The URL can be used to link to this page

PC - Item 4A - Municipal Code Amendment 11-02 Pertaining to Signs on Public PropertyL�lm ' ' •, ' TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: JUNE 20, 2011 SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 11 -02, AMENDING THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO SIGNS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD SUMMARY Municipal Code Amendment 11 -02 is a City initiated amendment to revise Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC). The purpose of the amendment is to revise Section 17.104.050 of the RMC to allow freestanding signs on public property when such signs are located in a redevelopment project area, within 200 feet of property zoned P -D (Planned Development), and within 75 feet of the Interstate 10 Freeway. The physical characteristics of such signs, including but not limited to height and total area would be subject to the approval of the City Council. Currently, signs are prohibited on public property. 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 Municipal Code Amendment to determine if the revision to the RMC 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 May 27, 2011 and June 20, 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. Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2011 Page 2 of 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 11 -08 (Exhibit B), a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 916 (Exhibit C), amending the Rosemead Municipal Code to allow signs on public property under certain circumstances. Property History and Description On December 10, 1979, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 510, which established regulations for signage throughout the City. These regulations included a list of signs prohibited in any zone in the City. One of these provisions is now codified in Section 17.104.050D of the RMC and states that signs are prohibited "...on any utility poles, traffic sign posts, traffic signals, or signs on any parkway or sidewalk." The Community Development Commission is in negotiations with a private party to sell the Glendon Hotel located at 8832 Glendon Way, approximately 300 feet north of the Interstate 10 (San Bernardino) Freeway. The CDC would like to offer the party the ability to locate a sign with freeway visibility in order to assist the hotel in attracting business travelers. At this time, there are no private parcels on which such a sign could reasonably be located in a manner and at a cost suitable to the private party. To cooperate with the CDC in the redevelopment of the Glendon Hotel (the hotel would be renovated and expanded once it is sold), the City is considering allowing the hotel to construct approximately 55 -foot tall freestanding sign adjacent to the freeway on City property. The City has identified an area along the Olney Avenue cul -de -sac at the south end of Ivar Street as a possible location for such a sign. Any such freestanding sign would also likely include signage to identify the location as within the City of Rosemead. In order for such a sign to be constructed in the public right -of -way of Olney Avenue, the Zoning Code would need to be amended to revise the current prohibition in Section 17.105.050D on signs in parkways or sidewalks. The following amendment to Section 17.104.050 is proposed with the new text shown with bold and underline text: "17.104.050 Signs prohibited in any zone. A. Signs that create a safety hazard to pedestrian and vehicular traffic; B. Any ground or roof sign if the proposed sign would adversely affect access to air, light or visual corridors by adjacent residential property; C. Any portable, folding, A -frame or box sign, or similar signs on rollers, casters or otherwise designed to be portable; D. Signs on any utility poles, traffic sign posts, traffic signals, or signs on any parkway or sidewalk, except for freestanding signs on Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2011 Paae 3 of 4 public property located in redevelopment project areas (though the signs may remain after redevelopment of the project area has been completed), are within 200 feet of property zoned P -D and within 75 feet of the Interstate 10 (San Bernardino) Freeway, the physical characteristics, including but not limited to height and total area of which are subiect to the approval of the City Council; E. Freestanding signs displayed from trucks, autos, trailers or other vehicles except public buses; F. Revolving and /or flashing signs." ANALYSIS The proposed revision to the sign regulation is narrowly defined to allow freestanding signs only on public property that meet specific location criteria. The only location in the City that currently meets all the location criteria is a 200 foot by 75 foot area of land located within Olney Avenue public right -of -way west of Ivar Street and adjacent to the 1 -10 Freeway (Exhibit D). This land is also directly west of the parcel of land where the UFC Gym is located at 8920 Glendon Way. The proposed amendment has been drafted to provide the City Council with the authority to review the design of any sign that is proposed on public property that meets the location criteria contained within the proposed amendment. This will help ensure that the design, height, and other physical characteristics of any proposed sign is compatible with the surrounding area. MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS Chapter 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth the procedures and requirements for zone changes and amendments. Zone changes and municipal code amendments may be permitted whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice justifies such action. California State law requires zoning to be compliant with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. Municipal Code Amendment 11 -02 will accomplish this requirement. The revised sign regulations will support General Land Use Plan Policy 5.6 to capitalize "on the high visibility provided by the adjacent freeway through high quality design and signage" for developments adjacent to the freeway by allowing improved signage opportunities adjacent to the freeway. The public necessity, convenience, and general welfare will be served by the adoption of the revised signage regulations that provide for limited opportunities for freeway adjacent signage on public property to support local businesses PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the required public posting requirements of the Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2011 Pape 4 of 4 regular agenda notification process for Municipal Code Amendments, pursuant to Section 17.116.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, which includes publication in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and posting of the notice at six (6) public locations in the City. Prepared by: Submitted by: Aa Paul Garry Stan Wong Senior Planner Community Development Director Exhibits: A. Initial Study and Negative Declaration B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 11 -08 C. Draft Ordinance No. 916 D. Aerial Photo of affected area Project title: CITY OF ROSEMEAD PLANNING DIVISION 8838 E. VALLEY BLVD. ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 2. Lead agency name and address: 3. Contact person and phone number: 4. Project location: 5. Project sponsor's name and address: 6. General plan designation: 7. Zoning: Municipal Code Amendment 11 -02 City of Rosemead 8838 East Valley Blvd. Rosemead, CA 91770 Paul Garry, Senior Planner (626) 569 -2147 Citywide City of Rosemead County of Los Angeles City of Rosemead 8838 East Valley Blvd. Rosemead. CA 91770 N/A ?Wk 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.) Municipal Code Amendment 11 -02 consists of a City of Rosemead initiated amendment to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC). The purpose of the amendment is to revise the regulations for signs to allow freestanding signs in the public right -of -way if such signs are located in a redevelopment area, are within 200 feet of property in the P -D (planned Development) zone, and are within 75 feet of the 1 -10 freeway. Currently Section 17.104.050 of the RMC prohibits "signs on any utility poles, traffic sign posts, traffic signals, or signs on any parkway or sidewalk." The proposed amendment would add an exception to this regulations "for freestanding- signs in the public right -of- way that are in a Redevelopment Area, within 200 feet of property in the P -D zone, and within 75 feet of the 1 -10 freeway, the height and design of which is subject to approval of the City Council." 9. Surrounding land uses and setting. (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) EXHIBIT A 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 proposed amendment would allow freestanding signs to be established in the public right -of -way in only one small location within the City. The area is an approximately 15,000 square foot area within the Olney Avenue public right -of -way south of the 3500 block of Ivar Avenue, west of the property where the UFC Gym is currently located. Olney Avenue abuts the 1 -10 freeway. The land uses to the north of the Olney Avenue right -of -way is zoned C -3D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) and contains a self- storage facility and a hotel. To the west of the Olney Avenue right -of -way is a flood control channel in the O -S (Open Space) zone and then single family residences in the R -1 (Single Family Residential) zone. The land to the east of the Olney Avenue right -of -way is where the UFC Gym is located and is zoned P -D (Planned Development). To the south of the Olney Avenue right -of -way is the 1 -10 Freeway. 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. 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 ❑ Hazards & Hazardous ❑ Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services El Significance Significance Systems Systems On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Air Quality ❑ Geology /Soils ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation El Findings of Significance Significance Z I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project may have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL MPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revision or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Paul Garry Senior Planner Printed Name For FWAn;3r r_3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action 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. 4 EXHIBIT A ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 5 EXHIBIT A 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 El vista? — - -- -- — — .. .............. -----_----...---- b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock El 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ surroundings? - --- - - -- - .._.. - - - -- ---------------------------------------------------------------.-...------------------..---------- d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime ❑ ❑ ® ❑ views in the area? 2. Agriculture 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 (9997) 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? - -..... -... - - -- - .............. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------..---------..-...---- b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, ❑ ❑ ❑ or a Williamson Act contract? ------ ......_--- .. - -- ----- _ ---- - --- ...---- --------- . -- -- -- - -- ----- ------ ---- - ---- --- c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause ..- - ---- rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section ❑ ❑ ❑ 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of 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 11 nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? 5 EXHIBIT A 6 EXHIBIT A Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With , , Significant No' Environmental Issues Impact Mitiga tiorr Impact Impact " 3.',, Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quaiity 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 El El El 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 El El ❑ substantial number of people? 4. Biological Resources Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, 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, El El El 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 El El 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? 6 EXHIBIT A Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact( e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree ❑ ❑ ❑ --------......................... preservation policy or ordinance? _.. ..... ---------- ----- -------- ------ _.....--- - ----- - - - -- - -... --- ._._... f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community El El 1:1 Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 5. Cultural` Resources Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined ❑ ❑ ❑ -----.... ---- -- - in §15064.5? -. _ ...... _ .... _ ................... _.......................-- ------------------------------ ---------------------- - --------- ---------- - --- - --------------------------------------- - ----- - b) _ Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ❑ ❑ _......_......... 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 1:1 El El interred outside of formal cemeteries? 6.. Geology and Soils Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of ._._ loss, injury or death involving: _...--- -- - - - - -- -- - -- - --------- -- ----------- ----------..._- i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or ❑ ❑ ❑ based on' other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. - - - - - - -- .. ......... - - ..._._.. - - - .- ...... - - ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? -- -- - ................ - --- ----------- - ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ liquefaction? ............. ......-- --......----- --..... --- ..—...._ ..-- ----- -- - - - -- -- - -- .._........._....... ---....._.__ - - -- - - - - -- ---...---------------- iv) Landslides? .................. .............---- ----- -....- - -- .. ... -------------.-.-.-.-_.-.-....-.-.-...-..----- ❑ --- ----- ----- ❑ --- -- -....-- --.- ....--- ❑ -- -. -..- - b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of 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 A 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 El El ® El (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? ------- - - ---- ---._--------- - ---- -------- -- -- ------ ------ - - ----- — - — ._.- .- .- .- .....__. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater El El El disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 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 El El El waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or - .................. proposed school? - -- ----- ........... - - - --... - -- ------------ -- ..... ----------------._-_.-.-.--..-_----.-- ------- ---------------------- d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code 65962.5 and, as a result, ❑ ❑ ❑ would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? --.......... -------- - ._ .... - ........ - e) - -- - -- --__ ... ................... ---- -- .....- For a project located within an airport land use ----- ----- -- - - - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - -- plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a- public airport or El El 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 El hazard for people residing or working in the project area? EXHIBIT A 9 EXHIBIT A Less Than Potentially. Significant Less Than Significant Wtti Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ - - - -- discharge requirements? - - - -- - ------------------- ...............-.... ---- --- ----- --------------------------- ----------- - ---- - ---------------------- - ------ ---- b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production ❑ ❑ ❑ rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been - -- -- - - - - -- granted? - -- - -... -------- ------- ----- ---------- - --- ----- ---- --- -.------------------------------------------------- - ----- - --------- ----.-._.-.-....-.- ..---- __--- _-..- ._..--- ----------- . c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which ❑ ❑ ❑ would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? - - - - - - - -- d) - - - - - ------------------------ -- Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in .......- ...............---. flooding on- or off -site? .-- .- .- .....---- -._...--- - - - - -- -- — .....-- -.- .- .. - - - -- - ..._..._ ..... ----------..-------..-- .- ..- ..- ...--- ---- --- -- - -- - -- -- e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned El El ❑ stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? .... - -- -- ----------- f) -- -------- -...- - - - -- -- .. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? - - - - -- - - ..._ -. -.. - . -.. - .. -.... El El ❑ - -- - - .- . -. -.. - -- -- --- ---- ----- --- -- ...__.... g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ flows? 9 EXHIBIT A 10 EXHIBIT A 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? ------- - ------------- - --- -------- - _............ El 11 ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ E coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? .............__ ... - - - - - -- --- - -- - -- - .... - - - - -- .. .... - .................. - --- ......... -... - ------ - --- --- -.- ....---- -....- ..- -- ---- c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or natural communities conservation plan? 11. Mineral Resources Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the ❑ ❑ ❑ region and the residents of the state? --- ------ --- ----- -- -- ----- - - -- - -- -- ------ - ----------------- . b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site El El 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 El 1:1 El local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure -of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ❑ ❑ ❑ groundborne 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 A 11 EXHIBIT A 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 11 El El 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 El El El residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 13. Population and Housing Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes El El El and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? -- --------------------- -- -.- .- .- ..---- ---- -- - - - -- -- .... -- - ..- .- ........................ -- -- --- -- --- -- -- --- - --- -- - b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? -- ---- - - - - --- --------------- _-------------------------------------- --- c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ housing elsewhere? 14. 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 service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 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 accelerated? ------------------ ............. - -- ........................ .... -. -.. - ... .... ...------ - - - - ............. - .................... -- - ---- -.- .- ..- - -- - -. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or --- ------- - -------------- - ---- --------------------------- - ----------- -... require the construction or expansion of El El El recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 11 EXHIBIT A 12 EXHIBIT A Less Than Potenfially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact ` Mitigation Impact Impact' 16. Transportation/Traffic 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? El E] ❑ - ....... ------------------------- - - - f) -- -- - -- - - - ... .._.. -- Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation ❑ ❑ ❑ (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 17. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 12 EXHIBIT A 13 EXHIBIT A Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact I 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 A 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 amendment to the Zoning Code. The proposed amendment would allow signage in a very limited area of public right -of -way within the City of Rosemead. 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. While the proposed amendment will allow freestanding signage in the public right -of -way near the 1 -10 Freeway, the height and design of any future signage would be subject to review and approval by the City Council. This would ensure that design will respect the aesthetics of the surrounding area and be compatible with the visual character of the surrounding area. Therefore, the visual character of 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). The proposed project will only allow signage in a limited area of public right -of -way within the City and will not affect land uses on private property. The area on Olney Avenue where freestanding signs in the public right -of -way may be located is 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 A 3. AIR QUALITY Dust, both small diameter respirable matter (pm,o) 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. The proposed project does not include the development of any occupiable structures and no construction activity is associated with approval of this project. 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 proposed project would merely amend regulations in the Zoning Code to enable freestanding signs to be developed in a limited area of public right -of -way within the City. Subsequent development will comply with General Plan policies- and the Zoning Ordinance, especially energy conservation policies identified in the City's Resource Management, Land Use, and Circulation Elements. In addition, any future development of signage in the public right -of -way 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. 15 EXHIBIT A Therefore, MCA 11 -02 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 Zoning Code 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 in landscape portions of the public rights -of -way 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 area that could be affected by future sign development in the public right -of- way does 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 signage is ever developed within the public right -of -way it will be subject to the requirements of the ordinance. Approval of the project does not involve construction or changes to an established policy that would allow for the degradation of any significant biological resource. No adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved habitat conservation plan would be affected by approval of this project and no mitigation measures would be required. 5. J CULTURAL RESOURCES The project involves amending the Zoning Code to allow freestanding signage in the public right -of -way, subject to several geographical constraints that would limit any future development of freestanding signage in the public right -of -way to a small area within the right of way of Olney Avenue west of Ivar Avenue. There is no reason to believe that there are any historic resources in this small area which is developed with roadway, sidewalks, and landscaping. 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 amending the Zoning Code to allow freestanding signage in the public right -of -way, subject to several geographical constraints that would limit any future development of freestanding signage in the public right -of -way to a small area within the right -of -way of Olney Avenue west of Ivar Avenue and no specific development is associated with this change. Therefore, the project would not have any significant cultural resource impacts and no mitigation measures would be required. The project does not involve project would not impact any and would not impact any required. GEOLOGY AND SOILS any construction activity. Therefore implementation of the paleontological resource, site or unique geological feature human remains and no mitigation measures would be 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. The proposed project does not involve construction activity or occupancy that could be impacted. Therefore, implementation of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code 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, implementation of the proposed changes would not have an impact regarding ground failure or liquefaction and no mitigation measures would be required. 17 EXHIBIT A 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 area of public right -of- way that could be developed with freestanding signage in the future is flat and would not be susceptible to landslides. Additionally, there are no hills or slopes near the Olney Avenue right -of -way 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 Zoning Code 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. 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 18 EXHIBIT A 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. 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. 19 EXHIBIT A 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. MCA 11 -02 consists of a City of Rosemead initiated amendment to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code to revise the regulations for signs to allow freestanding signs in the public right -of -way if such signs are located in a Redevelopment Area, are within 200 feet of property in the P -D (Planned Development) zone, and are within 75 feet of the 1 -10 Freeway. There is no new development associated with the proposed project. 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 the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The action proposed with the project is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan as it merely amends the Zoning Code regulations for signage. 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 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. 20 EXHIBIT A 13. 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING The proposed Municipal Code Amendment is not anticipated to induce any population growth. There is no specific development involved with this project that would require the extension of infrastructure 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. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. 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 Sheriff's 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 Zoning Code 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 Zoning Code 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. Any future development of signage in the Olney Avenue right -of -way will conform to the General Plan and Municipal Code and will be reviewed and approved by the City Council. Adoption of the proposed amendment the Zoning Code will not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park facilities. The public right -of -way where signage could be developed in the future is currently used for roadway, sidewalks, and parkway landscaping. The area is 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 MCA 11 -02 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 could result in the future development of freestanding signage on a limited amount of public facilities (e.g., public right -of -way on Olney Avenue). However, *:cu =3rr_1 it 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, 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. The public right -of -way that would be eligible for the establishment of freestanding signage is not used for parkland or recreational facilities. Thus no recreational facilities would be eliminated by the amendment to the Zoning Code to allow freestanding signage in certain areas of public right -of -way. 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. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC There is no specific development associated with approval of this project and no development rights would be granted by the approval of the proposed project. However, the project could result in the potential future development of freestanding signage in the areas of public right -of -way that meet the geographical limitations in the proposed amendment. However, any such signage would not be constructed within any roadway or in a location that would interfere with traffic circulation. 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 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. Any future signage constructed in the 22 EXHIBIT A public right -of -way would be designed to avoid interference with traffic circulation and emergency access. 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. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Code does not grant any development entitlements, nor does it 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 not likely be required for any future signage that might be developed as a result of implementation of the proposed project. 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 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. 23 EXHIBIT A 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 amendment to the Zoning Code, is not a development project. MCA 11 -02 consists of City of Rosemead initiated amendments to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code to revise the regulations for signs to allow freestanding signs in the public right -of -way if such signs are located in a Redevelopment Area, are within 200 feet of property in the P -D (Planned Development) zone, and are within 75 feet of the 1 -10 Freeway. There is no new development associated with the proposed project. 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 to allow for the development of freestanding signage in a limited area of public right -of -way in 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. 24 EXHIBIT A 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.aqmd.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.lacounty.gov 11. State Water Resources Control Board, http: / /,qeotracker.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, wwwdof.ca.gov 25 EXHIBIT A PC RESOLUTION 11 -08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 11 -02 AMENDING SECTION 17.104.050 RELATING TO SIGNS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. WHEREAS, Section 17.116.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth procedures and requirements for municipal code amendments; and WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has adopted the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including specific development standards, to control development; and WHEREAS, Section 17.116.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to consider and recommend proposed municipal code amendments to the City Council; and WHEREAS, Municipal Code Amendment 11 -02 revises regulations for the placement of signs on public property in the Rosemead Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, on May 27, 2011, an Initial Environmental Study for the proposed Municipal Code Amendment 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 May 27, 2011, a notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune specifying the public comment period and the time and place for a public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on June 20, 2011, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Municipal Code Amendment 11 -02; and WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that Municipal Code Amendment 11 -02 is in the best interest of the public necessity and general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed municipal code amendment, in that the change to the Rosemead Municipal Code will 1 EXHIBIT B provide a superior level of planning and protection to the quality and character of the city. California State law requires zoning to be compliant with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. Municipal Code Amendment 11 -02 will accomplish this requirement. The revised sign regulations will support General Land Use Plan Policy 5.6 to capitalize "on the high visibility provided by the adjacent freeway through high quality design and signage" for developments adjacent to the freeway by allowing improved signage opportunities adjacent to the freeway. The public necessity, convenience, and general welfare will be served by the adoption of the revised signage regulations that provide for limited opportunities for freeway adjacent signage on public property to support local businesses SECTION 2. The Planning Commission does HEREBY RECOMMEND that the Section 17.104.050 (Signs prohibited in any zone) of the Rosemead Municipal Code be amended to read as follows: 17.104.050 Signs prohibited in any zone. A. Signs that create a safety hazard to pedestrian and vehicular traffic; B. Any ground or roof sign if the proposed sign would adversely affect access to air, light or visual corridors by adjacent residential property; C. Any portable, folding, A -frame or box sign, or similar signs on rollers, casters or otherwise designed to be portable; D. Signs on any utility poles, traffic sign posts, traffic signals, or signs on any parkway or sidewalk, except for freestanding signs on public property located in redevelopment proiect areas (though the signs may remain after redevelopment of the project area has been completed), are within 200 feet of property zoned P- D and within 75 feet of the Interstate 10 (San Bernardino) Freeway, the physical characteristics including but not limited to height and total area of which are subject to the approval of the City Council; E. Freestanding signs displayed from trucks, autos, trailers or other vehicles except public buses; F. Revolving and /or flashing signs. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of Municipal Code Amendment 11 -02, revising standards for signs on public property within the City of Rosemead. SECTION 4. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on June 20, 2011 by the following vote: YES: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: W SECTION 5. 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 20th day of June, 2011. Chair City of Rosemead, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: Gregory M. Murphy, Planning Commission Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP 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 20th day of June, 2011, by the following vote: YES: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Stan Wong, Secretary City of Rosemead, California 3 EXHIBIT B ORDINANCE NO. 916 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 11 -02 AMENDING SECTION 17.104.050 RELATING TO SIGNS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. WHEREAS, Section 17.116.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth procedures and requirements for municipal code amendments; and WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has adopted the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including specific development standards, to control development; and WHEREAS, Section 17.116.010 of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to approve municipal code amendments whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practices justify such action; and WHEREAS, Municipal Code Amendment 11 -02 revises regulations for the placement of signs on public property in the Rosemead Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, on May 27, 2011, an Initial Environmental Study for the proposed Municipal Code Amendment 11 -02 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 June 20, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive testimony, and after hearing all testimonies from the public, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 11 -08 recommending approval to the City Council of Municipal Code Amendment 11 -02; and WHEREAS, a notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on July 1, 2011, and notices were posted in six (6) public locations, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the City Council public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on July 12, 2011, the City Council held a public hearing to receive public testimony relative to Municipal Code Amendment 11 -02; 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: 1 EXHIBIT C 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 Municipal Code Amendment 11 -02. 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 Municipal code Amendment 11 -02 is in the best interest of the public necessity and general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed Municipal Code Amendment in that the change to the Rosemead Municipal Code will provide a superior level of planning and protection to the quality and character of the city. SECTION 3. The City Council FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES that Municipal Code Amendment is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan as follows: California State law requires zoning to be compliant with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. Municipal Code Amendment 11 -02 will accomplish this requirement. The revised sign regulations will support General Land Use Plan Policy 5.6 to capitalize "on the high visibility provided by the adjacent freeway through high quality design and signage" for developments adjacent to the freeway by allowing improved signage opportunities adjacent to the freeway. The public necessity, convenience, and general welfare will be served by the adoption of the revised signage regulations that provide for limited opportunities for freeway adjacent signage on public property to support local businesses SECTION 4. Code Amendment. Section 17.104.050 (Signs prohibited in any zone) of the Rosemead Municipal Code is HEREBY AMENDED to read as follows: 17.104.050 Signs prohibited in any zone. A. Signs that create a safety hazard to pedestrian and vehicular traffic; B. Any ground or roof sign if the proposed sign would adversely affect access to air, light or visual corridors by adjacent residential property; C. Any portable, folding, A -frame or box sign, or similar signs on rollers, casters or otherwise designed to be portable; D. Signs on any utility poles, traffic sign posts, traffic signals, or signs on any parkway or sidewalk, except for freestanding signs on public property located in redevelopment project areas (though the signs may remain after redevelopment of the project area has been completed), are within 200 feet of property zoned P- D and within 75 feet of the Interstate 10 (San Bernardino) Freeway, the physical characteristics, including but not limited to height and total area of which are subject to the approval of the City Council; 2 EXHIBIT C E. Freestanding signs displayed from trucks, autos, trailers or other vehicles except public buses; F. Revolving and /or flashing signs. SECTION 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted Ordinance No. 916 and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 6. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the manner required by law. SECTION 7. Effective Date. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from its date of adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of July, 2011. ATTEST: Gloria Molleda, City Clerk City of Rosemead, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: Rachel Richman, City Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP Steven Ly, Mayor City of Rosemead, CA 3 EXHIBIT C 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. 916 was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 12th day of July, 2011. That after said Ordinance was adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 26th day of July, 2011, by the following vote, to wit: Yes: No: Absent: Abstain: GLORIA MOLLEDA, City Clerk 4 EXHIBIT C r \ 88 ft r CityGIS Copyright 02006 RII 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.