PC - Item 5D - Zone Varience 10-03 at 1716 Montebello Town CenterROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: DECEMBER 20, 2010
SUBJECT: ZONE VARIANCE 10 -03
1716 MONTEBELLO TOWN CENTER
Summary
Montebello Town Center Investors, LLC submitted a Zone Variance application on
November 23, 2010, for the construction of two restaurant buildings totaling
approximately 15,000 square feet at 1716 Montebello Town Center Drive in the
Montebello Town Center in the C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone. A zone variance is
requested to provide parking in conformance with the City's shopping center standards
(1 space per 250 square feet of floor area) instead of the City's restaurant parking
standards (1 space per 100 square feet of floor area) for a phased development.
Environmental Determination:
An Initial Study of Environmental Impacts was prepared recommending the adoption of a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines (the Initial Study and Negative Declaration
are attached to this report as Exhibit "D "). The Initial Study is an environmental analysis of
the proposed Zone Variance to determine if the proposed project will have potentially
significant effects on the environment. This study found that there are no potentially
significant environmental impacts that could occur with the adoption of the proposed
project.
A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was distributed for a 20 -day public
review and comment period between December 1, 2010 and December 20, 2010. If the
Commission is inclined to approve this project, the Commission must make findings of
adequacy with the environmental assessment and approve the Negative Declaration.
Staff Recommendation
Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission APPROVE Zone Variance 10 -03 and ADOPT Resolution No. 10-
38 with findings (Exhibit "A "), subject to the thirty -two (32) conditions outlined in Exhibit
Planning Commission Meeting
December 20, 2010
Page 2 of 22
"B" attached hereto.
Property History and Description
The project is located at 1716 Montebello Town Center Drive, which is south of the
Pomona Freeway (60), north and west of N�lontebello Boulevard, and south of
Montebello Town Center Drive.
Aerial
The subject site is located on a single parcel of land, totaling 100,498 square feet (2.307
acres). The subject parcel is currently improved with a surface parking lot containing
approximately 200 parking spaces. The parcel is( adjacent to and is operated as a part
of the Montebello Town Center. I
Planning Division records indicate that the P
Variance 84 -54 on November 5, 1984 for park
which allow 55' wide double loaded parking bay,
As part of this approval 19' wide drive aisles were
7" wide aisles required by the Rosemead Mun
granted partially to allow the parking spaces de,
within the City of Rosemead to be the same dime
within the City of Montebello.
anning Commission approved Zone
ing space and drive aisle reductions
vidths in lieu of 57' wide parking bays.
Iapproved instead of the standard 19'-
cipal Code. The Zone Variance was
eloped on the part of the mall that is
visions as the portion of the mall that is
Planning Commission Meeting
December 20, 2010
Page 3 of 22
Site & Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is designated in the General Plan as Commercial and is zoned C -3
(Medium Commercial). The site is surrounded by the following land uses:
North:
General Plan: Commercial
Zoning: R -1 (Single - Family Residential) and P -D (Planned Development)
Land Use: Montebello Boulevard, Pomona Freeway (60), Commercial
Restaurant and Single - Family homes
South:
General Plan: Commercial
Zoning: C -3 (Medium Commercial)
Land Use: Commercial uses
East:
General Plan: Commercial
Zoning: C -3D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay)
Land Use: Commercial Hotel
West:
General Plan: City of Montebello
Zoning: City of Montebello
Land Use: Shopping Center Surface Parking Lot
Administrative Analysis
The Applicant proposes to improve a portion of the site with two development pads on
which will be constructed two separate restaurant buildings. The improvement of the
site, which will be conducted in two phases, will include construction of two
development pads, construction of two separate restaurant buildings, construction of a
common trash receptacle and utility area to be shared by the two restaurants,
hardscape and landscaping, and reconfiguration of the surface parking lot that includes .
an internal circulation route. After completion of the project, the parcel will contain not
less than 85 parking spaces. All 85 of these parking spaces will be subject to the
reciprocal parking rights provided by the Montebello Town Center's Reciprocal
Easement Agreement (the "REA "). One of the restaurants could be developed with a
maximum of 8,000 square feet of floor area. Combined, the restaurants would not
exceed 14,000 square feet of floor area and 15,000 square feet of gross buildable area.
The Commercial land use designation allows development of the site at a Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) of 0.35:1. Therefore, the Commercial land use designation allows up to
35,174 square feet of development on the 2.3 -acre site. The project site will have a
total development area of 15,000 square feet, which is less than the maximum square
footage allowed by the Rosemead General Plan.
Planning Commission Meeting
December 20, 2010
Page 4 of 22
Proposed Building Layout and Architecture fo'r Phase I:
Phase I would entail development of the first restaurant and related improvements at
the northwest section of the site. Development would also include reconfiguration of the
existing parking lot, construction of a transformer pad, and construction of an internal
circulation route through the site to allow for two access points from the mall. perimeter
roadway. There would be a total of 115 parking spaces after completion of Phase I.
Figure 1 shows the proposed site plan for Phase 1.
FIGURE 1 — PHASE I SITE PLAN
The restaurant planned for Phase I is designed in an Italian Mediterranean theme
with strong detailing and a variety of textures. IThe materials and architectural colors
provide a detailed appearance. The exterior building walls will be finished in an
earth tone stone veneer, and the building will have a hip and gable roof system
consisting of Spanish concrete tiles. Stained wood trellis systems are proposed
throughout the building elevations, which will provide further articulation and detail.
Figure 2 below shows a rendering of the proposed front elevation.
FRONT
FIGURE 2 — FRONT ELEVATION
AN
1
�a
FIGURE 1 — PHASE I SITE PLAN
The restaurant planned for Phase I is designed in an Italian Mediterranean theme
with strong detailing and a variety of textures. IThe materials and architectural colors
provide a detailed appearance. The exterior building walls will be finished in an
earth tone stone veneer, and the building will have a hip and gable roof system
consisting of Spanish concrete tiles. Stained wood trellis systems are proposed
throughout the building elevations, which will provide further articulation and detail.
Figure 2 below shows a rendering of the proposed front elevation.
FRONT
FIGURE 2 — FRONT ELEVATION
Planning Commission Meeting
December 20, 2010
Page 5 of 22
Proposed Building Layout for Phase II
Phase II of the project would entail the development of a second restaurant located
adjacent to the southwest corner of the first restaurant. Development during Phase II
would include reconfiguration of the internal circulation route constructed for Phase I.
The circulation route would be reconfigured to the south of the second restaurant pad.
The parking lot would also be reconfigured and there would be a total of 85 parking
spaces upon completion of Phase ll. The architectural drawings for the second
restaurant would be submitted to the City of Rosemead for review and approval upon
the commencement of Phase ll. Figure 3 shows the proposed site plan for Phase Il.
�_\_ � -__ - yy_ - - -• - ,,....=CAF-- r- '.:�� �::: \(1� �� �,i!
A v vFi `l ,{ �� •.
Nj407 A PART
_ rLT
j\NOTA PAR T- IN _��.`••
FIGURE 3 - PHASE II SITE PLAN
Parking Requirements for the Center
The REA requires that the shopping center provide a parking ratio of 4.5 spaces per
1,000 square feet of floor area. The total amount of floor area in the shopping center is
approximately 768,653 square feet which would require a total of 3,460 parking spaces.
The shopping center currently provides a total of 3,689 parking spaces which results in
a ratio of 4.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Upon completion of the project, the
shopping center would provide a total of 3,460 parking spaces which results in a ratio of
4.65 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Therefore, with the minor reduction of overall
parking to accommodate construction of the project, the shopping center would still
provide the amount of required parking consistent with the shopping center's REA.
Planning Commission Meeting
December 20, 2010
Pape 6 of 22
Entitlements
The City of Rosemead has determined that the prloject does not meet the definition of a
"shopping center" since only one restaurant is proposed on the single parcel during
Phase I. The Municipal Code defines a "Shopping Center" as a single parcel of land
with two or more uses and situated within C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone. Therefore,
a Zone Variance is required so that the City's parking ratio of 4 spaces per 1,000 square
feet for a shopping center will apply to the phased project, in lieu of the City's parking
ratio of 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet that is applicable to individual restaurants.
In order for the project to fully comply with
approximately 75 -80 parking spaces would be
depending on the actual size of the first restat
completion of Phase II of the project, 150 parking
floor area of 15,000 square feet. As stated a
provided at the completion of Phase II. Howeve
only 60 parking spaces will be required upon
Planning Commission approve the zone variance
-ie parking standards of the RMC,
required for Phase I of the project
ant constructed. However, upon the
> paces would be required for the total
Dve, the 85 parking spaces will be
, as a shopping center development
ompletion of the project should the
Municipal Code Requirements I
An applicant must obtain a Zone Variance in order to create a development that does
not meet the minimum standards. Section 17.108.020 sets criteria required for granting
such a variance. If one of these criteria cannot be met, then the variance may not be
granted. These criteria require that granting such !a variance will not:
• Constitute a grant of special privilege in
properties in the vicinity;
The parking variance would not grant a sp
limitations upon the other properties in the vici
improved with a surface parking lot containi
adjacent to and is operated as a part of the P
property and all of the other parcels of land cc
are operated as an integrated shopping cer
Construction, Operation and Reciprocal E
December 6, 1984, recorded in the Los Ange
against title to all parcels that comprise the N
(the "REA "). The REA requires that all pare
provide all parking spaces for the reciprocal ua
parcels comprising the shopping center. I
"shopping center" ratio of four parking spaces
consistent with the development of surrour
Montebello Town Center. The development
separate parcel will be considered part of the
in management and function. The zone v
with the limitations upon other
cial privileged inconsistent with the
ity and zone. The subject property is
g approximately 200 spaces that is
ontebello Town Center. The subject
uprising the Montebello Town Center
er, including the effect of a certain
asement Agreement, dated . as of
�s County Recorder's official records,
ontebello Town Center, as amended
GIs of land encumbered by the REA
of occupants and visitors of all other
evelopment of the project using a
per 1,000 square feet of floor area is
ling parcels which are part of the
nd operation of two restaurants on a
unified Montebello Town Center both
iriance will not constitute a special
Planning Commission Meeting
December 20, 2010
Paae 7 of 22
privilege because the total number of parking spaces that serve the shopping center
will continue to exceed the required amount of parking under the REA.
•. Be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in such zone or vicinity;
The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health
or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity in
which the subject property is located. The proposed project proposes the
construction of two restaurants located within a portion of the parking lot that serves
the existing Montebello Town Center. The Montebello Town Center is located
directly adjacent to Highway 60 (Pomona Freeway) to the south, between the
Paramount Boulevard and San Gabriel Boulevard off - ramps. Adjacent to the east of
the subject property and the other eastern parcel of the Montebello Town Center, on
the east side of Montebello Boulevard, is a Doubletree hotel and Holiday Inn
Express hotel. To the south of the Montebello Town Center is primarily vacant land
located in the City of Montebello that is zoned C -2 -PD (Planned Development).
Adjacent to the west of the Montebello Town Center, also in the City of Montebello,
is a medical facility. The nearest residential use to the subject property is located in
the City of Rosemead, approximately 600 feet to the east, separated from the
subject property by Montebello Boulevard, the Doubletree hotel, the Holiday Inn
Express hotel, and San Gabriel Boulevard. Other residences in the City of
Montebello are located approximately 600 feet to the north of the subject property,
separated from the subject property by Montebello Town Center Drive and by the
Pomona Freeway. Thus, the Montebello Town Center is geographically isolated and
buffered from other nearby uses that could be impacted by the project.
Approval of a zone variance is required to allow the restaurants to be developed in
accordance with the City's "shopping center" parking ratio of one (1) space per two
hundred and fifty (250) square feet, instead of the individual restaurant parking ratio
of one (1) space per one hundred (100) square feet. The project is part of the
Montebello Town Center and is subject to the REA that requires that all parcels of
land in the mall to provide all parking spaces for the reciprocal use of occupants and
visitors of all other parcels comprising the Montebello Town Center. The REA
requires that all of the parcels comprising the Montebello Town Center, in the
aggregate, provide a parking ratio of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area
(which ratio exceeds the City's required 4.0:1 ratio for shopping centers). The total
amount of floor area in the Montebello Town Center (including the proposed 15,000
square feet of space from the new Project) is approximately 768,653 square feet.
According to the 4.5:1 ratio required by the REA, the entire Montebello Town Center
should provide a total of 3,460 parking spaces. The Montebello Town Center
currently provides a total of 3,689 parking space which results in a ratio of 4.8
spaces per 1,000 square feet. Upon completion of the project, the shopping center
would provide a total of 3,568 parking spaces which results in a ratio of 4.6 spaces
per 1,000 square feet. With the negligible reduction of overall parking to
Planning Commission Meeting
December 20, 2010
Page 8 of 22
accommodate construction of the project, the
amount of required parking. Moreover, ane(
shopping center provides more than adequa'
and in better economic conditions, so that
shopping center will not result in an inadequa
of the zone variance will not detrimentally im,
injurious to other properties. To the contrary,
provide an added amenity to the community a
sales taxes and an increase in property taxes.
• Adversely affect the comprehensive general
In 1981, the City of Rosemead approved a C
the subject property within a zone designated
the Montebello Town Center. Ancillary uses
were envisioned in the General Plan Amen(
restaurants and other supplemental uses. Tt
property as Commercial. Permitted uses wit
include a broad range of retail, office, and set
needs. The development of two restaurar
consistent with the intended use of the subjec
as envisioned when the Montebello Town CE
zone variance would be consistent with A
encourages land use conversion to commer
adequate on -site parking and circulation. ,
adjacent to and is operated as a part of the P
a reciprocal easement agreement for the re
occupants and visitors of all other parcels e
patrons of the restaurant could use availabl
parcels within the shopping center. After co
Town Center would have a total of 3,568 par
than adequate parking for the restaurants an(
Montebello Town Center. Therefore, the gr
adversely impact the General Plan.
• That because of special circumstances, the
deprive the subject property of privileges enj
under identical zone classifications.
opping center would still provide the
)tal evidence has indicated that the
parking, even during peak seasons
e negligible loss of parking at the
parking supply. Therefore, approval
ct the public health or welfare or be
Dvelopment of the restaurants would
i generate additional jobs, additional
n; and
meral Plan Amendment that included
x the comprehensive development of
)f the entire Montebello Town Center
nent, such as low -rise office, banks,
General Plan designates the subject
in the Commercial land use category
ice uses that serve local and regional
on the subject property would be
property under the General Plan, and
ter was first entitled. Approval of the
ion 3.3 of the General Plan which
al uses when the proposal provides
s discussed, the subject property is
mtebello Town Center and subject to
iprocal use of all parking spaces of
uprising the shopping center. Thus,
parking spaces located on adjacent
pletion of the project, the Montebello
ng spaces which would provide more
for the entire group of uses within the
sting of the parking variance will not
enforcement of the code would
by other properties in the vicinity
The subject parcel is located within the Montebello Town Center and is improved
with a surface parking lot containing approximately 200 spaces. The subject
property is adjacent to other parcels comprising the Montebello Town Center. The
subject property and all of the other parcels ofiland comprising the Montebello Town
Center are operated as an integrated shopping center. The shopping center was
developed in the early 1980's and, through a cooperative zoning and entitlement
Planning Commission Meeting
December 20, 2010
Paqe 9 of 22
process between the City of Montebello and the City of Rosemead, the Montebello
Town Center is partially in the City of Montebello and partially in the City of
Rosemead. All parcels that make up the entire Montebello Town Center are subject
to a reciprocal easement agreement that requires reciprocal use of all parking
spaces in the Center. Other parcels comprising the shopping center contain both
parking and buildings and meet the definition of the shopping center.
The subject property is an isolated parcel of land, elevated above Montebello
Boulevard, with access to public streets only across other common drive aisles of
the Montebello Town Center. Thus, due to the location and topography of the
subject property, the subject property cannot reasonably be developed for any use
independent of the larger Montebello Town Center. The physical constraints of the
subject property are in addition to the existing legal restrictions on the development,
operation and use of the subject property that are created by the REA.
The project will be a phased development of two separate restaurant buildings.
Were both buildings to be developed at one time, the subject property and the
project would meet the City's definition of a "shopping center," in that the subject
property would be developed with two or more uses. However, the phased
development of two separate restaurant buildings would result in each building being
considered a separate restaurant development project, and thus subject to the
restaurant parking ratio of 1 space per 100 square feet. Moreover, the subject
property is encumbered by the REA and must contribute all parking spaces
developed on the subject property for the beneficial use of all other parcels that
comprise the shopping center. Similarly, the subject property, when developed with
the Project, will enjoy the beneficial reciprocal parking use of all of the other parking
spaces throughout the Montebello Town Center.
Therefore, approval of a zone variance is required to allow the restaurants to be
parked using the City's "shopping center" ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet in lieu
of 1 space per 100 square feet for a restaurant use. Phase I of the project would
include the development of one restaurant with 115 parking spaces, which exceeds
code parking for an individual restaurant. However, development of the second
restaurant would result in 85 parking spaces in order to provide sufficient lot area to
construct the restaurant pad. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would
require the two separate restaurants to provide a total of 150 spaces. The strict
application of the zoning ordinance would thus result in the development of only one
restaurant on the subject property, because of the limited lot area. It would not be
feasible to develop a second restaurant on the subject property and provide all
required parking on the subject parcel using a restaurant parking ratio. Moreover,
the parcel is unique is that is part of a unified shopping center that, upon completion
of the project, would provide a total of 3,568 parking spaces, or a ratio of 4.6 spaces
per 1,000 square feet. Thus, the subject property, developed with the project, and
operated as an integrated part of the Montebello Town Center, will provide parking in
excess of the City's shopping center parking ratio of 4.0:1. Therefore, approval of a
Planning Commission Meeting
December 20, 2010
Page 10 of 22
zone variance, allowing the subject pros
parking ratio is reasonable and consistent
Montebello Town Center.
to apply the City's shopping center
he other properties that comprise the
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which
includes a 300' radius public hearing notice to forty -one (41) property owners,
publication in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, and postings of the notice at the six (6)
public locations and on the subject site.
Prepared by:
Ifl
Paul Garry
Senior Planner
EXHIBITS:
A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 10 -3E
B. Conditions of Approval
C. Site Plan /Floor Plan /Elevations
D. Initial Study and Negative Declaration
E. Assessor Parcel Map (5271- 002 -058, -059,
iitted by:
, r,c
Wong f (
-nunity Development Director
-060)
Planning Commission Meeting
December 20, 2010
Paae 11 of 22
EXHIBIT i'A"
PC RESOLUTION 10 -38
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPROVING ZONE VARIANCE 10 -03, FOR REDUCED PARKING FOR
TWO NEW RESTAURANTS AT 1716 MONTEBELLO TOWN CENTER
IN THE C -3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) ZONE. (APN: 5271 - 002 -058, -59,
-060).
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2010, Montebello Town Center Investors, LLC,
submitted a Zone Variance application for the construction of two restaurant buildings
totaling approximately 15,000 square feet in the Montebello Town Center. A zone
variance is requested to provide parking in conformance with the City's shopping center
standards (1 space per 250 square feet of floor area) instead of the City's restaurant
parking standards (1 space per 100 square feet of floor area) for a phased
development. The project is located at 1716 Montebello Town Center Drive; and
WHEREAS, 1716 Montebello Town Center Drive is located in the C -3 (Medium
Commercial) zone; and
WHEREAS, Section 17.108.020 of the Rosemead municipal Code provides the
purpose and criteria for zone variance approval; and
WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and
Section 17.108.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning
Commission to approve, conditionally approve or deny zone variance applications; and
WHEREAS, An applicant must obtain a zone variance in order to create a
development that does not meet the minimum standards. Section 17.108.020 sets
criteria required for granting such a variance. If one of these criteria cannot be met,
then the variance may not be granted. These criteria require that granting such a
variance will not:
• Constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon
other properties in the vicinity;
• Be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in such zone or vicinity;
• Adversely affect the comprehensive general plan; and
Planning Commission Meeting
December 20, 2010
Page 12 of 22
• That because of special circumstances, Ithe strict enforcement of the code
would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity under identical zone classifications.
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2010, anIInitial Environmental Study for the
proposed Zone Variance was completed, finding that the proposed project could not
have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration was prepared,
in accordance with the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act, and local
environmental guidelines; and
WHEREAS, on December 9, 2010, forty -one (41) 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 Zone Variance 10 -03; and on
December 10, 2010 notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune; and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2010, the Planning Commission held a duly
noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to
Zone Variance 10 -03; 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
of Rosemead as follows:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission
with the Negative Declaration and HEREBY AD
environmental clearance for Zone Variance 10 -0,
the Planning Commission of the City
y makes a finding of adequacy
the Negative Declaration as the
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES
that facts do exist to justify approving Zone Variance 10 -03 in accordance with Section
17.108.020 et seq., of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows:
A. Constitute a grant of special privilege
other properties in the vicinity;
FINDING The parking variance would not
with the limitations upon the other properties it
property is improved with a surface parking lot
that is adjacent to and is operated as a part t
subject property and all of the other parcels of
Center are operated as an integrated shopping
Construction, Operation and Reciprocal Easemer
1984, recorded in the Los Angeles County Recoi
with the limitations upon
rant a special privileged inconsistent
the vicinity and zone. The subject
ontaining approximately 200 spaces
the Montebello Town. Center. The
nd comprising the Montebello Town
nter, including the effect of a certain
Agreement, dated as of December 6,
ar's official records, against title to all
Planning Commission Meeting
December 20, 2010
Pace 13 of 22
parcels that comprise the Montebello Town Center, as amended (the "REA "). The REA
requires that all parcels of land encumbered by the REA provide all parking spaces for
the reciprocal use of occupants and visitors of all other parcels comprising the shopping
center. Development of the project using a "shopping center" ratio of four parking
spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area is consistent with the development of
surrounding parcels which are part of the Montebello Town Center. The development
and operation of two restaurants on a separate parcel will be considered part of the
unified Montebello Town Center both in management and function. The zone variance
will not constitute a special privilege because the total number of parking spaces that
serve the shopping center will continue to exceed the required amount of parking under
the REA.
B. Be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in such zone or vicinity;
FINDING: The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or
vicinity in which the subject property is located. The proposed project proposes the
construction of two restaurants located within a portion of the parking lot that serves the
existing Montebello Town Center. The Montebello Town Center is located directly
adjacent to Highway 60 (Pomona Freeway) to the south, between the Paramount
Boulevard and San Gabriel Boulevard off - ramps. Adjacent to the east of the subject
property and the other eastern parcel of the Montebello Town Center, on the east side
of Montebello Boulevard, is a Doubletree hotel and Holiday Inn Express hotel. To the
south of the Montebello Town Center is primarily vacant land located in the City of
Montebello that is zoned C -2 -PD (Planned Development). Adjacent to the west of the
Montebello Town Center, also in the City of Montebello, is a medical facility. The
nearest residential use to the subject property is located in the City of Rosemead,
approximately 600 feet to the east, separated from the subject property by Montebello
Boulevard, the Doubletree hotel, the Holiday Inn Express hotel, and San Gabriel
Boulevard. Other residences in the City of Montebello are located approximately 600
feet to the north of the subject property, separated from the subject property by
Montebello Town Center Drive and by the Pomona Freeway. Thus, the Montebello
Town Center is geographically isolated and buffered from other nearby uses that could
be impacted by the project.
Approval of a zone variance is required to allow the restaurants to be developed
in accordance with the City's "shopping center" parking ratio of one (1) space per two
hundred and fifty (250) square feet, instead of the individual restaurant parking ratio of
one (1) space per one hundred (100) square feet. The project is part of the Montebello
Town Center and is subject to the REA that requires that all parcels of land in the mall
to provide all parking spaces for the reciprocal use of occupants and visitors of all other
parcels comprising the Montebello Town Center. The REA requires that all of the
parcels comprising the Montebello Town Center, in the aggregate, provide a parking
ratio of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area (which ratio exceeds the City's
Planning Commission Meeting
December 20, 2010
Paae 14 of 22
required 4.0:1 ratio for shopping centers). Tt
Montebello Town Center (including the proposed
new Project) is approximately 768,653 square fee
by the REA, the entire Montebello Town Center
spaces. The Montebello Town Center currently K
which results in a ratio of 4.8 spaces per 1,000
project, the shopping center would provide a total
in a ratio of 4.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
parking to accommodate construction of the pr
provide the amount of required parking. Moreo,
that the shopping center provides more than
seasons and in better economic conditions, so tF
shopping center will not result in an inadequate F
the zone variance will not detrimentally impac
injurious to other properties. To the contrary, c
provide an added amenity to the community ar
sales taxes and an increase in property taxes.
C. Adversely affect the comprehensive
FINDING In 1981, the City of Rosemead
that included the subject property within a zon
development of the Montebello Town Center. A
Town Center were envisioned in the General Plat
banks, restaurants and other supplemental use:
subject property as Commercial. Permitted u:
category include a broad range of retail, office, s
regional needs. The development of two restaur
consistent with the intended use of the subject pr
envisioned when the Montebello Town Center w
variance would be consistent with Action 3.3 of
land use conversion to commercial uses when tf
parking and circulation. As discussed, the su
operated as a part of the Montebello Town Cente
agreement for the reciprocal use of all parking s
other parcels comprising the shopping center.
use available parking spaces located on adjacei
After completion of the project, the Montebello Tc
parking spaces which would provide more than
and for the entire group of uses within the Mo
granting of the parking variance will not adversely
total amount of floor area in the
5,000 square feet of space from the
According to the 4.5:1 ratio required
ould provide a total of 3,460 parking
wides a total of 3,689 parking space
quare feet. Upon completion of the
if 3,568 parking spaces which results
ith the negligible reduction of overall
ect, the shopping center would still
�r, anecdotal evidence has indicated
iequate parking, even during peak
t the negligible loss of parking at the
rking supply. Therefore, approval of
the public health or welfare or be
velopment of the restaurants would
generate additional jobs, additional
I plan; and
pproved a General Plan Amendment
designated for the comprehensive
icillary uses of the entire Montebello
Amendment, such as low -rise office,
The General Plan designates the
=s within the Commercial land use
nd service uses that serve local and
nts on the subject property would be
perry under the General Plan, and as
s first entitled. Approval of the zone
the General Plan which encourages
proposal provides adequate on -site
>ject property is adjacent to and is
and subject to a reciprocal easement
aces of occupants and visitors of all
hus, patrons of the restaurant could
t parcels within the shopping center.
vn Center would have a total of 3,568
adequate parking for the restaurants
tebello Town Center. Therefore, the
moact the General Plan.
D. That because of special circumstances, the strict enforcement of the code
would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity under identical zone classifications.
Planning Commission Meeting
December 20, 2010
Page 15 of 22
FINDING: The subject parcel is located within the Montebello Town Center and
is improved with a surface parking lot containing approximately 200 spaces. The
subject property is adjacent to other parcels comprising the Montebello Town Center.
The subject property and all of the other parcels of land comprising the Montebello
Town Center are operated as an integrated shopping center. The shopping center was
developed in the early 1980's and, through a cooperative zoning and entitlement
process between the City of Montebello and the City of Rosemead, the Montebello
Town Center is partially in the City of Montebello and partially in the City of Rosemead.
All parcels that make up the entire Montebello Town Center are subject to a reciprocal
easement agreement that requires reciprocal use of all parking spaces in the Center.
Other parcels comprising the shopping center contain both parking and buildings and
meet the definition of the shopping center.
The subject property is an isolated parcel of land, elevated above Montebello
Boulevard, with access to public streets only across other common drive aisles of the
Montebello Town Center. Thus, due to the location and topography of the subject
property, the subject property cannot reasonably be developed for any use independent
of the larger Montebello Town Center. The physical constraints of the subject property
are in addition to the existing legal restrictions on the development, operation and use of
the subject property that are created by the REA.
The project will be a phased development of two separate restaurant buildings.
Were both buildings to be developed at one time, the subject property and the project
would meet the City's definition of a "shopping center," in that the subject property
would be developed with two or more uses. However, the phased development of two
separate restaurant buildings would result in each building being considered a separate
restaurant development project, and thus subject to the restaurant parking ratio of 1
space per 100 square feet. Moreover, the subject property is encumbered by the REA
and must contribute all parking' spaces developed on the subject property for the
beneficial use of all other parcels that comprise the shopping center. Similarly, the
subject property, when developed with the Project, will enjoy the beneficial reciprocal
parking use of all of the other parking spaces throughout the Montebello Town Center.
Therefore, approval of a zone variance is required to allow the restaurants to be
parked using the City's "shopping center" ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet in lieu of
1 space per 100 square feet for a restaurant use. Phase I of the. project would include
the development of one restaurant with 115 parking spaces, which exceeds code
parking for an individual restaurant. However, development of the second restaurant
would result in 85 parking spaces in order to provide sufficient lot area to construct the
restaurant pad. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would require the two
separate restaurants to provide a total of 150 spaces. The strict application of the
zoning ordinance would thus result in the development of only one restaurant on the
subject property, because of the limited lot area. It would not be feasible to develop a
second restaurant on the subject property and provide all required parking on the
Planning Commission Meeting
December 20, 2010
Page 16 of 22
subject parcel using a restaurant parking ratio. Moreover, the parcel is unique is that is
part of a unified shopping center that, upon completion of the project, would provide a
total of 3,568 parking spaces, or a ratio of 4.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Thus, the
subject property, developed with the project, and operated as an integrated part of the
Montebello Town Center, will provide parking in excess of the City's shopping center
parking ratio of 4.0:1. Therefore, approval of a zone variance, allowing the subject
property to apply the City's shopping center parking ratio is reasonable and consistent
with the other properties that comprise the Montebello Town Center..
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission
10 -03 to provide parking in conformance with tl
space per 250 square feet of floor area) in
standards (1 space per 100 square feet of
development, subject to conditions listed in Exhil
herein by reference.
EREBY APPROVES Zone Variance
City's shopping center standards (1
3d of the City's restaurant parking
)or area) for a phased restaurant
"B" attached hereto and incorporated
SECTION 4. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning
Commission on December 20, 2010, by the following vote:
YES:
NO:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SECTION 5. The secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and
shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and ithe Rosemead City Clerk.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 20th day of December, 2010.
William Alarcon, Chairman
Planning Commission Meeting
December 20, 2010
Paoe 17 of 22
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 20th day of
December, 2010 by the following vote:
YES:
NO:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Stan Wong, Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting
December 20, 2010
Page 18 of 22
EXHIBIT
ZONE VARIANCE 10 -03
(APN: 5271- 002 -058, !059, -060)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
December 20, 2010
1. Zone Variance 10 -03 is approved for the operation of an automobile repair facility
in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit "C ", dated December 2, 2010. Any
revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for the review and approval
of the Planning Division.
2. The conditions listed on this exhibit shall be copied directly onto any
development plans subsequently submitted to the Planning and Building
divisions for review.
3. Approval of Zone Variance 10 -03 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.
4. Zone Variance 10 -03 is approved for a period of six (6) months. The applicant
shall commence the proposed use or request an extension within 30- calendar
days prior to expiration. The six (6) month initial approval period shall be
effective from the Planning Commission approval date. For the purpose of this
petition, project commencement shall beldefined as beginning the permitting
process with the Planning and Building Divisions, so long as the project is not
abandoned. If the Zone Variance 10 -03 has been unused, abandoned or
discontinued for a period of one (1) year it shall become null and void.
5. The Planning Commission hereby a
and /or approve minor modifications.
6. The following conditions must be complied
Division prior to final approval of the
occupancy permits, or any other approprial
7. Zone Variance 10 -03 is granted or al:
Commission and City Council retaining a
review and to modify the permit, includi
changed circumstances. Changed circur
the modification of the use, a change in
use, or the expansion, alteration, re(
the Planning Division to make
with to the satisfaction of the Planning
associated plans, building permits,
request.
med with the City and its Planning
reserving the right and jurisdiction to
the conditions of approval based on
ances include, but are not limited to,
)pe, emphasis, size, or nature of the
:iguration, or change of use. This
Planning Commission Meeting
December 20, 2010
Paoe 19 of 22
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 Zone Variance 10 -03.
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 applicant shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws relative to the
approved use including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff
and Health Departments.
10. Building permits will not be issued in connection with any project until such time
as all plan check fees, and all other applicable fees are paid in full.
11. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least 6" tall with a minimum
character width of 1/4 ", contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from
the street. Materials, colors, location and size of such address numbers shall be
approved by the City Planner, or his or her designee, prior to installation.
12. All requirements of the Building and Safety Division and the Planning Division
shall be complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction.
13. Prior to issuance of building permits, any required school fees shall be paid. The
applicant shall provide the City with written verification of compliance from the
applicable school districts.
14. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7 a.m. to 8. p.m. Monday to
Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any federal
holidays without prior approval by the City.
15. The Planning staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during
construction to monitor progress.
16. Applicant shall obtain a public works permit for all work in or adjacent to the
public right -of -way.
17. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti -free state. Any new graffiti shall be
removed within twenty -four (24) hours. A 24 -hour, Graffiti Hotline can be called at
(626) 569 -2345 for assistance.
Planning Commission Meeting
December 20, 2010
Page 20 of 22
M
19.
The site shall be maintained in a clean, w
with Sections 8.32.010 - 8.32.040 of the
pertains to the storage, accumulation,
rubbish, trash, and debris. All trash conta
trash enclosure at all times. All trash, rubl
regularly cleaned, inspected, and maift
condition.
All roof top appurtenances and equipme
view to the satisfaction of the Planning D
equipment located on the sides of the built
the height of the parapet wall. All grot
(including meters, back flow preservation
furnaces, utility cabinets and other equipn
view or adequately screened by landscap
seen from the public right of way or othei
The Planning Division shall approve said s
red and litter free state in accordance
Rosemead Municipal Code, which
ollection, and disposal of garbage,
lers shall be stored in the appropriate
ish, and garbage receptacles shall be
ined in a clean, safe, and sanitary
t shall adequately be screened from
vision. There shall be no mechanical
ng. Such equipment shall not exceed
1d level mechanical /utility equipment
ievices, fire valves, A/C condensers,
ant) shall be located away from public
ig or screening walls so as not to be
public space within the development.
reening prior to installation.
20. The parking area, including handicapped spaces, shall be paved and re- painted
periodically to City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. In
accordance with Chapter 17.84 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, all designated
parking stalls shall be double striped. Such striping shall be maintained in a
clear, visible, and orderly manner.
21. At least two percent of the required parking shall be designated for handicap
space pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 22511.8. A letter by the
property owner shall be given to the City fogy authorizing enforcement.
(•tea
23
I►z!
25.
All open areas not covered by corn
landscaped and maintained on a regular
The on -site public hearing notice posting
the end of the 10 -day appeal period of Zo
Prior to the issuance of building permits,
notice of the start of construction to the
provide a copy of the notice to the Plannin
The applicant shall submit final sign pl
issuance of a building permit based
Montebello Town Center Master Sign P
asphalt, or structures shall be
all be removed within 30 days from
Variance 10 -03.
e developer shall provide a courtesy
iccupants of abutting properties and
Division.
to the Planning Division prior to the
the requirements set forth in the
am.
26. All new lighting shall be fully shielded and directed downwards.
Planning Commission Meeting
December 20, 2010
Page 21 of 22
27. The applicant shall submit a final landscape and irrigation plan to the Planning
Division prior to the issuance of building permits. The landscape and irrigation
plan shall comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and with
the Guidelines for Implementation of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
and include a sprinkler system with automatic timers and moisture sensors.
28. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and /or initiation of
revocation proceedings.
29. Any outdoor dining areas that are included in the project will be required to
provide parking in accordance with City's shopping center parking rate (one
space per 250 square feet of floor area).
30. Parking spaces that are only partially on the restaurant parcels (less than half a
space) may not count toward the total number of parking spaces provided on the
property.
31. Complete architectural plans (site plan, floor plan, and elevation drawings) must
be submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to the issuance of a
building permit for each building. Staff recommends the - incorporation of goose
neck lighting, trellis systems, faux windows, and other design elements be
incorporated into the rear elevation for each restaurant facing Montebello Town
Center Drive.
32. The soils report for the project must be reviewed and approved by the City prior
to the issuance of any building permits.
RONMENTiAL CHECKLIST FORM
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
PLANNING DIVISION
8838 E. VALLEY BLVD.
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770
1. Project title: Zone Variance 10 -03 — Monte
2. Lead agency name and address:
3. Contact person and phone number:
4. Project location:
5. Project sponsor's name and address
6. General plan designation:
7. Zoning:
Town Center — Restaurant Expansion
City of Rosemead
8838 East Valley Blvd,
Rosemead, CA 91770
Stan Wong, Community Development Director
(6 I6) 569 -2157
1716 Montebello Town Center
Rosemead, CA 91770
(APNs: 5271 - 002 -058, 5271 - 002 -059, and
5271 - 002 -060)
Montebello Town Center Investors, LLC
2134 Montebello Town Center
Montebello. CA 90640
(Medium Commercial)
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.)
Project Description
Montebello Town Center Investors, LLC (the "Applicant ") owns a parcel of land ( "Parcel ")
within the Montebello Town Center (the "Center'), a shopping mall mainly located within
the City of Montebello with a small portion) of the eastern side within the City of
Rosemead.
The Applicant proposes to improve a portion of+th e
which will be constructed two separate restaura
Parcel, which will be conducted in two phas
development pads, construction of two separate
common trash receptacle and utility area to be sh
and landscaping, and reconfiguration of the surfa
circulation route (the "Project "). After completion
not less than 85 parking spaces. All 85 of these
reciprocal parking rights provided by the Center's
Parcel with two development pads on
nt buildings. The improvement of the
es, will include construction of two
restaurant buildings, construction of a
ared by the two restaurants, hardscape
ce parking lot that includes an internal
of the Project, the Parcel will contain
parking spaces will be subject to the
Reciprocal Easement Agreement (the
1 EXHIBIT D
"REA "). The Project proposes that one of the restaurants could be developed with a
maximum of 8,000 square feet of floor area. Combined, the restaurants would not
exceed 14,000 square feet of floor area and 15,000 square feet of gross buildable area.
Proposed Building Layout and Architecture for Phase I:
Phase I would entail development of the first restaurant and related improvements at the
northwest section of the Parcel. Development would also include reconfiguration of the
existing parking lot, construction of a transformer pad, and construction of an internal
circulation route through the Parcel to allow for two access points from the mall
perimeter roadway. There would be a total of 115 parking spaces after completion of
Phase I. Figure 1 shows the proposed site plan for Phase 1.
rigure -i — rnase I one rian
The restaurant planned for Phase I is designed in an Italian Mediterranean theme with
strong detailing and a variety of textures. The materials and architectural colors provide
a detailed appearance. The exterior building walls will be finished in an earth tone stone
veneer, and the building will have a hip and gable roof system consisting of Spanish
concrete tiles. Stained wood trellis systems are proposed throughout the building
elevations, which will provide further articulation and detail. Figure 2 below shows a
rendering of the proposed front elevation.
Figure 2 — Front Elevation
EXHIBIT D
r
'-,!g
a'wk7 �,,
VI
FRONT ELEVATION
Figure 2 — Front Elevation
EXHIBIT D
Proposed Building Layout for Phase II
Phase II would entail the development of a
southwest corner of the first restaurant. De
reconfiguration of the internal circulation rout
route would be reconfigured to the south of tl
would also be reconfigured and there would t
Phase II. The architectural drawings for the
the City of Rosemead for review and appro�
Figure 3 shows the proposed site plan for Pha
isIa
,(JOT A PART
/
ures -
Parking Requirements for the Center
The REA requires that the Center provide a p,
feet of floor area. The total amount of floor ar
square feet which would require a total of 3,�
provides a total of 3,689 parking spaces whicl
square feet. Upon completion of the Project,
parking spaces which results in a ratio of 4.65
with the minor reduction of overall parking to
the Center would still provide the amount of re
REA.
Entitlements
The City of Rosemead has determined that tl
"shopping center" since only one restaurant
=nd restaurant located adjacent to the
slopment during Phase II would include
constructed for Phase I. The circulation
second restaurant pad. The parking lot
a total of 85 spaces upon completion of
econd restaurant would be submitted to
I upon the commencement of Phase II.
II.
1
king ratio of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square
a in the Center is approximately 768,653
iO parking spaces. The Center currently
results in a ratio of 4.8 spaces per 1,000
he Center would provide a total of 3,460
;paces per 1,000 square feet. Therefore;
ccommodate construction of the Project,
uired parking consistent with the Center's
project does not meet the definition of a
proposed on the single Parcel during
3 1 EXHIBIT D
Phase I. The Municipal Code defines a "Shopping Center" as a single parcel of land
with two or more uses and situated within C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone. Therefore, a
Zone Variance is required so that the City's parking ratio of 4 spaces per 1,000 square
feet for a shopping center will apply to the phased Project, in lieu of the City's parking
ratio of 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet that is applicable to individual restaurants.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting. (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
The project is located in the City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California.
Specifically, the project is located at 1716 Montebello Town Center, which is south of the
Pomona Freeway (60), north and west of Montebello Boulevard, and south of Town
Center Drive. An aerial photograph of the site is shown below in Figure 4, Aerial
Photograph.
The subject site is located on a single parcel of land, totaling 100,498 square feet (2.307
acres). The subject parcel is improved with a surface parking lot containing
approximately 200 parking spaces. The parcel is adjacent to and is operated as a part
of the Montebello Town Center. The site is approximately 250 feet above mean sea
level. The site is relatively flat, with no major changes in elevation.
The existing landscaping includes a variety of introduced trees, shrubs and plants. A
site inspection indicates that there are no oak trees on the site. Land uses surrounding
the project site consist of the following:
4 EXHIBIT D
North:
General Plan: Commercial
Zoning: R -1 (Single - Family Residential)
Land Use: Montebello Boulevard, Pomon
and Single - Family homes
South:
General Plan:
Commercial
Zoning:
C -3 (Medium Commercial)
Land Use:
Commercial
East:
General Plan: Commercial
Zoning: C -31D (Medium Commercial
Land Use: Commercial Hotel
West:
General Plan: City of Montebello
Zoning: City of Montebello
Land Use: Shopping Center Surface
nd P -D (Planned Development)
Freeway (60), Commercial Restaurant
a Design Overlay)
Lot
10. Other Agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
I
participation agreement).
1. Los Angeles County Fire Department
2. Consolidated Sewer Maintenance DiE
3. Los Angeles County Industrial Waste
4. San Gabriel Valley Water Company
5. Health Department
5
EXHIBIT D
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
❑
Aesthetics
❑
Biological Resources
❑
Greenhouse Gas
❑
Emissions
❑
Land Use /Planning
❑
Population /Housing
❑ Transportation/Traffic
DETERMINATION
❑ Agriculture Resources
❑ Cultural Resources
E]
& Hazardous
❑
Materials
Materials
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Public Services
OUtilities
/Services
❑
Systems
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑
Air Quality
❑
Geology /Soils
❑
HydrologyANater Quality
❑
Noise
❑
Recreation
❑
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Z 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.
❑ 1 find that the proposed project may have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)
has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on
attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL MPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze
only the effects that remain to be addressed.
❑ 1 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
Avon pr mitigatj6n measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further
Signature
Stan Wong, Community Development Director
Printed Name
I'Z /tiv�,Ujt?
ate
For
6 EXHIBIT D
A brief explanation is required for all answer
adequately supported by the information source
following each question. A "No Impact" answer
information sources show that the impact simpl,
involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rup
be explained where it is based on project- specific
the project will not expose sensitive receptors
screening analysis).
except "No Impact" answers that are
a lead agency cites in the parentheses
adequately supported if the referenced
does not apply to projects like the one
ire zone). A "No Impact" answer should
actors as well as general standards (e.g.,
pollutants, based on a project - specific
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on-
site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a part
checklist answers must indicate whether the it
significant with mitigation, or less than signific
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries w
required.
:ular physical impact may occur, then the
pact is potentially significant, less than
ant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is
affect may be significant. If there are one
en the determination is made, an EIR is
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 California
Environmental Quality Act (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 disci ssion.
8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies
The analysis of each issue should identify: (a) tl
evaluate each question; and (b) the mitigation
impact to less than significant.
free to use different ones.
significance criteria or threshold used to
ieasure identified, if any, to reduce the
7 1 EXHIBIT D
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
pYy,e�.;�� Impact �yMitiga6o;,�',plmpact„�`^�: Impact ,
$�9�hc,� >FV.*`i S `k �� � �n�'ra F �A "�
1 Aesthetics r r �I X z f
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ❑
vista? __
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ El 11 outcroppings, and historic building within a state
scenic highway?
- - - - - -- - ----------- - - - - - -- -----------------------
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its ❑ ❑ ❑
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime ❑ ❑ ® ❑
views in the area?
.t s eP 1+r T *$ S v^ 9to a{
2 Agriculture and Forestry. Resources fk,1{ >ri
2FG
,��T> Inhdetermming whether impacts to agnculturahresources are signi>tcant environmental effects lead .
�,� agencies may refer to the California Agricultural -Land Evaluation and'`Site''Assessment Model T, ' "r"
�- (1,997) prepared by,the Cahfomia Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in, rs'�;;
�r:_`a1t'`3WOUIC� the p(OJECt F?i.+£'�.wb'•,., �.�?.? . "a"�5."v�a.^m e � ,e'�i3xa.,,,.?., °..�,, w31 ter. 3 v.'�x za "F h a a � "'d z+'}'
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the ❑ ❑ ❑
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
----- --- - - -- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, ❑ ❑ ❑
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section ❑ ❑ ❑
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑
forest land to non - forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or ❑ ❑ ❑
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non - agricultural use?
EXHIBIT D
9 1 EXHIBIT D
�� { Enwrorimental ssues �t ���ry]�.iY�� �',.Irripact"7,�,�Mrt�gati
n,x�y��l,mpact� t,'Impactt,
�^
3 Air Quah u
u+�
Fi%XFStt^ry}1 tl rh'rt'�An r'irk 1�1� ilM1'n N!1 k{ ja
dtJe.
�bli,' ru
&'xa e A
Where available the s{gmficance cntena a tabl{shed by
i 74'a
,et'6 'en Pt � ti
the applicable ajr�qua6ry,manageme "A
av pollution controhd{stnct maybe relied upon td,make
fT'3asi
..l
the fdllowing determinations , x r i =, a
w 5 . 01! WI
tNould
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
l ❑ ❑ ❑
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
I ❑ ❑ ® ❑
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)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
❑ ❑ ® ❑
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
I ❑ ❑ ® ❑
substantial number of people?
4 Biological Resources x' t X;
:4 ! f h
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans,
❑ ❑ ❑
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
❑ ❑ ❑ ED
policies, and regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game 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?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
❑ ❑ ❑
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
9 1 EXHIBIT D
��*�w`'r Fr'�w'� 'r�t��syrr �;ty.�`� a�t� ��ya� �Si9rm�cant�ft�Mi4Waton t�t�tlgmiact�t" Im a t
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree ❑ ❑ ❑
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community ❑ El El Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
� $ dYv.•ai . C-Wr ^ . U I^U.l d � atil lftE n s O q-s uv f Crce. oy"Ui ,; ,E r i,r. ° g •.. .;,.i�?�.5,'a � „ Rc _'Me, c5.UY 'r y.Tn 40 tUP�JBiO
2
na
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined ❑ ❑ ❑
in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ❑ ❑ IR
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ❑ ❑
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those El El El interred outside of formal cemeteries?
v.
E s "`Geology and Soils„
'si- h s-
V Would"the roecl ;.a }r�.c -k r y -fib �'C`at g.^c7P ro x 5 k of .�� ,g` ``
P 1 W.. . -r k. w£ . ? w 1 F . , . ... -u
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
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including El El ® El liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ® ❑
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in on- ❑ E] - ® ❑
or off -site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
10 EXHIBIT D
j��r � r4� �,•.r
t �x } ,,-�s yy,� �- �. r ; y r��� �rrY �
Fotentrally Significant .Less Than r�{ r
;`,, r, Enwronmentatlssues >y� t
��TMltigahon Impact<
, � � �,� ���� ,���Impact
, !impact,,,,,
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code
11 El ® El
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
El El El
disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of wastewater?
F r r a t 1 ` Y` 4� J cm
7 tx !" - enhouse Gas Emissions
+¢ r + 3+' , h
I�" .aa -f w!i t17+�p ie >• f c s �-ri
•;a
vii
L
Would the pro act i J= of _.
o>
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
I ❑ ❑ ❑
impact on the environment?
or
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
❑ ❑ ❑
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
�Hazards;and Hnardous M9atenalsrs #>
�8.l x c
ti ,`'Would the pro�edt ;_ ? . hJ tx 7r'. �... v
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine trans
❑ ❑y ❑ ®
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
❑ ❑ ❑
likely release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
❑ ❑ ❑
waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code 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
11 El 11 Z
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
❑ ❑ ❑
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
11 1 EXHIBIT D
t.. yr ��� +��,,,. ��� 7�SlgmflGant <r Wlth S19nIfCant �' �' No„i I
Environmental Issues °'
ti a ,. s r h' ti almpactMrtigauon Impact Impact
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ El
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to ❑ ❑ ❑
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ® ❑
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production ❑ ❑ ® ❑
rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses
or planned uses for which permits have been
granted?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which ❑ ❑ ® ❑
would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off -site? __ _ _ _
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or E] El ® E] substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner, which would result in
flooding on- or off -site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned El El ® El
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard 1:1 E] ® El
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area
structures, which would impede or redirect flood ❑ ❑ ❑
flows?
12 EXHIBIT D
13 1 EXHIBIT D
�-
x4;' �,� � � s c� �t � r � •y, �` �+�Significant'�
�xgWnh Sigmflca'nt '� No
� ,R ���� .� �
w
�a.,�. ��- � n..; t'Environmental Issues„z,�,+,3a � .,�`��� a,
,Impact ��. Mitigation, ;Impact 213:Impact •.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
El El El
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
❑ ❑ ❑
fra
a) Physically divide an established community?
❑ ❑ ❑
b) Conflict with any 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 ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
❑ ❑ ❑
plan or natural communities conservation plan?
11 MmerafResources
Would the
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
❑ ❑ ❑
region and the residents-of the state?
------- ------ --- - - - - - -- ....
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -
- - - - -- - - - -- - - --
important mineral resource recovery site
El El 1:1
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
Yi
Would
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
El El 0 El
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
I ❑ ❑ ® ❑
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
I ❑ ❑ ® ❑
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
I El El ® El
levels existing without the project?
13 1 EXHIBIT D
�f� }yr;y *��' ��Envl)onmenta1�15 u s����tu�3y�. Jk�' �F', �"$ 19mpactnt� ;MltWiatlon��S�9mpactn?"+�Im aet.
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 area to
excessive noise levels?
a
pus k'aa• �., , � �. -� � � rid'+' r a<< Y,,� r s- } y k+; rr �
zn n 4Aevy, drA7"r•- „,,,xi w4s ""' it t!'��,. ?`t�,y4i�F m- �''-r` � sµtg�•i-4 S� rz�'t. a�z x�` ,*n '' '� her
�as^,yould,tlle profect_•'�.l .;x .. 1��, r...,..Y. *`'e Y..r�.✓ k -.:Y�' k� 3:..rt !..ci.5'ri...�3e.x�e1"sh„., , z.:._�....ct.-au...H r. x
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes ❑ ❑ ❑
and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
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?
.o
anew for physcallya tered'govemmental actl es kneed fomnew oapiiys cally altered governmental
�„� �Ifacl6ties� the construction of which could cause significant environmental Impacts an order to �*
a �'! w- w ti ,* a ' "'ti �+ � x w � .er w e e s � W n n•w.c � +
��"`�mamtain acceptable service ratios response times or other performance objective's for any of thef
a) Fire Protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
b) Police Protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑
��. �- ....,....,.m _ , w.�.:. ins __ �.. . �. �,��u!rNs.� :.� a. rr�" is _x n ✓�. . fin. n�,. �..h, ��,�,� ! �... a,nl*`� fi -,i;.
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 11 El El recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
14 EXHIBIT D
� f
p.+C >sn. `�'' t " }� L R /t Y' Y t �S � fj � �Sj�R uM ,➢i '+h=` 4' -t }
FX' �, .r��, x s, T" ��.-y ea„ .,, �Potentially.�Significant LessfThan ,, �..
Significant W No
-.t..y r i.�..1
.n
Impact #� "^•Im act
16 Trans ortatronlTraffic + w" n, '
ni
,a �;a" r� e'� v r,
y I f •i A ➢:'fh � {'4
➢E+ f a! F �f�hfi� ! t'7 t `Eyi4- 4�
pP
.F *Q.yF
Ya�� �+f ist �
�,
a)W 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
El El ® El
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
El El ® ❑
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
❑ ❑ ❑
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
❑ ❑ ❑ .
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑ ❑ ❑
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
❑ ❑ ® ❑
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
{
programs supporting alternative transportation
I ❑ ❑ ❑
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
X17; Utrhties and Service Systems �
� ,, r,
, .. , 4
;r •rte
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
j
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
I ❑ ❑ ® ❑
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
❑ ❑ ® ❑
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
❑ El ® El
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and
El ED ® 11
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
15 1 EXHIBIT D
pA+,N5`'+ 'k' '" l >✓"� a w *. '^ e F. 'fi4'ei of ` k'hkt riT Vtry"1i' -w`L' " LOSSuThant '� s'`- 'Z— cv..t+�'' e r
� ��s �,f,�.,�.�x„Env[ronmentafIssueS `�' � x "�' &` =4�t'`i,'"�''1?IRIpeC'"'�w MRI atlOna°`v' m acts s'Im actt
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to ❑ ❑ ® ❑
serve the project's projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid ❑ ❑ ® ❑
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑ ❑ ❑
and regulations related to solid waste?
,•.� n t '} "FTS i'y f S u .} F
e
X18 Mandato Findin s of£Signficance- ' ,zj . ;c a r ,t.
ryc . 9
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 El El El plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable'
means that the incremental effects of a project ❑ ❑ ® ❑
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of 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 directly or indirectly?
16 EXHIBIT D
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
AESTHETICS
The City of Rosemead is located within a higl
County and is situated between the San
Montebello Hills to the south. The surrounding
the Whittier Narrows Golf Course just outsi
dominant features of the scenic vistas along tt
scenic resources, including roadways, either
the site that would be impacted by the proje(
include commercial uses to the west, Montet
the Pomona Freeway to the north. There
vistas or views open to the public either on or
the project.
The portion of the subject site that will accomr
an existing parking lot and landscaped area.
limited to introduced trees and shrubs with
perimeter roadway. None of the area on
designated as a scenic resource or includes e
or rock outcroppings that would be impacte
parking lot landscaping is proposed for removs
landscaping will be replaced with new parki
square feet). There are no scenic resources e
be affected or damaged by the project.
The project as proposed will blend with anc
Center. The land use is consistent with the
compatible with the surrounding land uses.
various heights. Just south of the site is thi
which is a two -story structure, and to the east
is three - stories. The proposed project consis
Lastly, the project will include approximately
Therefore, the existing site will be aesthe
standpoint, will not conflict with the surrounc
project will not degrade the existing visual chat
Sources of light and glare in the project vici
lights and light from the parking lot. The existi
the project site today consist of parking lot ligt
as a parking lot internal to the Montebello To,
from interior and exterior building lighting wi
buildings are single -story. New landscaping
further buffer the site from adjacent propertie
Boulevard, the closest public street adjacent
eight (68) feet and ninety -four (94) feet. Las
will ensure that this new source of lighting w
Therefore, potential light and glare impacts wo
urbanized area of eastern Los Angeles
rbriel Mountains to the north and the
llsides and distant mountains, as well as
the City's southeastern limit, are the
City's borders. There are no designated
Ijacent to or in the immediate vicinity of
The areas surrounding the project site
o Boulevard to the east and south, and
no City designated or adopted scenic
,ough the site that would be impacted by
odate the proposed restaurants includes
The existing landscaped area onsite is
i parking islands and trees along the
the site proposed for development is
historic building, a state scenic highway,
by the project. Only existing interior
(approximately 1,380 square feet). This
g lot landscaping (approximately 2,460
:her on or adjacent to the site that would
enhance the existing Montebello Town
and uses designated for the site and is
sere are other buildings in the area with
Montebello Town Center shopping mall
if the site is the Double Tree Hotel which
of two single -story restaurant buildings.
2,460 square feet of new landscaping.
:ally enhanced and, from a land use
ng uses in the area. Furthermore, the
icter of the site.
ty include interior and exterior building
3 level and sources of light and glare on
ig. Given that the site is currently used
i Center, the increase in light and glare
be minimal. The proposed restaurant
roposed within the parking area would
The building setbacks from Montebello
the project site, range between sixty-
compliance with applicable standards
not adversely affect views in the area.
I be less than significant.
17 1 EXHIBIT D
2. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
The subject parcel is improved with an existing surface parking lot containing
approximately 200 parking spaces that currently serves the Montebello Town Center
shopping mall.
The proposed project will not result in the conversion of existing agricultural land to
urban uses. The project area is located in an urban setting and does not contain any
agricultural resources as defined by the state farmland mapping and monitoring
program. The project site does not have a land use or implementing zoning designation
for agricultural use, and therefore would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract.
The State Department of Conservation does not map this area of Los Angeles County.
There is no farmland on the site or within the vicinity of the project. The project would
not convert farmland to non - agricultural use and have no impact on farmland.
The proposed project is located in an urbanized area. There is no forest land or
timberland in the project vicinity. No impacts to forest land or timberland would occur
with project implementation and no mitigation is required.
3. AIR QUALITY
The City of Rosemead is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is bounded by
the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, and
the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. Air quality in the South Coast Air Basin is
managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD).
The South Coast Air Basin has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area
where both state and federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Because of
the violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the California
Clean Air Act requires triennial preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
to achieve the standards.
The SCAQMD prepares the basin's air quality management plans with technical and
policy inputs from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air
Resource Board (CARB), and the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG), updating the plans every three years. The most recently plan is the 2007 Draft
AQMP. This plan is the South Coast Air Basin's portion of the State Implementation Plan
(SIP).
The proposed project represents the construction and occupancy of two restaurants in
the City of Rosemead. The project would not involve growth- inducing impacts or cause
an exceedance of established population or growth projections. Furthermore, the project
would not create either short- or long -term significant quantities of criteria pollutants.
Additionally, the project would not result in significant localized air quality impacts. As
such, the project is consistent with the goals of AQMP, and in this respect does not
present a significant impact.
CEQA inquires as to whether a project would violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. A violation could
18 EXHIBIT D
occur over the short-term during project
subsequent operation. Each is addressed
Site Construction
construction,
below.
Air quality impacts may occur during de
construction activities required to implement I
emissions during construction include exhaus
and vehicles, fugitive dust generated as a re
demolition, excavation, and grading activitie
compounds during site paving and painting of
or over the long -term during its
ition activities, site preparation, and
proposed land uses. Major sources of
fissions generated by heavy equipment
of soil and material disturbance during
and the emission of reactive organic
structures.
The project site includes approximately 2.3 acres of land. Demolition activities would
encompass approximately 2.3 acres of surface asphalt parking lots. Based on the
construction schedule provided by the applicant, the URBEMIS model estimates
demolition at approximately 20 working days. In consideration of demolition, the
URBEMIS model is predicated on the volume of building material being removed and
calculates truck haul trips accordingly. Based on an area of 2.3 acres, approximately
300 cubic feet of material would be removed from the project site. Demolition equipment
is as projected by the URBEMIS2007 model and includes a concrete saw, a dozer, and
two loaders.
Grading and in this case, excavation typically occurs after demolition. The URBEMIS
model estimates that 25 percent of the site is� graded on any given day. Based on the
proposed square footage for the commercial structures, the model estimates the site at
2.3 acres and assumes that 25 percent of thi's area (i.e., 0.58 acres) is disturbed on a
daily basis during grading activities. By default, the model then assigns a grader, a
dozer, a loader, and a water truck to carry out the grading.
SCAQMD Rule 403 governs fugitive dust emis'sions from construction projects. This rule
sets forth a list of control measures that must be undertaken for all construction projects
to ensure that no dust emissions from the project are visible beyond the property
boundaries. Adherence to Rule 403 is mandatory and as such, does not denote
mitigation under CEQA. The included analysis assumes the use of the minimal
measures specified in Rule 403 that overlap between the Rule and the URBEMIS model.
These include:
• Soil stabilizers shall be applied to all disturbed, inactive areas,
• Ground cover shall be quickly applied ih all disturbed areas,
• The active construction site shall be watered twice daily,
Stockpiles shall be covered with tarps,
• Unpaved haul roads shall be watered twice.daily.
Rule 403 specifies several measures that the: URBEMIS model does not consider (see
Appendix A, Table 1 - SCAQMD Required Best Available Control Measures) so the
19 1 EXHIBIT D
modeled PM10 and PM2.5 emissions associated with fugitive dust are considered as
conservative.
The construction of the structures follows the paving and is estimated by the model at
100 working days. URBEMIS2007 projects its emissions based on a crane, two forklifts,
and a loader being used on an average day.
Finally, paint is added in the last stages of construction. The major source of- emissions
associated with the application of paints and surface coatings is from the release of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These are also a form ROG and are assessed as
such. The model estimates the painting phase at 20 working days. Note that all
emissions are below their respective threshold values and the impact is less than
significant.
Subsequent to construction of the buildings, the parking areas would be installed and
paved with asphalt. For the purposes of estimating a worst case scenario, the model
estimates that asphalt paving would occur over an area of approximately 1.0 acre. This
analysis recognizes that some of the site is currently paved as the perimeter road for the
shopping center and that will not be impacted by the project. Additionally, the 1.0 acres
of paving assumes that only one restaurant is constructed and the location of the second
restaurant is paved until such time as that building is constructed. URBEMIS assigns a
paver, a piece of paving equipment, a roller, a loader, and four mixers to the task
estimated by the model at 20 working days.
A summary the daily emissions projected for site construction is provided in the table
below. A complete breakdown of the daily emissions associated with each phase of
construction is included in Appendix B.
PROJECTED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (POUNDS /DAY)
Summer 16.15 152.22128.0510.01123.24 1 2.57 125.81 14.86 1 2.36 1 7.22 5,515.48
Winter J 6.15 152.22128.0510.01123.24 1 2.57 125.81 14.86 1 2.36 1 7.22 1 5,515.48
2012 .
Summer
17.61
19.22
14.42
0.00
1 0.02
1.43
1.45
0.01
1.31
1.32
2,330.52
Winter
17.61
19.22
14.42
0.00
1 0.02
1.43
1.45
0.01
1.31
1.32
2,330.52
SCAQMD Daily
Threshold
75
100
550
150
4
4
150
4
4
55
NT'
Exceeds
Threshold?
No
No
No
No
-->
-->
No
4
->
No
No
' NT - No Threshold
Site Operations
The major source of long -term air quality impacts is that associated with the emissions
produced from project- generated vehicle trips. Stationary sources also add to these
values.
20 EXHIBIT D
Mobile Source Emissions
Using the default traffic generations rates in tl
on the 14,000 net square feet of restaurai
approximately 1349.25 average daily trips (
related trips are based on the URBEMIS2007
in 2012. Both summer and winter scenarios
values are included in the table below. Note tl
threshold values and the impact is less thar
Appendix A.
Stationary Source Emissions
In addition to vehicle trips, the land uses wo
The combustion of natural gas for heating
landscaping would be maintained requiring
attendant emissions. Additionally, the struc
repainting over time that releases ROG
projected by the URBEMIS2007 computer n
that all emissions are within their daily i
significant impact.
DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
URBEMIS2007 computer model, based
land use, the project would generate
DT). Emissions generated by project -
omputer model and assumes occupancy
vere modeled and the higher of the two
it all emissions are within their respective
significant. Model runs are included in
produce emissions from on -site sources.
structures and water would occur. Any
use of gardening equipment and their
s would be maintained and this requires
issions. The resultant emissions are
al and included in the Table below. Note
shold values, resulting in a less than
iz:Source ry,
: .
ROGr
FNOx
Pi WI
PMz.s
,CO2 'al.
Mobile Sources
6.29
7.76
69.1811
0.08
0.71
0.45
7,72174
Natural Gas
0.01
0.14
0.12 {
0.00
0.00
0.00
174.00
Landscape
Maintenance
0..12
0.02
1.551
0.00
0.01
0.01
2.81
Consumer
Products
0.00
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
Architectural
Coatings
0.09
- --
---
Operational Total
6.51
7.92
70.851
0.08
0.72
0.46
7,900.55
Threshold
55
55
550
1
150
150
55
NT
Exceeds Threshold
No
No
No
I
No
No
No
No
1 Averaged from the summer and winter emissions.
2 NT — No Threshold
Criteria Pollutants
With respect to construction, the discussion
construction does not have the potential to c
For the subsequent operation of the site, as
produced in the greatest quantities and
standards. As such, no significant impacts
to occur and the impact is less than significa
above demonstrates that project
a localized PM10 impact.
>sed above, CO is the criteria pollutant
emissions are within the air quality
I to sensitive receptors are anticipated
21 1 EXHIBIT D
Other Toxics
While most commercial development is not associated with the release of toxic air
contaminants, various types of commercial operations have been identified with the use
of toxic substances and release of toxic emissions (e.g., dry cleaning). Vehicle
emissions, primarily associated with the use of heavy trucks for such things as refuse
collection, also release minor amounts of diesel particulate; a known carcinogen.
However, as noted in the URBEMIS model, use of these trucks (medium -heavy duty and
heavy -heavy duty) during site occupation (e.g., refuse collection) is limited to about 1.4
percent of the vehicle population and these emissions are distributed over a vast area
due to vehicle travel. As such, vehicle travel is not typically associated with prolonged
exposure to toxic emissions.
The SCAQMD, under Rule 1401 (New Source Review of Carcinogenic Air
Contaminants) enforces emission limits when a new facility applies for permits for new
construction, modifications, or relocation of equipment that emits any of the TACs listed
therein. Permits are granted if the increase in cancer risk from the new, modified or
relocated source does not exceed one in a million or 10 in a million cancer cases, if the
proposed controls are the best available and the equipment is supplied with Toxic -Best
Available Control Technology (T- BACT). SCAQMD Rule 402 prohibits emissions of air
pollutants that "cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable
number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or
safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to
cause, injury or damage to business or property." Mandatory adhere to the SCAQMD
rules would ensure that any impact from toxic air contaminants associated with the
operation of the project remains less than significant.
Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust
pollutants from on -site earth movement and from equipment bringing concrete and other
building materials to the site. With regards to nuisance odors, any air quality impacts will
be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. By the time such emissions
reach any sensitive receptor sites away from the project site, they will be diluted to well
below any level of air quality concern. An occasional "whiff' of diesel exhaust from
trucks accessing the site from public roadways may result. Such brief exhaust odors
may be adverse, but not a significant air quality impact. Additionally, some odor would
be produced from the application of asphalt, paints, and coatings. Again, any exposure
of the general public to these common odors would be of short duration and may be
potentially adverse, and would be less than significant.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The subject parcel is improved with an existing parking lot containing approximately 200
parking spaces that currently serves the Montebello Town Center shopping mall.
The project site is located in an urban, developed area and does not contain any
significant biological resources. The project does not provide habitat for any potential
candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Animal species located on the project
site is likely limited to rodents and a variety of bird species that are able to adapt to life in
an urban environment.
22 EXHIBIT D
Since this project site does not contain any sic
significant impacts on riparian habitat or other
local, regional, or national plans, regulations o
or sensitive natural communities are located
impacts would result from project implemer
necessary.
The proposed project is located in an u
shopping center area that does not contain
be impacted by approval of the proposed F
migratory wildlife corridor due to the existing
The City has adopted an oak tree preservation
the Rosemead Municipal Code. The ordina
relocate or trim an oak tree to obtain a permit
pruning. The proposed project contains r
ordinance. Furthermore, the proposed projec
that would affect the open space areas identifi
any changes to trees in the public right -of -way.
iificant habitat resources, there will be no
ensitive natural communities identified in
policies. Additionally, no riparian habitat
within the City, therefore, no significant
:ation and no mitigation measures are
area developed within a commercial
wetland resources. No wetlands would
;t. The project site is not considered a
ounding urban development.
rdinance, contained in Section 17.100 of
;e requires anyone seeking to remove,
Dfore doing so, with exceptions for minor
actions that contradict the oak tree
does not involve any land use changes
i in the General Plan, nor does it involve
Approval of the project does not involve chahges to an established policy that would
allow for the degradation of any significant Ibiological resource. No adopted habitat
conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved habitat
conservation plan would be affected by approval of this project, and therefore no
mitigation measures would be required.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The project involves the construction of twol development pads, construction of two
separate restaurant buildings, construction of a common trash receptacle and utility area
to be shared by the two restaurants, hardscape and landscaping, and reconfiguration of
the surface parking lot that includes an internal circulation route within the existing
Montebello Town Center shopping center.
The development site is currently only develc
there are no buildings or structures onsite whi
the proposed project could not cause an a
potentially eligible for inclusion on the Nations
Register of Historic Places, or the Californ
mitigation measures would be required.
The project is not located within a cultural /e
the Rosemead General Plan. Furthermore
the past to construct the Montebello Town
lot and any cultural resources that may F
destroyed during construction. Therefore,
cultural resource impacts and no mitigation r
There is no history that the
graded and disturbed during
Darkino lot and no human
ed with a surface parking lot. Therefore,
i could be considered historic. Therefore,
verse change to any historic properties
Register of Historic Places, the California
Historic Landmarks, and therefore no
eological sensitive area as identified in
site has been graded and disturbed in
ar shopping center and surface parking
been present were likely removed or
project would not have any significant
ures would be required.
project site has been used as a cemetery. The site was
construction of the existing Montebello Town Center and
remains were discovered. Because the site has been
23
EXHIBIT D
disturbed and no cemeteries are known to have existed on the site the project is
expected not disturb any human remains.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The City of Rosemead is located in southern California, which is a seismically active
region. A portion of the southern part of the City of Rosemead is located within the
Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. However, the project site is not located in an
Alquist - Priolo Fault Zone. There are no known active surface faults on the site or within
the project area that would impact the project to a greater degree than other
development in Rosemead. As is the case with many Cities in the region, the City of
Rosemead sits on top of the Puente Hills Blind Thrust which poses earthquake shaking
threat to the City and the project site. Therefore, the project would be exposed to
severe ground shaking from a regional earthquake the same as any development in the
City. The maximum expected magnitude earthquake is 7.5, and the expected peak
ground acceleration is .50g with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years.
If a strong earthquake occurs in the vicinity of the subject site, structure stress and
foundation disturbance caused by earthquake induced ground shaking will be the major
cause of damage. The proposed buildings will be required to be constructed to meet all
applicable building code requirements pertaining to seismic events, which would reduce
potential seismic impacts of the project to less than significant.
The major cause of structural damage from earthquakes is ground shaking. The
intensity of ground motion expected at a particular site depends upon the magnitude of
the earthquake, the distance to the epicenter, and the geology of the area between the
epicenter and the property. Greater movement can be expected at sites on poorly
consolidated material, such as loose alluvium, close proximity to the causative fault, or in
response to an event of great magnitude. The project site could experience earthquake -
induced activity because of its location in a seismically active region as discussed
above. The buildings will be required to be constructed to meet Rosemead building
code seismic requirements to mitigate unforeseen natural ground faulting. The
compliance with the Rosemead building code will reduce potential strong seismic ground
shaking impacts to less than significant.
According to the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, most of the City of
Rosemead is located within an identified liquefaction zone. However, the project site is
outside the liquefaction zone. Therefore, the potential for seismic - induced liquefaction
within the project site is low due to the absence of shallow groundwater and loose native
alluvial soils. Therefore, impacts related to seismic - related ground failure, including
liquefaction, are less than significant. Nevertheless, it is City of Rosemead Planning
Division policy that a geotechnical engineering investigation be prepared, and reviewed
and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. Building permits
would not be issued if the project could not be carried out in compliance with the 2007
California Building Code as Amended by Los Angeles County, including Grading Code
and Los Angeles County Amendments to the Building Code expressly adopted by the
City of Rosemead.
24 EXHIBIT D
The project site is relatively flat, with no major changes in elevation, and not prone to
slope instability hazards such as landslides. f No evidence of slope failures, past or
present was observed during site reconnaissance.
Soil erosion could occur during project gradi Ig and construction, especially during the
winter months when rainfall typically occurs. The City will require the project developer
to install and maintain all applicable soil erosion protection measures to minimize soil
erosion during construction. The erosion control measures will be identified during the
preparation of final grading plans and be installed prior to the start of grading and
maintained throughout the construction period. All areas of the project site that will be
exposed to soil erosion during construction will either be developed with buildings and
pavement or landscaped in accordance with approved landscape plans. The project will
not have any soil erosion impacts because it will be required to install and maintain
proper soil erosion control measures prior to the start of construction.
Expansive soils are associated with fine -grain
that contain clay minerals susceptible to (
contraction under drying conditions. Dependii
in a geologic deposit, these volume (hang
damage to slabs, foundations, and concrete t
Fernando Formation or in artificial fill derive(
have a high expansion potential. However, t
impact and would not result in substantia'.
geotechnical investigation will be required to
by the City of Rosemead prior to the issuar
would not be issued if the project could not b
California Building Code as Amended by Los
and Los Angeles County Amendments to the
City of Rosemead.
The soil on the site will not have to support
require the project to connect to the public s
tanks for wastewater disposal.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
In 2006, the State passed the California Glob
which requires the California Air Resources
limits, regulation, and other measures, such
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are redu(
State passed SB 375, which creates region
GHG emissions in accordance with AB 32. 7
implemented, tie GHG reduction targets to
strategic plans.
The subject site is designated in the City's (
uses. The site sits within a fully developed
with a surface parking lot containing approxi
The Applicant proposes to improve a portion
which will be constructed two separate rests
25
d soils, alluvium, and bedrock formations
(pansion under wetting conditions and
3 on the type and amount of clay present
s (shrink and swell) can cause severe
it work. This site is located in either the
from Fernando Formation. These soils
project presents a less than significant
soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. A
e prepared, and reviewed and approved
:e of building permits. Building permits
carried out in compliance with the 2007
\ngeles County, including Grading Code
Building Code expressly adopted by the
use of septic tanks because the City will
r system. The project will not use septic
Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32),
)ard to design and implement emission
iat feasible and cost - effective statewide
I to 1990 levels by 2020. In 2008, the
planning processes designed to reduce
!se processes, which have yet to be fully
e region's land use and transportation
Plan and Zoning map for commercial
ng center, and is currently developed
200 parking spaces.
the site with two development pads on
(nt buildings. The improvement of the
EXHIBIT D
Parcel, which will be conducted in two phases, will include construction of two
development pads, construction of two separate restaurant buildings, construction of a
common trash receptacle and utility area to be shared by the two restaurants, hardscape
and landscaping, and reconfiguration of the surface parking lot that includes an internal
circulation route.
The construction of restaurants totaling a combined gross floor area of 15,000 is
permitted by right under the City of Rosemead Municipal Code.
Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to short term GHG emissions
from construction activities. During construction, the URBEMIS2007 computer model
predicts that a peak activity day will generate 5,515.48 pounds per day of CO2 from
construction activities.
For purposes of analysis, it was assumed that non CO2 GHG emissions (such as methane)
are negligible and that the total project construction GHG burden for any single project
element can be characterized by 20 peak grading days and 20 peak paving days. The
estimated annual GHG impact from construction is 103.64 tons in 2011 and 48.07 tons
in 2012.
In 2004, the statewide annual GHG inventory of CO2Oequivelent levels (including all non
Co2 gases weighted by their thermal absorption potential) was 492,000,000 metric tons
(541,000,000 short tons). The worst case project construction impact of 103.64 tons per
year of GHG represents a negligible percentage of the statewide burden.
Maximum daily operational CO2 emissions from project - related traffic and area source
emissions are predicted to be 6,995.98 pounds per day. Annually, this translates into
1,397.58 tons per year. This also represents a negligible percentage of the 2004
statewide inventory.
On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted interim GHG
significance thresholds for projects located in the region. For stationary and industrial
sources, the SCAQMD recommends a threshold of significance of 10,000 metric tons of
CO2 equivalent emissions per year (MTCOZe /yr). Construction emissions are to be
amortized over the life of the project, defined as 30 years, added to operational
emissions, and compared to the threshold of significance.
The Global warming potential (GWP) is a measure of how much a given GHG
contributes to climate change as compared to COZ. To estimate emissions of CO2., the
mass of a non -CO2 pollutant must be multiplied by its GWP. For-this analysis, a GWP of
21 is applied to CH4 (methane), as recommended by the SCAQMD. Additionally, for the
purposes of this analysis, the CH4 emissions as a percentage of CO2 emissions is
0.0001. Therefore the annual emissions of methane (1,397.58 tons /year of CO2 times
0.0001 times 21 GWP) is approximately 2.9 MTCO2dyr. When combined with 1,397.58
tons /yr of CO2 emissions, the total GHG emissions of 1,400.51 MTCOze/yr is less than
the 10,000 ton /yr threshold established by the SCAQMD. Consequently, the proposed
project will not result in a significant impact and no mitigation is required.
26 EXHIBIT D
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MA
The project does not include any uses the
transporting, using, or disposing hazardous
restaurants does not include any activities that
restaurants will not routinely transport hazardc
anticipated.
The project will not release hazardous mated
no uses or activities that would involve the
released. The hazardous materials that w
cleaning and maintenance products that are
clean and maintain restaurants. The storage
not create a significant hazard to the public if
and regulations.
Don Bosco High School, located at 1200 San
the site. This high school is located approxim
are no hazardous materials or hazardous e
project and impact Don Bosco High School,
north of the site.
The project is not located within one - quarter
reasonably be expected to emit hazardous
surrounding uses within one - quarter mile
residential uses, and commercial uses; none
The site was visually inspected and the site
survey that was reviewed indicates the site v
site, waste disposal site, or solid waste disp(
fumes, or dust) were observed being release
that was performed, there is a low probability
potential environmental concerns.
The existing shopping center operations th
activities that are different than the activities
site assessment. Therefore, it is anticipated
have been impaired by environmental coi
completed. The project is not anticipated to h
The project site has not been used for any i
from being sufficiently free of hazardous mat
materials are known to have been used on
hazards and suitable for development as prop
The project is not located within 2 miles of a F
the site is Los Angeles International Airport
west. Thus, Los Angeles International Airport
site. The project would not impact airport ope
or result in a safety hazard for people living o
would create a significant hazard by
materials. The development of two
Fould create a hazard to the public. The
> materials; hence no adverse impact is
into the environment because there are
e of hazardous materials that could be
be used on the site will be limited to
iically used by the restaurant industry to
d use of janitorial cleaning materials will
ad in compliance with all applicable laws
xiel Boulevard, is the closest school to
y one -half mile north of the site. There
;ions that would be generated by the
n though it is more than one -half mile
of any facility that generates or might
issions and impact the project. The
the site include a shopping center,
hich emit hazardous emissions.
cry was researched. The physical site
not used as a former hazardous waste
site. No air emissions (visible smoke,
Dm the site. Based on the assessment
subject property has been impaired by
surround the site do not include any
i operations in place at the time of the
at the site remains a low probability to
erns since the site assessment was
any hazardous waste impacts.
in the past that would prevent the site
Is for use as proposed. No hazardous
site. The site is sufficiently clear of
d without any hazardous impacts.
ublic airport. The closest public airport to
icated approximately fifteen miles to the
is not located within 2 miles of the project
ations at Los Angeles International airport
working on or near the project site. The
27 1 EXHIBIT D
project would have no safety impacts with regard to being within two miles of a public
airport.
The closest private airport to the site is the El Monte Airport located approximately three
miles to the northeast, which is more than two miles from the project. The project would
not impact airport operations at the El Monte Airport or result in a safety hazard for
people living or working on or near the project site. The project would have no safety
impacts with regard to being within two miles of an airport.
There is nothing associated with the construction of the restaurant that will interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project is
located on a site that is within the Montebello Town Center shopping center that is
served by public streets and nothing with the project will prevent the use of the adjacent
roadways for implementation of an evacuation or emergency response plan.
The project site is not within an area that is designated as a wild land hazard area or
located in an area that would expose the project to wild land fires. The adjacent
surrounding properties are all developed as a shopping center, office space, hotel, and
residential use, none of which would expose the project to wild land fires.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The project could impact water quality by silt and debris being carried from the site by
surface water runoff during grading and construction. The quality of storm water runoff
is regulated under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES). The
NPDES storm water permit provides a mechanism for monitoring the discharge of
pollutants and establishing appropriate controls to minimize the entrance of such
pollutants into storm water 'runoff. As a co- permitee to the County ( NPDES No.
CAS614001), the City requires all development projects in its jurisdiction to comply with
the NPDES requirements for construction and operations as appropriate. As such, the
project developer will be required to install and maintain all applicable soil erosion
control measures to reduce erosion and minimize water quality impacts. The developer
will be required to submit a SUSMP to the City of Rosemead prior to the issuance of a
grading permit to ensure that all applicable erosion control measures are installed and
maintained during construction to control water quality impacts.
Currently the site is developed as a surface parking lot with a limited amount of parking
lot landscape area. The development will increase the landscaped area onsite by an
additional 1,080 square feet. Therefore, the project will not reduce area on the site that
presently allows absorption and ground water recharge. The project will obtain its water
supply from the San Gabriel Valley Water Company. The project will not significantly
impact local groundwater supplies and the ability of San Gabriel Valley Water Company
to serve the project with water.
The project will be required to install and maintain city- required soil erosion reduction
measures to reduce soil erosion. Any change in the on -site drainage pattern by the
project would not be sufficient to change the course of a stream or river because the
surface water after project construction will be discharged from the site at the same
existing discharge point and enter the local storm drain system at the same location as
presently exists. The project will be required to retain on -site any increased surface
water volume and discharge the same volume and flow rate as existing conditions.
28 EXHIBIT D
Therefore, any increased surface water volumb by the project will not alter the course of
a stream or river because both the volume and, flow rate will not change with the project.
The project may alter the drainage patterns oh the site somewhat, but the change would
not alter the course of a stream or river that would result in substantial flooding on or off
the site. The drainage increase by the project if any, will not be a large enough quantity
to cause flooding downstream of the site.
Any potential increase in surface water
insignificant. The project developer will be
City along with the final grading plans to st
facilities have enough capacity to serve the
project developer will either have to retain
increase the downstream facilities. The pr
sources of polluted runoff because the proj
maintain all applicable erosion measures to c
The project will not degrade water quality
to install and maintain best management
quality impacts of the project.
The project site is located in Flood Zone X,
500 -year flood plain. The restaurant prc
hazard area.
The project site is located outside a 100 -year
place any structures in a flood hazard area.
n the site due to the project will be
uired to submit a hydrology study to the
whether or not the existing storm drain
)ject. If the facilities are inadequate the
incremental storm water flow on -site or
ct will not provide substantial additional
developer will be required to install and
:rol erosion and reduce silt from the site.
the project developer will be required
as required by law to minimize water
:h are areas determined to be outside the
would not place housing within a flood
zone. Therefore, the project will not
The project site is not located downstream of a levee or dam that would expose people
to a significant risk of flooding. I
There are no bodies of water adjacent to or i6 the immediate project vicinity that would
inundate the site due to a seiche. The site is located approximately five miles east of the
ocean and would not be inundated by a tsunami. There are no hillsides adjacent to or
on the site that would inundate the site by a mudflow.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The project proposes to improve a single p�
Town Center. The improvement of the parcel,
include construction of two development pac
buildings, construction of a common trash rec
two restaurants, hardscape and landscaping,
lot that includes an internal circulation rc
constructed adjacent to the existing Montel
impact by dividing an established community.
The Commercial land use designation al
Ratio (FAR) of 0.35:1. Therefore, the C
35,174 square feet of development on the
29
:I of land located within the Montebello
rich will be conducted in two phases, will
construction of two separate restaurant
:acle and utility area to be shared by the
d reconfiguration of the surface parking
The proposed restaurants will be
o Town Center and will not have any
development of the site at a Floor Area
ercial land use designation allows up to
icre site. The project site will have a total
EXHIBIT D
development area of 15,000 square feet, which is less than the maximum square
footage allowed by the Rosemead General Plan. -
The site is zoned C -3 (Medium Commercial). The land use and zoning designations
allow the development of the proposed restaurants. The City of Rosemead has
determined that the project does not meet the definition of a "shopping center" since only
one restaurant is proposed on the single parcel during Phase I, and the timing of
development for the second restaurant has not been determined. The Municipal Code
defines a "Shopping Center' as a single parcel of land with two or more uses and
situated within C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone. Therefore, a Zone Variance is required
so that the City's parking ratio of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet for a shopping center
will apply to the Project (both restaurants) even if only one restaurant is constructed, in
lieu of the City's parking ratio of 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet that is applicable to
individual restaurants.
Although the City of Rosemead has determined that the development does not meet the
definition of a shopping center as outlined in the Rosemead Municipal Code, the
application of the shopping center parking ratio instead of the restaurant parking ratio will
not impact the parking capacity for the project. The subject parcel and all of the other
parcels of land that comprise the Montebello Town Center are operated as an integrated
shopping center. The project is part of the Montebello Town Center and is subject to the
REA that requires all parcels of land in the mall to provide all parking spaces for the
reciprocal use of occupants and visitors of all other parcels comprising the Montebello
Town Center. The REA requires that the center provide a parking ratio of 4.5 spaces
per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The total amount of floor area in the center is
approximately 768,653 square feet which would require a total of 3,460 parking spaces.
The center currently provides a total of 3,689 parking spaces which results in a ratio of
4.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Upon completion of the project, the center would
provide a total of 3,460 parking spaces which results in a ratio of 4.65 spaces per 1,000
square feet. Therefore, with the minor reduction of overall parking to accommodate
construction of the project, the center would still provide the amount of required parking
consistent with the center's REA and the Rosemead Municipal Code.
The project site in not located within any applicable habitat conservation plans or natural
community conservation plans. Thus, the project will not conflict with any applicable
habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES
There is no mining activity on the site and no known mineral resource present of value to
the region or state residents that would be lost due to the development of the project.
According to the City of Rosemead Resource Management Element, no mineral
deposits of statewide or regional importance exist within the City. Therefore, no
significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required.
12. NOISE
The City of Rosemead Noise Element specifies outdoor and indoor noise standards for
various land uses impacted by transportation sources. The City's noise standards are
consistent with the State of California noise standards. The interior and exterior noise
30 EXHIBIT D
standards are in terms of the Community
standards state that for commercial land use,
exceed 55 dBA.
City of Rosemead Noise Ordinance
A noise ordinance is designed to control unn
from stationary (non- transportation) noise
cannot be applied to mobile noise sources
public roadways.
The City of Rosemead has specified daytir
zoned for various uses in terms of reference
City of Rosemead Noise Standards (dBA)
Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The
he exterior noise exposure level shall not
iry, excessive, and annoying sounds
s. Noise ordinance requirements
as heavy trucks when traveling on
and nighttime noise standards for lands
;ibel levels as shown below.
Daytime j Nighttime
Land Use Noise Standards 7 am — 10 pm 10 pm — 7 am
Residential 60 45
Commercial 65 60
Industrial or Manufacturing 70 70
These decibel levels are used by the noise ordinance to define five noise categories.
Each noise category sets its own acceptance criteria for how long and how loud any
noise source can be within the city's boundaries. The noise categories are:
a. The applicable noise standard for a cul ulative period of time of more than thirty
(30) minutes in any hour; or
b. The applicable noise standard plus
fifteen (15) minutes in any hour; or
C. The applicable noise standard plus
five minutes in any hour; or
d. The applicable noise standard plus
more than one minute in any hour; or
dBA for a cumulative period of more than
dBA for a cumulative period of more than
(15) dBA for a cumulative period of
e. The noise standard plus twenty (20) dBA for any period of time.
Any noise source that violates the accepted
categories violate the noise standard. Spec
maximum cumulative time period in any hour
exceed the noise limit criteria applicable to t
general, passing or failing the accepted criter
does not necessarily prohibit nor guarantee
accepted criteria for any other noise catego
category is set by a noise limit which is defir
reference decibel level appropriate to the land
iteria set by one or more of these five
:ally, each noise category specifies the
wring which the noise level is allowed to
t category. As applied to any noise in
for any one of the five noise categories
at the same noise will pass or fail the
The loudness criteria for each noise
i in terms of a constant offset from the
e type and time of day classifications.
31 1 EXHIBIT D
P
In addition to the above restrictions, the City of Rosemead does provide exemptions.
"Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling or grading of any real
property or during authorized seismic surveys, provided such activities do not take place
between the hours of eight p.m. and seven a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at
any time on Sunday or a federal holiday, and provided the noise level created by such
activities does not exceed the noise standard of sixty -five (65) dBA plus the limits
specified in Section 8.36.060(B) as measured on residential property and does not
endanger the public health, welfare and safety. Operations do not take place between
eight p.m. and seven a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday or at any time on Sunday or
a federal holiday".
The project will be required to adhere to the Rosemead Noise Ordinance. The potential
short-term (construction) and long -term (operational) noise impacts of the project are
discussed below.
Construction Noise
Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise
generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete
mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. Grading activities will have
similar noise levels.
The project site is adjacent to, west and north, of Montebello Boulevard and south of the
Pomona Freeway (60). There are existing commercial uses to the east and south of the
project site, which include the Montebello Town Center and the Double Tree Hotel. The
closest single - family residential uses are located on the north side of the Pomona
Freeway (60) and east of the Double Tree Hotel. The residential uses, including the
hotel, are the noise sensitive land uses closest to the project site. However, these uses
are currently separated from the project site by either a freeway or a large boulevard.
The Double Tree Hotel building is approximately 300 feet from the proposed
construction site. Due to the distance and physical development separating the project
site from sensitive land uses, the project construction noise will have a less than
significant impact. Furthermore, the City restricts the hours during which construction
may occur. Construction activity will be limited to the hours permitted under the
Rosemead Municipal Code (7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday to Saturday). The Rosemead
Municipal Code further prohibits construction to take place on Sundays or on any federal
holidays.
Operational Impacts
Increased traffic caused by the project could result in increased traffic noise levels along
the roadways in the vicinity of the project. However, the anticipated impact of
operational noise impacts will be less than significant and will be significantly less than
the current noise levels associated with the operation of the Montebello Town Center.
Traffic associated with the parking lot is not usually of sufficient volume to exceed
community noise standards that are based on a time averaged scale such as the CNEL
scale. However, the instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by car door
slamming, engine start -up, alarm activation and car pass -bys can be annoying.
However, due to the distance and physical development separating the project site from
32 EXHIBIT D
the closest sensitive land uses to the north and east, a buffer is created that would
reduce impacts to less than significant:
The project will not expose sensitive land
vibration and ground borne noise levels d
foundations and the parking structure, and
borne vibration and noise levels will be sh
actual time it takes to remove soil for t
Ground vibration and noise will not o
construction, only during actual grading
vibration and construction noise will be t
grading and foundation work, which is d
construction process. The closest sensiti
separated from the site by the Pomona
Boulevard to the east. Therefore, the gro
have a less than significant impact.
he I
ccu
and
one
ve I
Fri
and
The increased long -term traffic noise levels d
than significant. The increased number of
generated by those vehicles such as doors
alarms, etc. would result in periodic noise lev
currently existing within the Montebello Town
events would last short- periods of time and w
noise levels in the area. The project will resu
the noise level on the site and the immediate
the existing levels. The noise level increase
City noise level standards. The additional re!
noise levels. However, the increase in the not
and exceed the City's allowed noise levels.
The project will have temporary and peric
construction phases. The construction noise
levels in the project vicinity during the shor
noise generated by the operation of some of t
significant as the project will be required to c
Ordinance.
The closest public airport to the project site is
approximately fifteen miles west of the site.
miles of a public airport. The project will n
excessive noise levels from a public airport.
The El Monte Airport, which is located approx
the closest private airport to the site. Thus, tl
a private airport. The project will not expose
noise levels from a private airport.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The project involves the construction of two
induce a substantial growth in Rosemead. 7
33
> to the north and east to ground borne
project grading, excavation for building
compaction. The duration of the ground
rm and only last a few weeks during the
ilding foundations and soil compaction.
during the entire time during project
:ompactioh activities. The ground borne
rary and primarily associated with initial
i the early phase of the actual building
A uses to the project site are physically
way (60) to the north, and Montebello
orne vibration and construction noise will
ie to the project are estimated to be less
automobiles on the site and the noise
slamming, tire squeal, cars starting, car
I increases but would be similar to those
Center shopping mall. These short-term
uld not significantly increase the ambient
in the construction of new structures and
roject area will increase only slightly from
vill not be significant and will not exceed
aurants and vehicular traffic will increase
e level is not anticipated to be substantial
noise level increases during project
I occur and increase the ambient noise
rm construction period. However, the
construction equipment will be less than
iply with the City of Rosemead's Noise
)s Angeles International Airport, which is
ius, the project is not located within two
expose project guests or employees to
ately three miles northeast of the site, is
project is not located within two miles of
oject guests or employees to excessive
w restaurants and is not anticipated to
types of jobs that will be created by the
EXHIBIT D
project will be filled from the local surrounding community within commuting distance.
People will not, for the most part, move to Rosemead to work specifically at the site and
as a result, will not induce a substantial population growth. The project also will not
extend roads or infrastructure or construct new public roads or infrastructure that will
create a population growth in Rosemead, or any other community. The project will not
increase the number of people that live in Rosemead and as a result, will not change or
impact the estimated population of the city.
There are no residential units on the site. The project will not displace existing housing
that will require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
There is no housing or any other lodging on the site that will displace people and require
construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The project will have no impact on
displacing people.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
The conceptual development plan for this project has been sent to the public service
agencies that will serve this development for review and comments. These agencies
include the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department, and the City of Rosemead Public Safety Department.
The project will incrementally increase the demand for fire protection services by the Los
Angeles County Fire Department, which serves and will continue to serve the project.
The Department will receive service calls for a variety of emergencies, which could
impact their ability to respond to other service calls for fire protection. The new
restaurants will provide the fire suppression equipment required by law to provide
adequate fire safety and reduce calls for service. The site is served by two major vehicle
access roads (Montebello Boulevard and Town Center Drive) which will provide access
in case of an emergency. The Department does not anticipate the project will
significantly impact their ability to continue to provide an adequate level of fire protection
throughout the city, thus the project will have a less than significant impact to fire
protection.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department provides police protection for the City of
Rosemead from the Temple Station that is located at 8838 East Las Tunas Drive in
Temple City. The average response time is approximately 3 minutes for emergency
calls, 8 minutes for priority calls, and 45 minutes for routine calls. The project will
incrementally increase the demand for police services. However, comments from the
Chief of Police and the City's Public Safety Department indicate that the project will not
have any adverse impact on law enforcement services in the City of Rosemead. The
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department will be able to provide an adequate level of
police protection for the project without impacting response times for the rest of the city.
The project will have a less than significant impact to police protection.
The project will not directly generate new students to area schools. The only students
that would be generated by the project include students from families with school age
children that relocate to Rosemead and employed at the restaurant. It is anticipated that
the future project employees will either live in Rosemead or if they live outside
Rosemead will commute from their current place of residence. In either case, the project
is not anticipated to generate any new students or impact school attendance.
34 EXHIBIT D
15.
The closest city park to the project site is
approximately one and one -half miles north c
Center employees typically do not use park
hours. It is also anticipated that the rest
Furthermore, the restaurant patrons will n
surrounding community for dining purposes c
on city parks because neither restaurant pa
existing Rosemead Park and recreational facil
The project will not require any public facility
impacted.
RECREATION
The project will not significantly impact the us;
area because restaurant patrons typically do
employees, as a rule, do not use recreations
Sports Park is the nearest park to the site a
miles to the north. Due to the distance fro
patrons and employees would not impact
recreational facilities.
The project does not propose any new n
the construction of new or expansion of
not impact recreation facilities.
16. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC
The project will not cause an increase in trai
existing traffic load and capacity of the street
project applicants to complete an initial Trans
the project is initially submitted to the City Pla
trip generation and transportation impacts the
is determined. For trip generation, the thres
during the A.M. or P.M. peak hour generated b
An initial Transportation Impact Analysis was
project. The initial analysis which is shown
net new vehicle trips anticipated during the
project are well below the City's threshold.
within the Montebello Town Center shopping
internal capture trips will be present. Due to
are expected during the A.M. peak hour and
the PM peak hour.
35
3s Gonzales Sports Park. This park is
the site. The existing Montebello Town
nd recreational facilities during working
rant employees will not use the park.
st likely visit from Rosemead or the
y. Thus, the project will have no impact
ms nor employees will use and impact
city service that would be significantly
le of existing recreational facilities in the
iot use public recreational facilities and
facilities while at work. Jess Gonzales
J located approximately one and a half
i the proposed restaurants, the project
ass Gonzales Sports Park or any city
al facilities. The project will not require
recreational facilities. The project will
which is substantial in relation to the
ystem. The City of Rosemead requires
:)rtation Impact Analysis at the time that
ling Division. With initial assessment of
red for a Transportation Impact Analysis
:)Id is 50 or more net new vehicle trips
the project.
epared by the applicant for the proposed
low indicates that for trip generation the
M. or P.M. peak hour generated by the
)ue to location of the development site
call, a large amount of pass -by trips and
ese trip credits, only a net total of 3 trips
net total of 31 trips are expected during
EXHIBIT D
Total Sq Ft 14,000
ITE Code 931.00
Daily
Weekday AM Peak
Weekda PM Peak
Weekday
Sat
Sun
Total
In
Out
Total
In
Out
89.95
94.36
72.06
1 0.81
827%
.18%1
7.49
67%
3394
TRIPS 1,259 1,321 1,009 11 105
Pass -by Trips
45% (567) (594) (454) (5) (47)
Internal Capture
25% (315) (330) (252) (3) (26)
Transit Credit
0% - - - -
Total Trip Credits
70% 378 396 303 3 31
Since the project will not generate a significant amount of new net trips, it does not have
the potential to exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways.
The project would not require the removal of any existing bus stops, bicycle racks, or
other existing modes of alternative transportation. The project would not conflict with
any adopted City policies that support alternative transportation.
The project will increase the number of vehicle trips entering and leaving the site by
minimal amounts at the existing main entrances to the Montebello Town Center, which
will also serve the proposed restaurants. The project does not propose to change or
modify the existing design of the existing shopping center entrances. The project will not
impact the existing entrance design.
The Montebello Town Center has five mall entrances. The project does not propose to
change the design of the Montebello Town Center shopping mall entrances that will also
serve the proposed restaurants that could result in inadequate emergency access. The
project will not impact or restrict the ability of emergency vehicles to access the site to
respond to an emergency. Only a net total of 3 trips are expected during the A.M. peak
hour and a net total of 31 trips are expected during the PM peak hour. It is anticipated
that these trips will be spread out among all five mall entrances. Therefore, the project
will not have an impact on emergency access.
The City of Rosemead has determined that the project does not meet the definition of a
'.shopping center" since only one restaurant is proposed on the single parcel during
Phase I, and the timing of development for the second restaurant has not been
determined. Although a zone variance is being requested by the applicant for a
reduction in the City of Rosemead's parking standards, approval of the reduction will not
result in inadequate parking capacity.
The Municipal Code defines a "Shopping Center' as a single parcel of land with two or
more uses and situated within C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone. Therefore, a Zone
Variance is required so that the City's parking ratio of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet for
a shopping center will apply to the Project (both restaurants) even if only one restaurant
is constructed, in lieu of the City's parking ratio of 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet that
is applicable to individual restaurants.
36 EXHIBIT D
Although the City of Rosemead has determined that the development does not meet the
definition of a shopping center as outlined ( in the Rosemead Municipal Code, the
application of the shopping center parking ratio instead of the restaurant parking ratio will
not impact the parking capacity for the project.
parcels of land'that comprise the Montebello To
shopping center. The project is part of the Mont
REA that requires all parcels of land in the m
reciprocal use of occupants and visitors of all i
Town Center. The REA requires that the cent
per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The tots
approximately 768,653 square feet which woulc
The center currently provides a total of 3,689 1p
4.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Upon core
provide a total of 3,460 parking spaces which 're
square feet. Therefore, with the minor reduc
construction of the project, the center would stil
consistent with the center's REA and the Roserr
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The proposed project involves the constr
commercial site that has been used as a p
shopping mall. Waste water generation
unexpected.
The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angel
City of Rosemead. The proposed develc
boundaries of District No. 15. The wastewat
a local sewer line, which is not maintains
Districts' Joint Outfall "B" Unit 1 K, located in
Boulevard. This 12 -inch diameter trunk s
gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peg
2008.'
The subject parcel and all of the other
vn Center are operated as an integrated
abello Town Center and is subject to the
ill to provide all parking spaces for the
ether parcels comprising the Montebello
:r provide a parking ratio of 4.5 spaces
I amount of floor area in the center is
require a total of 3,460 parking spaces.
arking spaces which results in a ratio of
pletion of the project, the center would
sults in a ratio of 4.65 spaces per 1,000
ion of overall parking to accommodate
provide the amount of required parking
ead Municipal Code.
of two new restaurants on an existing
lot serving the Montebello Town Center
restaurant development would not be
County provide sewage treatment for the
nent is located within the jurisdictional
generated by the project will discharge to
by the Districts, for conveyance to the
>wn Center Drive just south of Montebello
er has a design capacity of 4.1 million
flow of 0.5 mgd when last measured in
The wastewater generated by the project will either be treated at the Joint Water
Pollution Control Plant located in the City of Carson, which has a design capacity of 400
mgd and currently processes an average flow of 282.2 mgd or the Los Coyotes Water
Reclamation Plant located in the City of Cerritos, which has a design capacity of 37.5
mgd and currently processes an average daily flow of 26.8 mgd .2 The project is
estimated to generate approximately 15,000 gal Ilons per day of sewage.
Payment of a connection fee will be required before a permit to construct to the sewer is
issued. In order for the Districts to conform tolthe requirements of the Federal Clean Air
Act (CAA), the design capacities of the Districts wastewater treatment facilities are
based on the regional growth forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of
Governments (SLAG). All expansion of Districts' facilities must be sized and service
phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Adnana Raza, Customer Service Specialist, letter
dated February 23, 2010.
2 Ibid.
37 1 EXHIBIT D
the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial.
The project will not generate sewage that will impact the capacity of either of the sewage
treatment plants that will serve the project. The payment of the required connection fee
will allow the Districts to expand the plants, if necessary to accommodate the project.
The project will have a less than significant impact on sewer facilities.
Applicant proposes that the San Gabriel. Valley Water Company will provide water to the
development site. While it is anticipated that the San Gabriel Valley Water Company
can serve the project with an adequate water supply, the project developer will have to
submit final building plans to determine if any upgrades to the existing water main will be
required in order to provide adequate water supply and fire flow. If required, the project
developer will be required to upgrade the existing water main to ensure adequate water
supply and fire flow can be pro vided.
The project will generate wastewater that will utilize some existing treatment plant
capacity and consume water that will reduce water supplies somewhat, but not to a point
the facilities will be significantly impacted.
The proposed project will not significantly change the existing drainage pattern on the
site. Furthermore, since the site is currently a paved surface parking lot, the amount of
impervious surface will not be increased. The project proposes to decrease the amount
of impervious surfaces by adding additional landscaped area within the parking area.
The City of Rosemead will require a drainage plan to be submitted for review and
approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Due to City policy, this plan will be
required to show any increased volume of surface water to ensure the project does not
discharge any greater quantity of surface water compared to the current condition. The
City also requires a plan to retain any increased surface water quantity on -site to be
approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. Therefore, the proposed
project would have a less than significant impact related to storm water drainage
facilities.
The project will consume additional water. The City of Rosemead has a Water Supply
Assessment that states the city has an adequate supply of water for future development.
While the project will increase the consumption of water, the existing water supplies are
sufficient to serve the project with existing entitlements.
The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County has adequate capacity to treat
the wastewater that will be generated by the project without impacting their ability to treat
wastewater from existing commitments.
The Chiquita Canyon Landfill serves the City of Rosemead. The City has a recycling
ordinance that encourages recycling when feasible. The project will increase the
amount of solid waste that is ultimately taken to the Chiquita Canyon Landfill. The City
has a recycling ordinance and requires recycling as much as feasible to reduce solid
waste volume. The project will be required to comply with the recycling ordinance as
applicable. The solid waste generated by the project is not anticipated to have a
significant impact on the life expectancy of the Chiquita Canyon landfill because of
recycling and the resulting small amount of solid waste that will ultimately be hauled to
the landfill. The solid waste generated by the project will have a less than significant
impact on the life expectancy of the landfill.
38 EXHIBIT D
18.
The City of Rosemead has a Recycling
materials and reduce the quantity of solid v
will be required to implement all required
building permit process.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The project site has been disturbed to allow
Center, paved parking lot, and landscaping as
site has been disturbed, there is no fish o
proposed for development. Thus, the project
of any fish and wildlife habitat or threaten
community because none exists on the area
historical buildings on the site. Therefore no
project. There is no evidence that the on
resources that would be impacted by the I
potential to significantly impact any fish or wil
California history or prehistory.
The project does not have any individw
considerable. The development of commerc
General Plan land use designation and zonir
The proposed building area is below the ma
requirements outlined in the General Plan.
determined that the development does not mi
outlined in the Rosemead Municipal Code, the
ratio instead of the restaurant parking ratio w
project. The subject parcel and all of the i
Montebello Town Center are operated as an i
part of the Montebello Town Center and is sub
land in the mall to provide all parking space:
visitors of all other parcels comprising the Mon
provides a total of 3,689 parking spaces whi&
square feet. Upon completion of the project,
parking spaces which results in a ratio of 4.65
applying the City's shopping center parking re
of the project, the center would still provide tl
with the center's REA and shopping center
Code.
There are no impacts that have been ide
significant impacts either directly or indirectly
sources of light and glare on the project site
that the site is currently used as a parking lot i
increase in light and glare from interior and e
less than significant. The project does n(
significant hazard by transporting, using, or d
will be required to comply with the City's
restaurant operation. Lastly, an air quality ar
w
Source Reduction Element to recycle
that is hauled to the landfill. The project
waste reduction measures as part of the
he development of the Montebello Town
ociated with the parking lot. Because the
wildlife habitat on the area of the site
vill not degrade the environmental quality
o eliminate any plant or animal in the
roposed for development. There are no
istorical buildings will be impacted by the
ie geology supports any paleontological
-oject. The project does not have the
life species or eliminate any examples of
impacts that could be cumulatively
rl restaurants is permitted by the current
I district in which this project is located.
imum permitted Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Although the City of Rosemead has
et the definition of a shopping center as
application of the shopping center parking
I not impact the parking capacity for the
Cher parcels of land that comprise the
tegrated shopping center. The project is
act to the REA that requires all parcels of
for the reciprocal use of occupants and
;bello Town Center. The center currently
results in a ratio of 4.8 spaces per 1,000
he center would provide a total of 3,460
paces per 1,000 square feet. Therefore,
Iuirements to accommodate construction
e amount of required parking consistent
arking ratio in the Rosemead Municipal
5ed with the project that could cause
i human beings. The existing level and
lay consist of parking lot lighting. Given
�rnal to the Montebello Town Center, the
)nor building lighting will be minimal and
include any uses that would create a
losing hazardous materials. The project
ise Ordinance during construction and
ysis indicates that air quality impacts on
EXHIBIT D
adjacent land uses are less than significant. Therefore, the project will not have adverse
effects on human beings.
40 EXHIBIT D
References
1. City of Rosemead General Plan (adopted 20(
2. City of Rosemead General Plan EIR
3. City of Rosemead Municipal Code
4. California Department of Conservation, Farm
5. South Coast Air Quality Management District
6. South Coast Air Quality Management District
7. California Integrated Waste Management Bo;
8. California Department of Conservation, Divis
Zones (EI Monte Quadrangle, 1999) www.coi
9. California Department of Conservation, Divis
Zones (El Monte Quadrangle, 1999) www.coi
10. Los Angeles County Department of Public W
11. State Water Resources Control Board, http L
12. Federal Emergency Agency, Flood Insurance
13. California Integrated Waste Management Bow
amended 2010)
I Mapping and Monitoring Program
17 AQMP www.agmd.gov
18 Air Quality Data www.agmd.gov
www.ciwmb.ca.gov
of Mines and Geology, Special Studies
of Mines and Geology, Seismic Hazard
, www.dpw.lacounty.goy
Map 00059CO036H
www.ciwmb.ca.gov
41 1 EXHIBIT D
Planning Commission Meeting
December 20, 2010
Page 22 of 22
rteie r -aoe Jr +e
5272 r. uii =i9» I «�euie
0"O" T
eaml.o��m.xenel
1994
Vol
0.SE 60
1 AifEyAY
18 ?% '1N
4
i
Y
2 . P M
236 — 97 — 98
PC
20
,var r• A ✓ �
+F Nw 2O
1
•_
R
y/
�\
P M 187 — 34 — 3S'\
''� "'� ;y,
SITE
y
O
P M 184, ` 35 —
}F.
Ip.A
2®
s✓ �a
1
" —T --
m �'
4,
0
e
s
Pc
6446 424 g41'
20
I M
5
OE7AIL B
NO SCALE
6