90
WAD
92.60
89A0
Public Garages
45.70
34.60
26.20
34.80
30.80
31.50
Restaurants
x
-
94.90
91.80
87.20
83.90
Schools -
X
107.80
74.80
79.70
75.00
71.70
Service Stations
x
66.70
69.30
59.60
Service Station Canopies
26.20
Stores -
X
80.90
51.00
49.90
61.20
57.50
52.10
48.50
Theaters
x
106.50
-
78.60
75.10
74.20
70.40
Warehouses
46.10
27.40
25.80
31.10
29.60
27.40
25.80
DWELLING5~(NEW 8:"ADDNS)
A/C~
WOODiF.RAM
„MASONRY;
G%ARAGESi
WOOD7FRAM
EMASO_NRY
FYfCARPORTSi„`xi..rir'8-.Y
Very Good (Custom)
X
109.30
113.30
Very Good
27.75
28.00
Ve Good
33.60
Good
X
88 0
93.00
Good
25.80
25.00
Good
29.20
Average
x
65.60
73.30
Averaoe
22.70
25.50
Average
15.50
M+~ •'iE,':€p-~%l'- ,13 ASEMENT~.Vt'L: Pik-, & ' t5.'7"wte- :n
Good - Semi-finished
21.70
Good - Unfinished
16.60
Averaoe - Semi-finished
18.80
Average - Unfinished
13.60
.s=RETAININ SMALLS' INCInFND'.'
6-inch Concrete Block 8.00
8-inch Concrete Block 9.00
12-inch Concrete Block 10.00
i°.rr r '^-A~FSIGN POLES: LIN FT. z .m--
4T
35.00
14"0
115.00
6"0
37.00
18"0
145.00
8110
65. DD
24"0
195.00
10"0
80.00
30"0
240.00
12"0
95.00
3?$i++.'.. ,p tf 4,.t ',;,GRADE'BEAMSI(LIN FT ';r;
2t inch X 24-inch 100.00
Reference: "ICBO Building Standards" April 2000
REFROOFINGNO FRAM INGiREV-'S 6";
„6.'-1'FIRESP.RINKLERSK ,a
Built-up, Shingle (all)
2.00
Commercial 245
Tile (all)
2.50
Residential 1.60
Fiberglass
10 00
Metal
12.00
Wood
15.00
IGNS', 12 IDES Z'4
-V,,1 SIDE
Painted 45 00
35.00
Electrical 150.00
80.00
Neon
25.00
BEACHFRONTdPI L
Gam,.;";" aeD
'1*;< aFr s""a-> T.DlaYcrR,
0-40' 145
4D" 160
See attached notes.
t5 W IMMIN GiPOOLS/SPAS y
~r,.~4rrtixrPER So-.FT-1, Custom SO.OD
Standard 35.00
F,~- EQUIPMENT~'-
a"Ar,CondMnmak.
Commercial 3.90
Residental 3.30
EXHIBIT C
r. /i
Memorandum
To: Brad Johnson, Director of Planning
From: Steven Angarita, Planning Intern
Date: 4/6/00
Re: Research findings from surrounding cities in regards to additions/expansions of
existing legal non-conforming dwellings with insufficient off-street parking.
Alhambra
An expansion of up to 50% of existing floor area is allowable without bringing
parking requirements up to current codes.
Arcadia
An expansion of up to 50% of existing floor area is allowable without bringing
parking requirements up to current codes. AZN
aelo 5 owe Fes,/e a ~:e[ r~i
BaldwiParkr~thg
An expansion of up to 600 SF Maximum ($53,220) is allowed. If the bedroom
count exceeds 4, garage addition is required for any improvements to dwelling.
Covina
Any expansion to non-conforming structure requires planning commission
approval. Upon approval an expansion.up to maximum floor area ratio is
allowable, providing resident brings parking requirements up to current codes.
Duarte
An expansion of up to 50 existing floor area is allowable without bringing
parking requirements u o urrent codes. 2-j0 q. (&4,c- a Z
;SS t{cC~ W/l,
El Monte
An expansion of up to 50% of existing floor area is allowable without. bringing
parking requirements up to current codes.
EXHIBIT D
April 6, 2000
Glendale
An expansion up to maximum floor area ratio is allowable, providing resident
brings parking requirements up to current codes.
Glendora
An expansion up to the maximum floor area ratio is allowed without bringing
parking requirements up to current codes as long as proposed addition meets
current codes.
La Puente
An expansion up to maximum floor area ratio is allowable, providing resident
brings parking requirements up to current codes.
Montebello
An expansion up to maximum floor area ratio is allowable, providing resident
brings parking requirements up to current codes.
Monterev Park
An expansion of up to 50% of existing floor area is allowable without bringing
parking requirements up to current codes.
Monrovia
Additions to a multiple family residence regardless of zone must meet current
standards. An expansion of 500 SF ($44,350) or up to 1250 SF of total living
area, whichever number is greater, is allowable to a single family residence,
without bringing parking requirements up to current codes.
Pasadena
An expansion up to maximum floor area ratio is allowable, providing resident
brings parking requirements up to current codes.
Pico Rivera
An expansion up to maximum floor area ratio is allowable, providing resident
can expand driveway to at least 15ft Wide. Expansion of driveway is measured
from side, of garage and must extend at least 15ft out toward the property line.
San Gabriel .
An expansion up to maximum floor area ratio is allowable, providing resident
brings parking requirements up to current codes.
April 6, 2000
San Marino
An expansion of up to 25% of existing floor area is allowable without bringing
parking requirements up to current codes.
Sierra Madre
Planning Commission approval is required, subject to a case-by-case basis.
South El Monte
An expansion up to maximum floor area ratio is allowable, providing resident
brings parking requirements up to current codes.
Temple City
An expansion up to maximum floor area ratio is allowable, providing resident
brings parking requirements up to current codes.
West Covina
An expansion up to maximum floor area ratio is allowable in an R-I Zone. If the,
Planning Department determines that there is sufficient room to bring parking
requirements up to code, resident must comply with current standards as part of
approval.
Whittier
An expansion up to maximum floor area ratio is allowable, providing resident
brings parking requirements up to current codes.
PC RESOLUTION 00-39
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL CODE
AMENDMENT 00-01 AMENDING SECTION 17.84.010 OF THE
ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE SETTING THE DOLLAR
VALUATION THRESHOLD FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OR
REMODELING ACTIVITY REQUIRING THE UPGRADE OF EXISTING
PARKING SPACES TO THE CURRENT ZONING STANDARDS.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to provide reasonable and uniform regulation of
parking standards for home and business uses in the City of Rosemead. It is recognized that such
parking standards are appropriate for the Commercial, Industrial and Residential Zoning.
Districts. It is therefore the purpose of this Ordinance to establish minimum parking
requirements which in turn will protect the public health, safety, and welfare, minimize the
potential adverse impacts related to parking demand, and maintain local property values; and
. WHEREAS, Sections 17.116.020 set forth procedures and requirements for municipal
code amendments, and
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2000, the Planning Department completed an initial study
for Municipal Code Amendment 00-01, and
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has an adopted General Plan, zoning ordinance, and.
map including specific development standards to control development, and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Amendment 00-01 initiates the minimum parking
requirements when any construction or remodeling to an existing commercial or industrial
building is greater than a fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) valuation. Specific criteria may
exempt single-family home additions from meeting the minimum parking requirement, and
WHEREAS, Section 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning
Commission to consider and recommend proposed municipal code amendments to the City
Council, and
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2000, notices were posted in 10 public locations and also
published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune noticing the public comment period and the time
and place for a public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3), and
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2000, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and
advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Municipal 'Code
Amendment 00-01; 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 RECOMMENDS that a Negative
Declaration be adopted for Municipal Code Amendment 00-01. An initial study was completed
to analyze potential environmental impacts pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). This study found that there would not be potential environmental impacts. The initial
study is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. M~
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that M't°I
Municipal Code Amendment 00-01 is in the interest of the public necessity and general welfare,
and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed municipal code amendment,
in that the change to the Rosemead Municipal Code will provide a superior level of planning and
protection to the quality and character of the city.
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES that
Municipal Code Amendment 00-01 is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan as follows:
A. Land Use: Municipal Code Amendment 00-01 consists of amendment to Section
17.84.010, which sets a new threshold valuation for parking improvements within
commercial and industrial zones. Residential zones can be exempted under certain
conditions. A new monetary threshold that would initiate parking improvements
does not conflict or change the City's density requirements bf the General Plan.
B. Circulation: This Municipal Code Amendment is not anticipated to induce an
increase in traffic load and capacity on the street system. As a result of this
Municipal Code 'Amendment, the City may expect a decrease in the residential
parking capacity by disallowing older, existing homes to expand without
providing a two-car garage.
C. HOUsin : This Municipal Code Amendment allows older, existing houses to
accommodate small expansions without the implication of an increase in family
size. The Municipal Code Amendment, by design, does not anticipate an induced
increase/decrease in population nor displacement of existing housing.
D. , Resource Management This Municipal Code Amendment is not anticipated to
impact City recreational facilities or other public open spaces. Landscaped areas
within some residential properties may be preserved as a result of this
amendment. '
E. Noise: This Municipal Code Amendment will not generate any significant noise.
An initial study was completed and its findings. have determined that Municipal
Code Amendment 00-01is not expected to have a significant impact on the
environment.
Public Safety: This Municipal Code Amendment is not anticipated to degrade the
services provided by local law or fire enforcement.
SECTION 4.' The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of
Municipal Code Amendment 00-01, amending Section 17.84.010 of the Rosemead Municipal
Code, a new dollar valuation increase of $15,000 for new construction or remodeling activity
which initiates the minimum parking requirements for commercial and industrial buildings. The
amendment also, under certain criteria, may exempt some single-family homes from providing
the minimum two-car garage requirement.
SECTION 6. This resolution is the . result of an action taken by the Planning
Commission on October 16, 2000, by the following vote:
YES: L01, ORTIZ, BREEN, ALARCON, 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 6th4ay-offNovemberr 2000.
Merced William Ortiz, G an
AMA stn - ~ - s
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 6th day of November,
2000 by the following vote:
YES:
NO:,
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
William Crowe, Secretary