Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CC - Item 7B - General Plan Amendment 11-01 and Zone Change 11-01, Changing the Land Use Designation of Three Properties at 2562 River Avenue
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER DATE: MAY 10, 2011 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 11 -01 AND ZONE CHANGE 11 -01, CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THREE (3) PROPERTIES AT 2562 RIVER AVENUE FROM THE OPEN SPACE TO THE OFFICE/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION AND FROM THE O -S (OPEN SPACE) ZONING CLASSIFICATION TO M -1 (LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL) ZONING CLASSIFICATION. SUMMARY General Plan Amendment 11 -01 and Zone Change 11 -01 consist of City of Rosemead initiated amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate three parcels of land from the Open Space land use designation to the Office /Light Industrial land use designation. These three properties would also be reclassified on the Rosemead Zoning Map from the O -S (Open Space) zone to the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone. The three parcels of land (APN No.s 5282 -029- 001, -002, -802) are generally located at 2562 River Avenue. Two parcels are vacant and one parcel contains an abandoned multi - family residential structure. Prior to 2008 the Land Use Designation for the properties was Office/ Light Industrial and before 2010 the zoning of the properties was M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial Open Space). This item was presented to the Planning Commission for consideration on April 18, 2011. At that hearing the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The owner of two of the properties testified in support of the proposed amendments. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 11 -05, recommending that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 2011 -15 (Exhibit "A ") and Ordinance No. 915 (Exhibit "B "). The Planning Commission staff report, meeting minutes, and Resolution No. 11 -05 are attached as Exhibits "C ", "D ", and "E ", respectively. APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: ITEM NO. _ �_ City Council Meeting May 10, 2011 Page 2 of 6 Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the following actions are taken: 1. The City Council hold the noticed public hearing, receive public testimony; 2. The City Council adopt Resolution No. 2011 -15 (Exhibit "A "), redesignating three properties on River Avenue from Open Space to Office /Light Industrial; and file the Notice of Determination for the project; 3. The City Council move to Introduce for First Reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 915 (Exhibit "B ") to rezone three properties on River Avenue from the O -S (Open Space) zone to the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone and to bring back Ordinance No. 915 to the City Council meeting of May 24, 2011, for consideration of adoption. BACKGROUND Property History and Description As stated above, the proposed project would redesignate three properties from the Open Space land use designation to the Office /Light Industrial land use designation and rezone the three properties from the O -S zone to the M -1 zone. The three properties are located at 2562 River Avenue. Two of the properties (APN No. 5282 - 029 -001 & -002) are owned by Rondini, LLC and the third property (APN No. 5282 - 029 -802) is owned by the Southern California Gas Company (See Exhibit "F "). City Council Meeting May 10, 2011 Page 3 of 6 The two properties owned by Rondini, LLC are approximately 0.4 acres and 2.33 acres in size. A letter from Rondini, LLC in support of the project is attached as Exhibit "G. According to Rosemead Building Division records, the smaller of these two properties was originally developed with a multiple- family residence. However, the structure has sat abandoned for several years. The larger of these two parcels is covered in overgrown vegetation with no structures. The parcel of land owned by the Southern California Gas Company is approximately 0.22 acres in size and is the northern most of the three properties. This parcel is overgrown with vegetation with no visible land use occurring on the site. A total of approximately 2.95 acres would be reclassified from the Open Space to the Office /Light Industrial land use designation. There is no new development associated with the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Prior to 2008 the Land Use Designation for the properties was Office /Light Industrial and before 2010 the zoning of the properties was M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial Open Space). The Land Use Designation was changed as part of the 2008 General Plan update in order to make it consistent with the Open Space designation for the Whittier Narrows Golf Course to the west and south and the Rio Hondo River flood control channel to the east. However, this General Plan Amendment did not take into consideration that the properties were private property that did not provide any active or passive recreational opportunities for the community. Site & Surrounding Land Uses The subject properties are currently designated in the General Plan as Open Space and zoned O -S (Open Space). The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North: General Plan: Office /Light Industrial Zoning: M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) Land Use: industrial and warehouse buildings South: General Plan: Open Space (Unincorporated Los Angeles County) Zoning: O -S (Unincorporated Los Angeles County) Land Use: Whittier Narrows Golf Course East: General Plan: Open Space Zoning: O -S (Open Space) Land Use: Rio Hondo River flood control channel City Council Meeting May 10, 2011 Page 4 of 6 West: General Plan: Open Space Zoning: O -S (Open Space) Land Use: Whittier Narrows Golf Course ANALYSIS General Plan The amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan (GPA 11 -01) would revise the Land Use Policy Map (Figure 2 -1) to change the land use classification of the three properties as described above. The acreage devoted to each land use designation in Table 2 -6 of the Land Use Element would also be revised to reflect the change of 2.95 acres from the Open Space to Office /Light Industrial land use designation. The estimated potential build -out square footage in the Office /Light Industrial land use designation in Table 2 -6 would also be increased from 2,400,000 square feet to 2,465,000 square feet to reflect the additional build -out potential of the 2.95 acres of land that would now be available for light industrial development. The three subject properties were designated Office /Light Industrial prior to a comprehensive General Plan update that was adopted in 2008. Consequentially, the proposed General Plan Amendment would return the subject properties to their historical land use designations. Additionally, the current use of the three properties does not support the purposes of the Open Space land use designation to provide passive and active recreational opportunities for the community. Since the three parcels are privately owned and fenced off, the public has no access to the sites and no opportunity to enjoy the land as open space. The lots are also only visible from the cul- de -sac on River Avenue and from the adjacent Whittier Narrows Golf Course. Additionally, there has been no change in use of the properties in the intervening years since the parcels were designated Office /Light Industrial. Zone Change Zoning Change 11 -01 would amend the Zoning Map of the City by reclassifying the above - described parcels from the O -S (Open Space) zone to the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone. The three parcels were also historically zoned M -1 until a Zone Change adopted in 2010 brought the zoning into consistency with the new Open Space land use designation that was adopted in 2008 by the General Plan update. Thus, the proposed Zone Change would return these lands to the M -1 zone as they had been prior to 2010. The proposed Zone Change will also allow for increased opportunities for light manufacturing and industrial development in a portion of the City that is already one of the primary centers for such economic activity in the City without negatively impacting residential neighborhoods or commercial areas of the City. City Council Meeting May 10, 2011 Pace 5 of 6 STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS Authority for and Scope of General Plans Section 65300 et seq of the California Government Code sets standards for each city to prepare, adopt, and amend a comprehensive General Plan. This plan coordinates the long -term physical development goals and objectives of the City. Government Code Sections 65860, 66473.5 and 66474 require that day -to -day development decisions, such as zoning and land subdivisions should be consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment to the General Plan will change the land use designation of three properties on River Avenue from Open Space to Office /Light Industrial. The proposed change will not eliminate any active or passive recreation areas since the subject properties are private property and not open to the public. Since the properties where designated Office /Light Industrial before being redesignated to Open Space in the 2008 General Plan, the proposed project will return the properties to their historical land use designation. Additionally, there has been no change in use of the properties in the intervening years since the parcels were designated Office /Light Industrial. MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS Chapter 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth the procedures and requirements for zone changes and amendments. A one Change may be permitted whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice justifies such action. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65860 (a), a Zone Change must be found consistent with the City's General Plan. California State law requires zoning to be compliant with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. Zone Change 11 -01 will accomplish this requirement. The revised Zoning Map is consistent with the revised General Plan Land Policy Map (Figure 2 -1) of the General Plan since the land use designation for the three subject properties will be changed from Open Space to Office /light Industrial and the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone is a corresponding zone to the Office /Light Industrial land use designation in Table 2 -5 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The public necessity, convenience, and general welfare will be served by the adoption of the revised Zoning Map, as it will allow for increased opportunities for light manufacturing and industrial development in a portion of the City that is already one of the primary centers for such economic activity in the City without negatively impacting residential neighborhoods or commercial areas of the City. The Zone Change will ensure internal consistency is maintained between the land use designation and zoning classification for the subject properties. City Council Meeting May 10, 2011 Paoe 6 of 6 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 "H "). The Initial Study is an environmental analysis of the proposed General Plan and Zone Change to determine if the proposed revisions to the General Plan and Zoning Map 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 amendments. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was distributed for a 20 -day public review and comment period between March 30, 2011 and April 18, 2011. If the Council is inclined to approve this project, the Council must make findings of adequacy with the environmental assessment and approve the Negative Declaration. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the required public posting requirements of the regular agenda notification process for General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091 and Section 17.116.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, which includes mailing a public hearing notice to all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within 300 feet of the real property subject to General Plan Amendment 11 -01 and Zone Change 11 -01, publication in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, and posting of the notice at six (6) public locations in the City. LEGAL REVIEW The attached Resolution No. 2011 -15 and Ordinance No. 915 have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. Prepared by: Paul ��� � Senior Planner Director Exhibits: A. City Council Resolution No. 2011 -15 B. Ordinance No. 915 C. Planning Commission Staff Report, April 18, 2011 D. Draft Minutes from April 18, 2011 Planning Commission Public Hearing E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 11 -05 F. Aerial Photo and Assessors' Parcel Map of properties G. Letter from Rondini, LLC, dated April 11, 2011 H. Initial Study and Negative Declaration CC RESOLUTION 2011 -15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 11 -01 FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDESIGNATING THREE PROPERTIES GENERALLY AT 2562 RIVER AVENUE FROM THE OPEN SPACE LAND USE DESIGNATION TO THE OFFICE /LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. (APN's: 5282-029-001, -002, -802) WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead adopted a comprehensive update of its General Plan in 2008, as amended in 2010, to guide decision - making about land use, circulation, resource management, public safety, noise, and the general quality of life in our City; and WHEREAS, three properties on River Avenue were designated Office /Light Industrial prior to the adoption of the General Plan and 2008, which changed the land use designation to Open Space, and the City desires to return these properties to the Office /Light Industrial land use designation; and WHEREAS, Section 65358 of the California Government Code allows the City Council, as the legislative body, to amend all or part of the City's adopted General Plan when it is deemed in the public interest; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 18, 2011, to consider the adoption of General Plan Amendment 11 -01, at which time all persons wishing to testify in connection with the General Plan Amendment 11 -01 were heard: and WHEREAS, on April 18, 2011, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead, recommended that the City Council consider a Negative Declaration as the environmental clearance for General Plan Amendment 11 -01; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on May 10, 2011, to consider the Negative Declaration and approval of General Plan Amendment 11 -01, at which time all persons wishing to testify in connection with the General Plan Amendment were heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council fully studied the proposed General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, environmental findings, and considered all public comments; and WHEREAS, City Council, having final approval authority over this project, has reviewed and considered all comments received during the public review period prior to the approval of this project. EXHIBIT A NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD HEREBY FINDS, DECLARES, AND RECOMMENDS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby makes a finding of adequacy with the Negative Declaration and HEREBY ADOPTS the Negative Declaration, as the environmental clearance for General Plan Amendment 11 -01. Section 2. General Plan Consistency with State Law Determination. The City Council finds that the Rosemead General Plan Amendment as proposed is consistent with the requirements of State law governing general plans. Section 3. Approval of the General Plan Amendment. Based on the entire administrative record before the City Council on the Project, including the above findings and all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment 11 -01. Section 4. Figure 2 -1 (Land Use Policy Map) and Table 2 -6 (Land Use and Population Estimates for General Plan Buildout) of the Land Use Element of the Rosemead General Plan are HEREBY AMENDED to read as incorporated by this reference as Exhibit A. Section 5. The Mayor shall sign this resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the adoption thereof. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of May, 2011. Steven Ly, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria Molleda, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Rachel Richman, City Attorney 2 EXHIBIT A CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemead at a meeting held on the 10th day of May, 2011 by the following vote: YES: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Gloria Molleda, City Clerk EXHIBIT A Hlplemmtly CemmWY 1. mn C mmmoelM I B Mp. 1. COmm.N.l.2 Baum: city a Rowmaaa W or�v, in<. a tooa 4,aaa YM. T. CAYaRawn.e mYV a.'F W. nr,Yn W a.mdne.m.ne �mwmm.n,ry vw m� a . rm Figure 2 -1 Official Land Use Policy Map Adopted: 4113/10 (Resolution No. 2010 -20) Amended, 1 _111 Resolution No 2011 -15) - Mwlbm tHmiry ReeWemml (6134Way a Ni Use:Reslcl a pmmmdal (60dWec:eftnes) © hift F.dMes . Ho Ce,ney R."M1.1(0d0 dW.) .MOmOUSe:InOUSMeOCammemml .Open Space . Commard.l ! Hqe lMenspy Comnu ial ®Cemetery EXHIBIT A LAND USE Table 2 -6 Land Use and Population Estimates for General Plan Buildout Notes: a) DU /AC: Dwelling Unit Per Acre, FAR: Floor Area Ratio. b) Population is estimated based on an average household size of 3.981 persons per household and a vacancy rate of 3.02% according to the 2009 California Department of Finance, Demographic Unit. c) Mixed -Use Residential /Commercial category assumes 67% residential and 33% commercial mix. d) Mixed -Use High Density Residential /Commercial category assumes 75% residential and 25% commercial mix. Table 2 -7 summarizes the projected dwelling units, estimated population, and estimated square footage for existing conditions in 2009, and what the Land Use Plan of the General Plan will yield at buildout. P A G E 2- 2 7 DRAFT: MAY 1 0 , 2 0 1 1 Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated General Plan Land Use Net Density / selling Population Potential Category Acres Intensity Units (b) Square Feet (a) LDR Low Density Residential 965 To DU /AC 6,756 26,084 0 MDR Medium Density 582 8.5 DU /AC 4,947 19,100 0 Residential HDR High Density Residential 116 19.8 DU /AC 2,297 8,869 0 C Commercial 244 0.33 FAR o 0 3,500,000 HIC High Intensity 19 0.33 FAR o 0 270,000 Commercial OLI Office /Light Industrial i35tg2 0.42 FAR o 0 2.46s.000 240a,e00 Mixed -Use 30. o DU /AC; 30. MRC Residential /Commercial 25 FAR 5 1,965 580,000 (c) MHR Mixed -Use High Density q8,o DU /AC; C Residential/ Commercial 39 2.0o FAR 14 5,46 850,000 (d) MIC Mixed -Use Industrial /Commercial 61 Loo FAR o 0 2,660,000 PF Public Facilities 368 N/A o 0 0 OS Open Space /Natural Soft N/A o 0 0 Resources CEM Cemetery 4 N/A o 0 0 Total 2,638 1 599 2 4 61,480 10, t2S.000 ie,m6e Notes: a) DU /AC: Dwelling Unit Per Acre, FAR: Floor Area Ratio. b) Population is estimated based on an average household size of 3.981 persons per household and a vacancy rate of 3.02% according to the 2009 California Department of Finance, Demographic Unit. c) Mixed -Use Residential /Commercial category assumes 67% residential and 33% commercial mix. d) Mixed -Use High Density Residential /Commercial category assumes 75% residential and 25% commercial mix. Table 2 -7 summarizes the projected dwelling units, estimated population, and estimated square footage for existing conditions in 2009, and what the Land Use Plan of the General Plan will yield at buildout. P A G E 2- 2 7 DRAFT: MAY 1 0 , 2 0 1 1 ORDINANCE NO. 915 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 11 -01 CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THREE PROPERTIES GENERALLY AT 2562 RIVER AVENUE TO THE M -1 (LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL) ZONE. (APN's: 5282 - 029 -001, -002, -802) WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has an adopted Zoning Ordinance and associated maps, including specific development standards to control development; and WHEREAS, approval of Zone Change 11 -01 would designate three properties on River Avenue as the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone, and WHEREAS, State Planning and Zoning Law, Title 17, and Chapter 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes and sets standards for approval of Zone Change applications and governs development of private properties; and WHEREAS, Section 17.116.010 of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to approve zone change applications whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practices justify such action, and WHEREAS, City of Rosemead policy encourages consistency of its Zoning Code with the General Plan and promotes separation of conflicting land uses through good planning practices, and WHEREAS, on April 18, 2011, the City of Rosemead Planning Commission considered Zone Change 11 -01 and recommended approval to the City Council after the Commission made findings that the proposed application will not have a significant impact on the environment, and WHEREAS, on April 18, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive testimony, and after hearing all testimonies from the public, the Commission recommended approval to the City Council of Zone Change 11 -01; and WHEREAS, on April 18, 2011, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 11- 05, thereby recommending approval to the City Council of Zone Change 11 -01; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2011, ten (10) notices were mailed to all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within 300 feet of the real property subject to Zone Change 11 -01, a notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on April 29, 2011, and notices were posted in six (6) public locations, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and EXHIBIT B WHEREAS, on May 10, 2011, the City Council held a public hearing to receive public testimony relative to Zone Change 11 -01, and WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them and hereby make the following determination: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Rosemead as follows: SECTION 1 . The City Council hereby makes a finding of adequacy with the Negative Declaration and HEREBY ADOPTS the Negative Declaration, as the environmental clearance for Zone Change 11 -01. The City Council, having final approval authority over this project, has reviewed and considered all comments received during the public review period prior to the approval of this project. SECTION 2. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that Zone Change 11 -01 is in the best interest of the public necessity and general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed zone change, in that the amendment to the Zoning Map return the zoning of three properties on River Avenue to their historic M -1 zoning classification, which is consistent with the adjacent land uses to north of the properties. SECTION 3. The City Council FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES that Zone Change 11 -01 is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan as follows: The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map will change the land use classification of three properties on River Avenue from the O -S (Open Space) zone to the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone. The proposed change will not eliminate any active or passive recreation areas since the subject properties are private property and not open to the public. Since the properties where classified M -1 before being reclassified to O -S in the 2010 General Plan update, the proposed project will return the properties to their historical land use classification. Additionally, there has been no change in use of the properties in the intervening years since the parcels were classified M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial). The revised Zoning Map is consistent with revised General Plan Land Policy Map (Figure 2 -1) of the General Plan since the land use designation for the three subject properties will be changed from Open Space to Office /light Industrial and the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone is a corresponding zone to the Office /Light Industrial land use designation in Table 2 -5 of the Land use Element of the General Plan. The public necessity, convenience, and general welfare will be served by the adoption of the revised Zoning Map, as it will allow for increased opportunities for light 2 EXHIBIT B manufacturing and industrial development in a portion of the City that is already one of the primary centers for such economic activity in the City without negatively impacting residential neighborhoods or commercial areas of the City. The Zone Change will ensure that internal consistency is maintained between the land use designation and zoning classification for the subject properties. SECTION 4. The Zoning Map as a part of Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code is HEREBY AMENDED to read as read as incorporated by this reference as Exhibit A: SECTION 5 . If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rosemead HEREBY DECLARES that it would have passed and adopted Ordinance No. 915 and each and all provisions thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provisions may be declared to be invalid. SECTION 6 . The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance. PASSED AND APPROVED, this 24` Day of May, 2011. Steven Ly, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria Molleda, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Rachel Richman, City Attorney EXHIBIT B STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I Gloria Molleda, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No.915 was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 10 day of May, 2011. That after said Ordinance was adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 24 day of May, 2011, by the following vote, to wit: Yes: No: Absent: Abstain: GLORIA MOLLEDA, City Clerk 4 EXHIBIT B O R -1 BMg%Famlly Residential . CJ Regional Commemal - " Opens". RC-MU00 ReaitlendaVCOmm .I Mlwe Use Desels,"M Overlay O R-2 Ugnt Multiple BeetdeMlel . CBD Cerd.1 Buslrress Memel - P -D Pmm sd Development o Deapn Owday ® R3 Medium Multiple ResbaMlel - P RMOmo00e PaRJnp Gl Nalg00omood CommeMMi . P-0 PMfeasbnel Ohba C3 MedlumC mmemMl - M-1 LIght MenukMUnng 4 - -•� Rosemead City Bousdary City of Rosemead 0 I.D00 2.000 Fee 9.000 4,000 Official Zoning Map as—en'.." GryaRmmsee meld mervallvlm maMtin wk tlNibNe eaurah IMarmeean, novnrmAea enan repnsnm0orre Mam n ^a MwmaOOn. Geha MMi prOFtlM InM «FRenWluw cMaROUmsN lx latle�n ery wry bPa uxn errlva Jra MMa1 G/CYI'0t&iN W. ®I ArM%11.11N0, 819.m_� N11, Uxe a ma aam Mell ndeMOryarRnemMNrMa�lnay m%mre s.a srcouMe annwrtwn rnt w ammr emrery at MSdw. alrerbWryCld ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE VICE -CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: APRIL 18, 2011 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 11 -01 AND ZONE CHANGE 11 -01, CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THREE (3) PROPERTIES AT 2562 RIVER AVENUE FROM THE OPEN SPACE TO THE OFFICE /LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION AND FROM THE O -S (OPEN SPACE) ZONING CLASSIFICATION TO M -1 (LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL) ZONING CLASSIFICATION. SUMMARY General Plan Amendment 11 -01 and Zone Change 11 -01 consist of City of Rosemead initiated amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate three parcels of land from the Open Space land use designation to the Office /Light Industrial land use designation. These three properties would also be reclassified on the Rosemead Zoning Map from the O -S (Open Space) zone to the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone. The three parcels of land (APN No.s 5282 -029- 001, -002, -802) are generally located at 2562 River Avenue. Two parcels are vacant and one parcel contains an abandoned multi - family residential structure. Prior to 2008 the Land Use Designation for the properties was Office/ Light Industrial and before 2010 the zoning of the properties was M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial Open Space). 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 A). The Initial Study is an environmental analysis of the proposed General Plan and Zone Change to determine if the proposed revisions to the General Plan and Zoning Map 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 amendments. EXHIBIT C Planning Commission Meeting Apnl 18, 2011 Pape 2 of 6 A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was distributed for a 20 -day public review and comment period between March 30, 2011 and April 18, 2011. If the Commission is inclined to recommend approval of this project, the Commission must make findings of adequacy with the environmental assessment and recommend that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 11 -05 (Exhibit B), a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 2011 -15 (Exhibit C) and Ordinance No. 915 (Exhibit D), amending the General Plan Land Use Element and the Zoning Map changing the land use designation and zoning classification of three (3) properties to Office /Light Industrial land use designation and the M -1 zoning classification. Property History and Description As stated above, the proposed project would redesignate three properties from the Open Space land use designation to the Office /Light Industrial land use designation and rezone the three properties from the O -S zone to the M -1 zone. The three properties are located at 2562 River Avenue. Two of the properties (APN No. 5282 - 029 -001 & -002) are owned are owned by Rondini, LLC and the third property (APN No. 5282 - 029 -802) is owned by the Southern California Gas Company. EXHIBIT C Planning Commission Meeting April 18, 2011 Page 3 of 6 The two properties owned by Rondini, LLC are approximately 0.4 acres and 2.33 acres in size. A letter from Rondini, LLC in support of the project is attached as Exhibit F. According to Rosemead Building Division records, the smaller of these two properties was originally developed with a multiple - family residence. However, the structure has sat abandoned for several years. The larger of these two parcels is covered in overgrown vegetation with no structures. The parcel of land owned by the Southern California Gas Company is approximately 0.22 acres in size and is the northern most of the three properties. This parcel is overgrown with vegetation with no visible use land use occurring on the site. A total of approximately 2.95 acres would be reclassified from the Open Space to the Office /Light Industrial land use designation. There is no new development associated with the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Prior to 2008 the Land Use Designation for the properties was Office /Light Industrial and before 2010 the zoning of the properties was M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial Open Space). The Land Use Designation was changed as part of the 2008 General Plan update in order to make it consistent with the Open Space designation for the Whittier Narrows Golf Course to the west and south and the Rio Hondo River flood control channel to the east. However, this General Plan Amendment did not take into consideration that the properties were private property that did not provide any active or passive recreational opportunities for the community. Site & Surroundina Land Uses The subject properties are currently designated in the General Plan as Open Space and is zoned O -S (Open Space). The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North: General Plan: Zoning: Land Use: South: General Plan: Zoning: Land Use: East: General Plan: Zoning: Land Use: Office /Light Industrial M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) industrial and warehouse buildings Open Space (Unincorporated Los Angeles County) O -S (Unincorporated Los Angeles County) Whittier Narrows Golf Course Open Space O -S (Open Space) Rio Hondo River flood control channel EXHIBIT C Planning Commission Meeting April 18, 2011 Page 4 of 6 West: General Plan: Open Space Zoning: O -S (Open Space) Land Use: Whittier Narrows Golf Course ANALYSIS General Plan The amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan (GPA 11 -01) would revise the Land Use Policy Map (Figure 2 -1) to change the land use classification of the three properties as described above. The acreage devoted to each land use designation in Table 2 -6 in the Land Use Element would also be revised to reflect the change of 2.95 acres from the Open Space to Office /Light Industrial land use designation. The estimated potential build -out square footage in the Office /Light Industrial land use designation in Table 2 -6 would also be increased from 2,400,000 square feet to 2,465,000 square feet to reflect the additional build -out potential of the 2.95 acres of land that would now be available for light industrial development. The three subject properties were designated Office /Light Industrial prior to a comprehensive General Plan update that was adopted in 2008. Consequentially, the proposed General Plan Amendment would return the subject properties to their historical land use designations. Additionally, the current use of the three properties does not support the purposes of the Open Space land use designation to provide passive and active recreational opportunities for the community. Since the three parcels are privately owned and fenced off, the public has no access to the sites and no opportunity to enjoy the land as open space. The lots are also only visible from the cul- de -sac on River Avenue and from the adjacent Whittier Narrows Golf Course. Additionally, there has been no change in use of the properties in the intervening years since the parcels were designated Office /Light Industrial. Zone Change Zoning Change 11 -01 would amend the Zoning Map of the City by reclassifying the above - described parcels from the O -S (Open Space) zone to the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone. The three parcels were also historically zoned M -1 until a Zone Change adopted in 2010 brought the zoning into consistency with the new Open Space land use designation that was adopted in 2008 by the General Plan update. Thus, the proposed Zone Change would return these lands to the M -1 zone as they had been prior to 2010. The proposed Zone Change will also allow for increased opportunities for light manufacturing and industrial development in a portion of the City that is already one of the primary centers for such economic activity in the City without negatively impacting residential neighborhoods or commercial areas of the City. EXHIBIT C Planning Commission Meeting April 18, 2011 Page 5 of 6 STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS Authority for and Scope of General Plans Section 65300 et seq of the California Government Code sets standards for each city to prepare, adopt, and amend a comprehensive general plan. This plan coordinates the long -term physical development goals and objectives of the City. Government Code Sections 65860, 66473.5 and 66474 require that day -to -day development decisions, such as zoning and land subdivisions should be consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment to the General Plan will change the land use designation of three properties on River Avenue from Open Space to Office /Light Industrial. The proposed change will not eliminate any active or passive recreation areas since the subject properties are private property and not open to the public. Since the properties where designated Office /Light Industrial before being redesignated to Open Space in the 2008 General Plan, the proposed project will return the properties to their historical land use designation. Additionally, there has been no change in use of the properties in the intervening years since the parcels were designated Office /Light Industrial. MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS Chapter 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth the procedures and requirements for zone changes and amendments. A Zone Change may be permitted whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice justifies such action. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65860 (a), a zone change must be found consistent with the City's General Plan. California State law requires zoning to be compliant with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. Zone Change 11 -01 will accomplish this requirement. The revised Zoning Map is consistent with the revised General Plan Land Policy Map (Figure 2 -1) of the General Plan since the land use designation for the three subject properties will be changed from Open Space to Office /light Industrial and the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone is a corresponding zone to the Office /Light Industrial land use designation in Table 2 -5 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The public necessity, convenience, and general welfare will be served by the adoption of the revised Zoning Map, as it will allow for increased opportunities for light manufacturing and industrial development in a portion of the City that is already one of the primary centers for such economic activity in the City without negatively impacting residential neighborhoods or commercial areas of the City. The Zone Change will ensure internal consistency is maintained between the land use designation and zoning classification for the subject properties. EXHIBIT C Planning Commission Meeting April 18, 2011 Page 6 of 6 PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091, this public hearing notice has been mailed to all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within 300 feet of the real property subject to General Plan Amendment 11 -01 and Zone Change 11 -01. In addition, this notice has been published in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the local agency. Lastly, this notice is also posted in six (6) public locations, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing. Prepared by: Paul Garry Senior Planner / Submitted by: XV Community evelopment Director EXHIBIT C Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 18, 2011 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Vice - Chairwoman Eng at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Hunter INVOCATION - Commissioner Herrera ROLL CALL - Commissioners Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz, Vice- Chairwoman Eng ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: City Attorney Greg Murphy, Community Development Director Wong, Senior Planner Garry, Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS Greg Murphy, City Attorney, presented the procedures and appeal rights of the meeting. Stan Wong, Community Development Director, stated that Agenda Item 4.B Downtown Rosemead Design Guidelines, will not be presented due to an noticing error and anyone wishing to speak on this item may speak under Agenda Item 2, Public Comments from the Audience. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3, CONSENTCALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes - March 7, 2011 Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, to APPROVE the Minutes of March, 7, 2011, as presented. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 11.01 AND ZONE CHANGE 11.01 - This project consist of City of Rosemead initiated amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate three parcels of land from the Open Space land use designation to the Office /Light Industrial land use designation. These three properties would also be reclassified on the Rosemead Zoning Map from the 0 -S (Open Space) zone to the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone. The three parcels of land are generally located at 2562 River Avenue. Two parcels are vacant and one parcel contains an abandoned multi - family EXHIBIT D residential structure. Prior to 2008 the Land Use Designation for the properties was Office /Light Industrial and before 2010 the zoning of the properties was M- 1(Light Manufacturing and Industrial Open Space). PC RESOLUTION 11.05 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 11.01 AND ZONE CHANGE 11- 01 CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THREE PROPERTIES GENERALLY AT 2562 RIVER AVENUE TO OFFICE/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION TO M -1 (LIGHT MANUFATURING AND INDUSTRIAL). STAFF RECOMMENDATION - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 11.05, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 2011.15 and Ordinance No. 915, amending the General Plan Land Use Element and the Zoning Map changing the land use designation and zoning classification of three (3) properties to Office /Light Industrial land use designation and the M -1 zoning classification. Senior Planner Garry presented the staff report. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked if the Planning Commissioners had any questions for staff. Commissioner Hunter asked staff why these properties have been in this condition for all these years and why the lawn had not been cut. Senior Planner Garry replied he contacted Code Enforcement and there have not been any previous code enforcement cases and, although the weeds are overgrown, they are fenced off from the public. Community Development Wong stated that a representative for the property owner is present and may address that question. City Attorney Murphy stated that before we open the Public Hearing and ask the applicant to speak are there are more questions for staff. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked staff if all the property owners were notified when the City originally did the re- designation.. Community Development Director Wong replied all affected property owners were notified per the tax assessor rule. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked staff if it is typical to include private properties in these open space designations. Community Development Director Wong replied it is not typical for a private property, but on quasi private property, for example utility companies, public schools, or the L. A County Flood Control Chanel, the property would be designated as open space use. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked if there were any other questions for staff. None Vice - Chairwoman opened the Public Hearing. Ronna Brand, representative for the new property owners, which includes herself and her two brothers, stated this property was owned by her mother for over 60 years. She also stated her mother is now 85 years old and recently released from the hospital. She explained the property had originally belonged to her mothers father. She also stated, as the new owners, they are in favor of staffs decision and are looking forward to the opportunity to do something with the property. Commissioner Herrera asked Ms. Brand if they have any current plans for the property. Ronna Brand replied that they have just acquired the property and they have not decided what to do. She also stated they have met with the electric company to change ownership and have set up an appointment to meet with a company called "Apple Tractor" to have the brush removed. Commissioner Herrera asked Ms. Brand if once the property is cleaned up if they plan to let her mother continue to live there. Ronna Brand replied that they now have an opportunity to do something else with the property but have not decided what will be done. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked if there were any other questions. None Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked if there was anyone in favor or against this project. None Vice - Chairwoman closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Commissioner Hunter made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, to ADOPT Resolution No. 11 -05, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 2011.15 and Ordinance No. 915, amending the General Plan Land Use Element and the Zoning Map changing the land use designation and zoning classification of three (3) properties to Office /Light Industrial land use designation and the M -1 zoning classification. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Wong stated that this action has been recommended to the City Council meeting to be held on Tuesday, May 10, 2011. B. DOWNTOWN ROSEMEAD DESIGN GUIDELINES - The City of Rosemead proposes to adopt Downtown Design Guidelines for Downtown Rosemead, located on Valley Boulevard between Walnut Grove Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard. The guidelines are intended to supplement the Rosemead Municipal Code and would be used during the development approval process and are intended as a reference point of expectations of quality development. The principle design criteria and architectural styles represented in the document are meant to assist in 1 * /:114119 1] the design, development, and implementation of quality architecture and site planning. Use of these guidelines will ensure that new development and redevelopment upholds a commitment to high - quality development in the City of Rosemead. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - Due to a noticing error, staff is requesting that the item be cancelled and re- noticed to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on Monday, May 2, 2011. Vice - Chairwoman Eng confirmed that this item will be rescheduled to the May 2, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. 5. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRMAN & COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Hunter asked staff why the property on the corner of Rush and Walnut Grove has a fence there all the time and if it can be removed. Community Development Director Wong replied that staff will look into this matter. 6. MATTERS FROM STAFF A. Resignation of Chairman William Alarcon Community Development Director Wong stated newly elected Councilman William Alarcon has submitted a resignation letter as Planning Commissioner. He also stated interviews of potential candidates for Planning Commissioner will be held at the next City Council Meeting of Tuesday, April 26, 2011. City Attorney Murphy stated the policy is that reorganization of the Planning Commission is in May. He also stated a fifth Planning Commissioner will be appointed soon and he recommended that the reorganization be scheduled for the second meeting in May, which will be Monday, May 16, 2011, so that the newly appointed Planning Commissioner may vote. B. Discussion of the Planners Institute held in Pasadena on Wednesday, March 9.11, 2011 Commissioner Ruiz stated that in one of the workshops he attended at the Planners Institute & Mini Expo he was informed that as Planning Commissioners we have the right to make specific recommendations on alpha- numeric, size, and different languages for signage. He would like to recommend that the English language is larger than the second language on signs on buildings. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated that she attended two workshops and one was, "How to Read an EIR over the Weekend ". She stated guidelines were given out on what to look for in those reports and shared that the project description, understanding the impact of new projects, and being able to talk to staff is very helpful. She stated the second workshop she attended was, "Producing Middle- Income Workforce & Employer Assisted Housing" workshop and presented a brief description on what this workshop entailed. Commissioner Ruiz expressed that in an EIR Report it is very important that the Commissioners receive an accurate Traffic Analysis Report so that they can determine what the type of impact it will be for the City. 4 EXHIBIT D 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, May 2, 2011. Nancy Eng Vice - Chairwoman ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary EXHIBIT D PC RESOLUTION 11 -05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 11 -01 AND ZONE CHANGE 11 -01 CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THREE PROPERTIES GENERALLY AT 2562 RIVER AVENUE TO OFFICE /LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION TO M -1 (LIGHT MANUFATURING AND INDUSTRIAL) (APN's: 5282- 029 -001, -002, - 802). WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has adopted the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and map, including specific development standards to control development; and WHEREAS, Section 65358 of the California Government Code allows the City Council, as the legislative body, to amend all or part of the City's adopted General Plan when it is deemed in the public interest; and WHEREAS, Sections 17.116 and 17.124 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to consider and recommend proposed zone changes to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on March 30, 2011, an Initial Environmental Study for the proposed General Plan and Zone Change 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 March 30, 2011, ten (10) notices were mailed to all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within 300 feet of the real properties subject to General Plan Amendment 11 -01 and Zone Change 11 -01, a notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on March 30, 2011, and notices were posted in six (6) public locations, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3), and WHEREAS, on April 18, 2011, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to General Plan Amendment 11 -01 and Zone Change 11 -01; and WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. EXHIBIT E NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission hereby makes a finding of adequacy with the Negative Declaration and HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration as the environmental clearance for General Plan Amendment 11 -01 and Zone Change 11 -01. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission finds that General Plan Amendment 11- 01, as proposed, is consistent with the requirements of state law governing general plans, including but not limited to Government Code Section 65300 and following. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that it is in the public interest to amend the General Plan Land Use Element for the purpose of revising Figure 2 -1 and Table 2 -5, to redesignate three properties on River Avenue from the Open Space land use designation to the Office /light Industrial land use designation. FINDING: The proposed amendment to the General Plan will change the land use designation of three properties on River Avenue from Open Space to Office /Light Industrial. The proposed change will not eliminate any active or passive recreation areas since the subject properties are private property and not open to the public. Since the properties where designated Office /Light Industrial before being redesignated to Open Space in the 2008 General Plan, the proposed project will return the properties to their historical land use designation. Additionally, there has been no change in use of the properties in the intervening years since the parcels were designated Office /Light Industrial. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that Zone Change 11 -01 is in the best interest of the public necessity and general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed zone change, in that the change to the Rosemead Municipal Code will provide a superior level of planning and protection to the quality and character of the City. SECTION 5. The Planning Commission FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES that Zone Change 11 -01 is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan as follows: FINDING: California State law requires zoning to be compliant with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. Zone Change 11 -01 will accomplish this requirement. The revised Zoning Map is consistent with revised General Plan Land Policy Map (Figure 2 -1) of the General Plan since the land use designation for the three subject properties will be changed from Open Space to Office /light Industrial and the M- 1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone is a corresponding zone to the Office /Light Industrial land use designation in Table 2 -5 of the Land use Element of the General Plan. 2 EXHIBIT E The public necessity, convenience, and general welfare will be served by the adoption of the revised Zoning Map, as it will allow for increased opportunities for light manufacturing and industrial development in a portion of the City that is already one of the primary centers for such economic activity in the City without negatively impacting residential neighborhoods or commercial areas of the City. The Zone Change will ensure internal consistency is maintained between the land use designation and zoning classification for the subject properties. Prior to 2010 the zoning of the properties was M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial Open Space) so the proposed project would return the properties to their historical zoning classification. Additionally, there has been no change in use of the properties in the intervening years since the parcels were classified M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial). SECTION 6. The Planning Commission does HEREBY RECOMMEND that Figure 2 -1 (Land Use Policy Map) and Table 2 -6 (Land Use and Population Estimates for General Plan Buildout) of the Land Use Element of the Rosemead General Plan be amended to read as incorporated by this reference as Exhibit A. SECTION 7. The Planning Commission does HEREBY RECOMMEND that the Zoning Map that is made a part of Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code be amended to read as incorporated by this reference as Exhibit B. SECTION 8. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of General Plan Amendment 11 -01 and Zone Change 11 -01 to change the land use designation and zoning classification of three properties on River Avenue. SECTION 9. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission April 18, 2011 by the following vote: YES: ENG, HERRERA, HUNTER, AND RUIZ NO: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE SECTION 10. The secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 18th day of April, 2011. Nancy Eng, i e- Chairwom 3 EXHIBIT E 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 18th day of April, 2011 by the following vote: YES: ENG, NO: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE HERRERA, HUNTER, AND RUIZ iry EXHIBIT E A ,r O -S (Open Space) zone to N CityGIS M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone Copyright O 2006 All Rights Reserved The information contained herein is the proprietary property of the contributor supplied under license and may not be approved except as licensed by Digital Map Products. EXHIBIT F 4 s e e a 1 L NiW u i EXHIBIT Fl Apr 11 11 02:29p Ronna Brand Aoril 11.2011 Rosemead Planning Commission City Hall 8838 E. Valley Blvd Rose mead,CA ^177" RE: 2562 River Ave./ Land Designation Dear Planning Commissioners: 323 650 -5709 I am writing to support the staff proposal to modify the General Plan designation on my family's 2.71 acre property located at 2562 River Avenue. p.2 This property has been in my family for over 60 years and we were very concerned recently when we learned that the land use designation had been switched from manufacturing (MQ to open space (OS). 1 understand that this change in use may have been done inadvertently as part of the major rewrite of your City's General Plan. We appreciate the efforts of the staff to correct this oversight and want to encourage the Commission to approve the staffs recommendation. Our family has entertained and discussed the possibility of developing this property. We look forward to returning the property to its longstanding manufacturing designation (Ml) which will certainly create a positive and advantageous opportunity for further use with assurance and confidence to maximize potential 1 want to thank the City and the staff for their cooperation and assistance in this matter. l hope the Commission will approve the staff recommendation. I plan on attending the Planning Commission meeting on April 18th, however, you can reach me at 310 - 273 -0331 if you have any questions. Thank you. Sin cerely, Ronna Mee Brand Brand Realty, Inc 2008 Realtor of the Year 2008 "Women Making a Difference" Nominee, by the Los Angeles Business journal 2007 President, Beverly Hills Greater Los Angeles Association of REALTORS ORE License - 00761640 T: 323.650.8070 F: 323.650.5709 ronna(dbrandrealty.com www.brandrealW -com Cc: Sheri Bermejo, Principal Planner 2419 1 — res[ View Dri%e. Los Ana:les_ C ; 900 -6 Plv>ne: (323 6i0 -8070 Fax: 3 2 3 1 650-527' EXHIBIT G ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CITY OF ROSEMEAD PLANNING DIVISION 8838 E. VALLEY BLVD. ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 Project title: General Plan Amendment 11 -01 (GPA 11 -01) Zone Change 11 -01 (ZC 11 -01) 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Rosemead 8838 East Valley Blvd. Rosemead, CA 91770 3. Contact person and phone number: Paul Garry, Senior Planner (626) 569 -2147 4. Project location: 5. Project sponsor's name and address: 6. General plan designation: 7. Zoning: 2562 River Avenue City of Rosemead County of Los Angeles City of Rosemead 8838 East Valley Blvd. Rosemead. CA 91770 Open Space O -S (Open Space) 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.) General Plan Amendment 11 -01 and Zone Change 11 -01 consist of City of Rosemead initiated amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate three parcels of land from the Open Space land use designation to the Office /Light Industrial land use designation. These three properties would also be reclassified on the Rosemead Zoning Map from the O -S (Open Space) zone to the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone. The three parcels of land (APN No.s 5282 - 029 -001. -002, -802) are generally located at 2562 River Avenue. Two parcels are vacant and one parcel contains an abandoned multi - family residential structure. Two of the properties are privately owned (APN. No. 5282 - 029 -001, -002) and the third property (APN No. 5282 - 029 -802) is owned by the Southern California Gas Company. The two privately owned properties are approximately 0.4 acres and 2.33 acres. The smaller of these two parcels has an abandoned multiple - family residence on it. The larger of these two parcels is covered in overgrown vegetation with no structures. The parcel of land owned by the Southern California Gas Company is approximately 0.22 EXHIBIT H acres in size. A total of approximately 2.95 acres would be reclassified from the Open Space to the Office /Light Industrial land use designation. There is no new development associated with the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan (GPA 11 -01) would revise the Land Use Map (Figure 2 -1) to change the land use classification of the three properties as described above. The acreage devoted to each land use designation in Table 2 -6 in the Land Use Element would also be revised to reflect the change of 2.95 acres from the Open Space to Office /Light Industrial land use designation. The estimated potential build -out square footage in the Office /Light Industrial land use designation in Table 2 -6 would also be increased from 2,400,000 square feet to 2,465.000 square feet to reflect the additional build -out potential of the 2.95 acres of land that would now be available for development. The three subject properties were designated Office /Light Industrial prior to a comprehensive General Plan update that was adopted in 2008. Consequentially, the proposed General Plan Amendment would return the subject properties to their historical land use designations. Zoning Change 11 -01 would amend the Zoning Map of the City by reclassifying the above - described parcels from the O -S (Open Space) zone to the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone. The three parcels were also historically zoned M -1 until a Zone Change adopted in 2010 brought the zoning into consistency with the new Open Space land use designation that was adopted in 2008 by the General Plan update. Thus, the proposed Zone Change would return these lands to the M -1 Zone as they had been prior to 2010. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting. (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The City of Rosemead is an urban suburb located in the San Gabriel Valley, 10 miles east of the City of Los Angeles. It is bounded on the north by the cities of Temple City and San Gabriel, on the west by Monterey Park and the unincorporated Los Angeles County community of South San Gabriel, on the south by Montebello, plus by El Monte and South El Monte on the east. The City is 5.5 square miles or 2,344 acres in size. Rosemead is home to a resident population of approximately 53,764 people. The land uses on River Avenue to the north of the subject parcel are zoned M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) and contain various warehouse and manufacturing buildings. The land surrounding the subject parcels to the west and south are zoned O -S (Open Space) and occupied by the Whittier Narrows Golf Course. Land immediately to the east is occupied by a Rio Hondo River flood control channel. 10. Other Agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). Approval by other agencies is not required as part of this project. 2 EXHIBIT H 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 El & Hazardous ❑ Materials Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services E] Significance Significance Systems Systems On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Air Quality ❑ Geology /Soils ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ED Findings of Significance Significance 0 1 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. ❑ 1 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. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revision or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is regyjled. /C/lcf Y /J y`� Signature Paul Garry, Senior Planner Printed Name 3 J Date For EXHIBIT H EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - speck factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more 'Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from 'Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." 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 discussion. 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. 9. The analysis of each issue should identify: (a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. EXHIBIT H ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST EXHIBIT H Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 1. Aesthetics Would the project. a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ v b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock E] El El outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its ❑ ❑ ❑ ID surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime ❑ ❑ ❑ views in the area? 'riculture and Forestry Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project. a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the E ❑ ❑ Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, ❑ El El ID 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 El El El forest land to non - forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or El El El nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? EXHIBIT H EXHIBIT H Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3. Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air ❑ ❑ ❑ quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality ❑ ❑ ❑ standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial _ ❑ ❑ ❑ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial number of people? 4 ical ReAM . Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, ❑ ❑ ❑ policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ 1:1 El 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? EXHIBIT H EXHIBIT H Less Than _ Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues I mp a ct Mitigation Impact Impa e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree ❑ ❑ prese rvation poli or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community ❑ C L. Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? S. Cultural Resources Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined ❑ ❑ ❑ in §151 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? Geology and Soils Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involv 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 13 0 liquefaction iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of El E] El topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- ❑ ❑ ❑ or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? EXHIBIT H EXHIBIT H Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code ❑ ❑ ® ❑ (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant ❑ ❑ ® ❑ impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing ❑ ❑ ❑ the emissions of greenhouse gases? 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, ❑ ❑ ❑ or disposal of hazardous 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 propo 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 E] El 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 ❑ El El hazard for people residing or working in the project area? EXHIBIT H EXHIBIT H Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ E 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? 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project. a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ E 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ E 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 after the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which ❑ ❑ ❑ E 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 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or o -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned El 1:1 E] stormwater drainage systems or provide substan additional sources of polluted ru noff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ E g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ E Boundary 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ E flows? EXHIBIT H 10 EXHIBIT H Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, ❑ ❑ ❑ including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. Land Use and Planning Would the project. 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 e ffect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or natural communities conservation plan? 11. Mineral Resources Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the ❑ ❑ ❑ regio and the residents of the state? b) Result In the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site El ❑ ❑ delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 12. Noise Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the E] El El local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agenc b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or ❑ ❑ ❑ groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels ❑ ❑ ❑ existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above ❑ ❑ ❑ levels existing without the project? 10 EXHIBIT H 11 EXHIBIT H Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 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 ❑ C 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? 13. ulation and Housing Would the project: 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 infr ast ru cture)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ replace housing elsew c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ housing elsewhere? Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable... s, ance objectives for any of the pubAMkrviceiit a) Fire Protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Police Protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 15. Recreation •. 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 acc elerated ? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of El El facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 11 EXHIBIT H 12 EXHIBIT H Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Trans po rtatio nlTraffi c Would the project. _ a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a ❑ ❑ ❑ change in location that results in 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ t) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation ❑ ❑ ❑ (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Utilities and Service Systems Would the project. a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control ❑ ❑ ❑ Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction ❑ ❑ ❑ of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of E] El E] CK existing 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 resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 12 EXHIBIT H 13 EXHIBIT H Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 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? 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a El El 1-1 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? 13 EXHIBIT H EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. AESTHETICS The City of Rosemead is located within a highly urbanized area of eastern Los Angeles County and is situated between the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the Montebello Hills to the south. The surrounding hillsides and distant mountains, as well as the Whittier Narrows Golf Course just outside the City's southeastern limit, are the dominant features of the scenic vistas along the City's borders. No state or county designated scenic highways or streets or segments thereof are located within the City's boundaries. No specific development project is being proposed in connection with the proposed amendments to the Land Use Element of the Rosemead General Plan or to the Zoning Map in conjunction with the proposed project. Additionally, there are no significant trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings or other significant scenic resources that would be impacted. Therefore, no scenic resources would be damaged by the implementation of the proposed project, no significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures would be required. The proposed project will not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the subject properties. The three properties to be redesignated are flat parcels with overgrown vegetation. No site specific development is being proposed in connection with this project; therefore, the visual character of the sites and the surrounding area would not be significantly affected by the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. 2. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES The proposed project will not result in the conversion of existing agricultural land to urban uses. The only agricultural uses in the City are landscape nurseries situated under Southern California Edison transmission lines on property zoned O -S (Open Space). While agricultural uses are a permitted use on the subject properties, since the parcels are not currently used for agricultural uses, the redesignation of the properties from Open Space to Office /Light Industrial will not eliminate any current agricultural uses in the City. 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 City is located in a highly urbanized area of Los Angeles County, and possesses no timberland or other forestry resources, nor does it have any zoning or General Plan designations for forest land, timberland or timberland production. Furthermore, the proposed project is not a development project and does not grant any development entitlements or make any land use policy changes that could result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non - forest use. The proposed project would not require any changes to the existing environment which would result in the conversion of farmland to non - agricultural uses. Therefore, no significant impacts on existing agricultural resources would occur from implementation of the project and no mitigation measures are necessary. 14 EXHIBIT H 3. AIR QUALITY Dust, both small diameter respirable matter (pm, and larger, heavier particulates, is normally the primary concern during new construction. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called "fugitive emissions' or "fugitive dust." The applicable air quality management plan for the entire City of Rosemead is the 1997 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). CEQA requires that projects be consistent with the AQMP. The AQMP provides standards of concentration for seven (7) air pollutants: ozone, carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particulate matter, sulfates, lead, as well as visibility- reducing particles. Only new or amended General Plan elements, specific plans, and significant projects need to undergo a consistency review. This is because the AQMP strategy is based on projections from local general plans. The current City of Rosemead General Plan is consistent with the AQMP. Currently, the three subject properties are designated Open Space in the General Plan and would be redesignated as Office /Light Industrial. The General Plan Amendment and associated Zone Change from the O -S zone to the M -1 zone would allow for future industrial and manufacturing development on the subject parcels. However, there is no construction activity associated with approval of this project: and therefore, no environmental impacts would occur with implementation of the project. National ambient air quality standards (AAQS) were originally established in 1971 for six (6) pollution species with states retaining the option to add other pollutants, require more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure periods. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise called "sensitive receptors." Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. The City of Rosemead straddles three AQMD Source /Receptor Areas: No. 8 (West San Gabriel Valley), No. 9 (East San Gabriel Valley) and No. 11 (South San Gabriel Valley). Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the City are documented from measurements made by the SCAQMD. The AQMD's 2008 air quality data show that the Source /Receptor Areas in which Rosemead sits exceeded either State or Federal standards on ozone, suspended particulates, and fine particulates. For other pollutants, the standard was not exceeded at any of the four monitoring stations (Area No. 9 — East San Gabriel Valley is covered by two monitoring stations). As mentioned earlier in this section, there will be no construction activity directly associated with adoption of the proposed project. and therefore, it will not contribute to emissions or the violation of air quality standards. The GPA 11 -01 and ZC 11 -01 would allow three parcels to be developed with light industrial and manufacturing uses and would increase the potential buildout previously analyzed in the General Plan by approximately 0.6 %. Subsequent development will comply with General Plan policies and the Zoning Ordinance, especially energy conservation policies identified in the City's 15 EXHIBIT H Resource Management, Land Use, and Circulation Elements. In addition, future development on the subject parcels will be reviewed and evaluated on a project -by- project basis through the City environmental clearance process to ensure that air quality impacts are fully addressed and mitigated. Therefore, GPA 11 -01 and ZC 11 -01 will not contribute to emissions or the violation of air quality standards. According to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, sensitive receptors are defined as populations such as children, athletes, and elderly and sick persons that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large. Although the City includes numerous schools and other facilities frequented by sensitive receptors, the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Map will have less than significant impacts because it is not a development project and does not propose significant amounts of new development or alterations to the existing environment of the City. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Any animal species located on the subject properties are likely limited to rodents and a variety of bird species that are able to adapt to life in an urban environment. Nonetheless, approval of the project does not involve any construction or specific development project, and therefore would not create any significant impacts to special status biological resources and no mitigation measures are necessary. Since the subject properties do not contain any significant habitat resources, and there is no direct development associated with the approval of this project, there will be no significant impacts on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local, regional, or national plans, regulations or policies. Additionally, no riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities are located within the City. Therefore, no significant impacts would result from project implementation and no mitigation measures are necessary. The proposed project is located in an urban area developed with a mixture of residential, commercial, industrial, public facilities, and public recreation areas that do not contain any wetland resources. No wetlands would be impacted by approval of the proposed project. The project site is not considered a migratory wildlife corridor due to the existing surrounding urban development. The City has adopted an oak tree preservation ordinance, contained in Section 17.100 of the Rosemead Municipal Code. The ordinance requires anyone seeking to remove, relocate, or trim an oak tree to obtain a permit before doing so, with exceptions for minor pruning. The proposed project contains no policies or actions that contradict the oak tree ordinance, and if the subject properties are ever developed they will be subject to the requirements of the ordinance. Approval of the project does not involve changes to an established policy that would biological resource. No adopted habitat development of the subject properties or allow for the degradation of any significant conservation plan, natural community 16 EXHIBIT H conservation plan, or other approved habitat conservation plan would be affected by approval of this project and no mitigation measures would be required. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES The project involves changing the land use designation of three properties from Open Space to Office /Light Industrial. Two of the three parcels are vacant and one parcel contains an abandoned multiple - family dwelling constructed in 1930. Based on the building permit history on file at the City, there is no reason to believe that the abandoned residential structure could be considered a historic resource. Therefore, the proposed project could not cause an adverse change to any historic properties potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Places, or the California Historic Landmarks, and therefore no mitigation measures would be required. The project involves changes of land use designation for three properties on the General Plan Land Use Map and the City's Zoning Map and no specific development is associated with these changes. Therefore, the project would not have any significant cultural resource impacts and no mitigation measures would be required. The project does not involve any construction activity. Therefore implementation of the project would not impact any paleontological resource, site or unique geological feature and would not impact any human remains and no mitigation measures would be required. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The General Plan Public Safety element identifies any active faults which have a potential for causing local damage and how to react to such occurrences. The primary dangers associated with seismic activity are surface rupture, ground failure, liquefaction, and ground shaking. City building regulations provide specific construction techniques required for the seismic zones. Additionally, design and construction projects must adhere to the prescribed minimum requirements to address seismic safety issues. While the project does change the land use designation and zoning classification of three properties, which could allow for the potential future development of the sites with light industrial and manufacturing uses, the project itself does not involve construction activity or occupancy that could be impacted. Therefore, implementation of the proposed changes would not have an impact regarding geology and soils, and no mitigation measures would be required. Liquefaction refers to loose, saturated sand or gravel deposits that lose their load supporting capability when subjected to intense shaking. Liquefaction potential varies based upon on -site soil composition and groundwater depth. The California Department of Conservation is mandated by the Seismic Hazards Act of 1990 to identify and map the state's most prominent earthquake hazards, including areas where earthquakes are likely to cause shaking, liquefaction, or other ground failure. The California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology has recently updated existing Seismic Hazard Maps for portions of Southern California, including the area covering the project site. However, the proposed project does not involve construction activity or occupancy that could be impacted. Therefore, 17 EXHIBIT H implementation of the proposed changes would not have an impact regarding ground failure or liquefaction and no mitigation measures would be required. Landsliding is a type of erosion in which masses of earth and rock move down slope as a single unit. Susceptibility of slopes to landslides and other forms of slope failure depend on several factors. These are usually present in combination and include, but are not limited to, steep slopes, condition of rock and soil materials, presence of water, formational contracts, geologic shear zones, and seismic activity. However, the parcels that are the subject of the proposed project are flat lots that would not be susceptible to landslides. Additionally, there are no hills or slopes near the subject properties which could pose a landslide danger to the project area. Additionally, the project does not involve construction activity or occupancy that could be impacted. Therefore, implementation of the proposed changes would not have an impact regarding landsliding and no mitigation measures would be required. There is no construction associated with the approval of this project, thereby having no potential for soil erosion or the loss of native topsoil. Therefore, implementation of the proposed changes would not have an impact regarding soils and no mitigation measures would be required. Compliance with the General Construction Activities Storm Water Permit and development of and adherence to best management practices will ensure that no substantial erosion will occur during grading and compaction of a project site. However, the proposed project does not involve any construction activity or occupancy that could be impacted. Therefore, implementation of the proposed changes would not have an impact regarding a geologic unit or soils and no mitigation measures would be required. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS In 2006, the State passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which requires the California Air Resources Board to design and implement emission limits, regulation, and other measures, such that feasible and cost - effective statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. In 2008, the State passed SB 375, which creates regional planning processes designed to reduce GHG emissions in accordance with AB 32. These processes, which have yet to be fully implemented, tie GHG reduction targets to the region's land use and transportation strategic plans. The City is committed to working within these processes to use land use policies to aid in the reduction of GHG emissions, and has taken significant steps, such as designating substantial portions of Rosemead's underutilized commercial areas for mixed -use residential /commercial development as part of its 2008 General Plan Update. The proposed amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Map are not a development project and do not grant any development entitlements; nor do they include any construction activities that could emit greenhouse gases or other substances. Currently, the Rosemead General Plan designation for the three subject properties is Open Space. The proposed project would change the land use designation for the three parcels to Office /Light Industrial and change the zoning from O -S to M -1. If the properties were developed consistent with the proposed land use designation and zoning an additional approximately 65,000 square feet of potential buildout could occur as part of the overall General Plan buildout of 10,260,000 square feet. This potential 18 EXHIBIT H increase in buildout represents a 0.6% increase in potential buildout which is a minimal amount and would represent a negligible increase in potential greenhouse gas emissions over the levels identified and studied in the 2008 General Plan update. Lastly, there is no construction activity associated with approval of this project, and therefore, no environmental impacts would occur with implementation of the project. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of any significant quantities of hazardous materials. No hazardous emissions will be associated with the proposed project. The subject properties are not on the list of hazardous waste facilities as established by government code section 65962.5. Nor are there any hazardous waste facilities in the project vicinity that are on the list required to be established by government code Section 65962.5. Therefore, project implementation would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The proposed project would not result in any safety hazards to people residing or working in the community. Therefore, no significant impacts would result from the proposed project. The proposed project would not involve any uses that would interfere with the city's emergency operations plan or with any major emergency evacuation routes out of the area. Approval of the proposed project would not 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. No significant impacts to the public or the environment would result from the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY In 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also referred to as the Clean Water Act [CWA]) was amended to provide that the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States from any point source is unlawful unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit. The 1987 amendments to the CWA added section 402(p), which establishes a framework for regulating municipal and industrial storm water discharges under the NPDES program. On November 16. 1990, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published final regulations that establish storm water permit application requirements for specified categories of industries. The regulations provide that discharges of storm water to waters of the United States from construction projects that encompass five or more acres of soil disturbance are effectively prohibited unless the discharge is in compliance with an NPDES permit. The proposed project would not be subject to the NPDES program because the project does not involve any construction activity. Therefore, the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Additionally, the proposed project will not contribute to withdrawals from an existing ground water supply. Because there is no development associated with this project, no changes to any established drainage pattern would occur upon implementation. 19 EXHIBIT H Therefore, no significant impacts with regard to drainage would result from project approval and no mitigation measures would be required. Because there is no construction associated with this project, there is no potential for the increase in stormwater runoff at any particular location. Any subsequent development would be appropriately analyzed for compliance with any state and local stormwater management programs. Therefore, no significant impact would result from approval of this project and no mitigation measures would be required. Any subsequent development would be required to comply with City permit requirements to ensure that there will be no violation of water quality or waste discharge requirements. The project does not involve any development. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No construction activity will take place with approval of this project. Any subsequent development would be required to comply with city permit requirements to ensure soil stability and flooding. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur as a result of the project and no mitigation measures would be required. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING The proposed project does not involve changes that would physically divide the established community or degrade the existing land use pattern. The proposed project does not grant any development entitlements. GPA 11 -01 and ZC 11 -01 consist of City of Rosemead initiated amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate three parcels of land from the Open Space land use designation to the Office /Light Industrial land use designation. These three properties would also be reclassified on the Rosemead Zoning Map from the O -S zone to the M -1 zone. Two parcels are vacant and one parcel contains an abandoned multi - family residential structure constructed in 1930. A total of approximately 2.95 acres would be reclassified from the Open Space to Office /Light Industrial land use designation. There is no new development associated with the proposed project. The three subject properties were designated Office /Light Industrial prior to a comprehensive General Plan update that was adopted in 2008. Consequentially, the proposed General Plan Amendment would return the subject properties to their historical land use designations. Zoning Change 11 -01 would amend the Zoning Map of the City by reclassifying the subject parcels from the O -S zone to the M -1 zone. The three parcels were also historically zoned M -1 until a Zone Change adopted in 2010 brought the zoning into consistency with the new Open Space land use designation that was adopted in 2008 by the General Plan update. Thus, the proposed Zone Change would return these lands to M -1 Zone as they had been prior to 2010. Additionally, the land to the north of the subject properties is also zoned M -1 so the new zoning for the proposed project would be compatible with the surrounding zoning. The proposed project will not 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 20 EXHIBIT H the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The action proposed with the project is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan as it amends both the Zoning Map and General Plan Land Use Map. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in a significant impact and no mitigation measures would be required. The proposed regulatory change would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan area. Therefore, no impact would result from implementation of the project and no mitigation measures would be required. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES According to the Resource Management Element of the Rosemead General Plan, 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 proposed land use change does not involve any construction activity or uses that would impact the city's established Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) for each of its land use designations. The City's General Plan Public Safety Element indicates a Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) for each land use area, of which the project will not affect. Any future development projects on the subject properties will be subject to the General Plan Noise Element policies and noise standards in the Rosemead Municipal Code. Therefore, no impacts from implementation of the project will occur and no mitigation measures would be required. The project could result in new light industrial and manufacturing development locating on River Avenue, which if it occurred, could potentially generate an increase in vehicle trips, thereby resulting in an increase in traffic- generated noise along River Avenue and local travel routes. However, the potential increase in noise along local streets would be negligible and not expected to exceed the City's land use -noise compatibility standards. There is no proposed construction activity or new uses associated with the approval of this project. Therefore, no impacts from implementation of the project will occur and no mitigation measures would be required. The proposed project will not expose people working in the City to permanent high noise levels. There is no development resulting from approval of this project. The nearest aviation facility is the El Monte Airport, located approximately one mile to the east of the City. The City does not fall within the airport's land use plan. There are no private airstrips located within the City of Rosemead or within its immediate vicinity. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur in the vicinity of a public airport or private airstrip and no mitigation measures would be required. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING The proposed land use change is not anticipated to induce substantial population growth. The proposed Office /Light Industrial land use designation and M -1 zoning classification do not permit residential uses. Furthermore. there is no specific development involved with this project that would require the extension of infrastructure 21 EXHIBIT H in an area not previously served. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. The proposed project does not involve demolition or dislocation of any structures. If the property with the abandoned multiple — family dwelling were redeveloped at some future date, there could be a reduction of three dwelling units in the City. However, this structure is in a state of disrepair and is not currently being inhabited. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Fire protection service is provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The Fire Department operates two fire stations within the City: Station No. 4 at 2644 North San Gabriel Boulevard, and Station No. 42 at 9319 East Valley Boulevard. Average response time within the City is 4:47 minutes for emergency responses, within national standards, and 6:36 minutes for non - emergency responses. No development is associated with approval of this project. Therefore, no impacts with regard to the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities would occur. Police protection services are provided to the City by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (LASD). Service is primarily administered from the Temple Station in the Region I patrol area. The station's response time goals are four to five minutes for emergency calls, eight to nine minutes for priority calls, and 30-40 minutes for routine calls. The station currently achieves all of these response time goals. Since the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Map are not a development project, they will not add population or housing to the area that would result in an increase in demand for police protection services or an increase in the LASD's response time to emergency calls. Since the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Map are not a development project, they will not add population or housing to the area that would result in an increase in demand for school facilities. All future light industrial or manufacturing development on the subject parcels will conform to the General Plan and Municipal Code. Adoption of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and revisions to the Zoning Map will not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park facilities. Even though the properties are currently designated as Open Space, they are not used for parkland or recreational facilities. The proposed project does not grant any development entitlements or propose any land use changes that would result in the construction of park facilities or lead to an increased need for park facilities. All future development that occurs under regulations proposed by GPA 11 -01 and ZC 11 -01 will be subject to site - specific environmental review by the City and comply with the applicable policies and regulations related to public service. The proposed project does not propose the construction of any public facilities, nor does it grant any development entitlements or make any land use changes that would increase the need for any public facilities in the City. No development is associated with approval of this project. Therefore, no impacts with regard to the provision of fire protection services, police services, school facilities, 22 EXHIBIT H existing park services or the provision of new park facilities would occur and no mitigation is necessary. No impacts to other public facilities have been identified. Refer to Section 17 for a discussion on utilities and service systems. 15. RECREATION The proposed project will have no direct effect on existing recreational facilities because no new development is associated with the approval of this project. The project will not introduce new permanent populations that would substantially deteriorate parks and recreational facilities through increased use. No increases in the demand for such facilities will occur as a result of this project. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. Even though the properties are currently designated as Open Space, they are not used for parkland or recreational facilities. Thus no recreational facilities would be eliminated by the redesignation of the properties from Open Space to Office /Light Industrial. The proposed project does not include, nor require, the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Existing recreational opportunities will not be affected by implementation of the project. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC There is no specific develops development rights would be g the project could result in t manufacturing facilities, which generated in the area. However . result from the project would b General Plan. lent associated with approval of this project and no anted by the approval of the proposed project. However, ie potential future development of light industrial or could potentially increase the number of vehicle trips the increased number of vehicle trips that could potentially less than significant and within the traffic model for the Table 2 -6 of the General Plan Land Use Element estimated the potential buildout of the General Plan at approximately 10,260,000 square feet. Based on the size of the subject properties (2.95 acres total), approximately 65,000 square feet of future development could be constructed at maximum buildout of the three properties if zoned M -1. This potential amount of additional development represents a 0.6% increase in the overall buildout studied in the General Plan. The small increase in the overall potential buildout would not change any of the environmental conclusions with regard to traffic impacts drawn in the Environmental Impact Report certified for the General Plan. The project does not propose any use that would cause any changes, individually or cumulatively, to the level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. The project does not propose any use which could cause any changes to air traffic patterns or a change in location which results in substantial safety risks. The project does not involve any specific development or significant regulatory change that would 23 EXHIBIT H create hazards for a subsequent development proposal. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. The project does not involve any specific development and does not grant any entitlements that would impact emergency access to the subject properties. The project does not involve any specific development that could place additional demand on the City's existing vehicle parking supply, nor does it propose alterations to the physical environment of the City that could reduce the amount of available parking. All future development will adhere to parking requirements in the City's Municipal Code. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. The General Plan Circulation Element contains Goal 2, Policies 2.1 through 2.6, and Actions 2.1 through 2.5, which concern the development of infrastructure and service to support alternative travel modes. All future potential development on the subject properties will be reviewed in accordance with these requirements. The proposed amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Map do not grant any development entitlements, nor do they contain any goals, policies, or programs that contradict or alter the alternative transportation provisions of the Circulation Element. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The City of Rosemead contracts with the Los Angeles County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District for maintenance of local sewer lines that connect to trunk lines owned and operated by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, District 15. According to the General Plan EIR, the sewers in the southern portion of the City (south of Interstate 10) are likely operating at or near capacity, while the sewer operation level in the northern part of the City is unknown. However, since the proposed project does not grant any development entitlements or make any significant alterations to the existing physical environment of the City, it will not cause or contribute to increases in wastewater generation. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No development will directly result from approval of this project. However, because the City is largely developed, mainline water and sewer infrastructure is in place. Connections to the mainline water and sewer will be required for any subsequent development. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. No construction activity will directly result from approval of this project. However, because the City is primarily built -out, storm water drainage facilities are in place, and any subsequent development would require on -site facilities to convey storm water flows to the area drainage facilities in accordance with city regulations. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. The City of Rosemead is currently complying with AB 939, which requires the City to adopt and implement a Source Reduction and Recycling Element and to divert 50 percent of the solid waste from its landfills by the year 2000. The City has entered into a multijurisdictional agreement as a member of the Los Angeles Area Integrated Waste Management Association, which has an approved diversion rate of 59 percent. The City 24 EXHIBIT H will continue to comply with the all federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. Additionally, since no development rights will be granted with the approval of the proposed project, no significant impacts with respect to solid waste disposal would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Based on the preceding analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Additionally, the proposed amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Zoning Map are not a development project. GPA 11 -01 and ZC 11 -01 consist of City of Rosemead initiated amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate three parcels of land from the Open Space land use designation to the Office /Light Industrial land use designation. These three properties would also be reclassified on the Rosemead Zoning Map from the 0 -S zone to the M -1 zone. Two parcels are vacant and one parcel contains an abandoned multi - family residential structure constructed in 1930. A total of approximately 2.95 acres would be reclassified from the Open Space to the Office /Light Industrial land use designation. There is no new development associated with the proposed project. The three subject properties were designated Office/Light Industrial prior to a comprehensive General Plan update that was adopted in 2008. Consequentially, the proposed General Plan Amendment would return the subject properties to their historical land use designations. Zoning Change 11 -01 would amend the Zoning Map of the City by reclassifying the above - described parcels from the O -S zone to the M -1 zone. The three parcels were also historically zoned M -1 until a Zone Change adopted in 2010 brought the zoning into consistency with the new Open Space land use designation that was adopted in 2008 by the General Plan update. Thus, the proposed Zone Change would return these lands to M -1 Zone as they had been prior to 2010. The project does not grant any development entitlements or significantly change the land use policies of the General Plan, nor does it make any significant alterations to the physical environment of the City. The project will not have a cumulatively considerable impact on the environment, as approval of the project proposes to redesignate just 2.95 acres of the 2,638 acres that make up the City. Therefore no significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required. Based on the preceding analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Therefore no significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required. 25 EXHIBIT H References 1. City of Rosemead General Plan (adopted 2008; amended 2010) 2. City of Rosemead General Plan EIR 3. City of Rosemead Municipal Code 4. California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 5. South Coast Air Quality Management District 2007 AQMP www.agmd.gov 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District 2008 Air Quality Data www.agmd.gov 7. California Integrated Waste Management Board www.ciwmb.ca.gov 8. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Studies Zones (El Monte Quadrangle, 1999) www.conservation.ca.gov 9. California Department of Conservation. Division of Mines and Geology, Seismic Hazard Zones (El Monte Quadrangle, 1999) www.conservation.ca.gov 10. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, www.dpw.Iacounty.gov 11. State Water Resources Control Board, http: / /geotracker swrcb.ca.gov /map/ 12. Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Fullerton Municipal Airport www.ocair.com 13. Federal Emergency Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map 00059C0036H 14. California Integrated Waste Management Board, www.ciwmb.ca.gov 15. California Department of Finance, www dof.ca.gov 26 EXHIBIT H