CC - Item 7B - Municipal Code Amendment 11-02 Revise Regulations Pertaining to Signs on Public Property"RRORATED y_
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD CITY
COUNCIL
FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER
DATE: JULY 12, 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.
This item was presented to the Planning Commission for consideration on June 20,
2011. At that hearing the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Municipal Code
Amendment and, at the conclusion of the hearing the Planning Commission, adopted
Resolution No. 11 -08 recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 916
(Exhibit "A "). The Planning Commission staff report, meeting minutes, and Resolution
No. 11 -08 are attached as Exhibits "B ", "C ", and "D ", respectively.
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 move to Introduce for First Reading, by title only, Ordinance No.
916 (Exhibit "A ") to amend the Rosemead Municipal Code to allow signs on public
property under certain circumstances and to bring back Ordinance No. 916 to the
City Council meeting of July 26, 2011, for consideration of adoption.
City Council Meeting
July 12, 2011
Page 2 of 4
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 City could potentially realize significant economic development benefits by having
the flexibility to permit freestanding signs on public property located within
redevelopment project areas on a case -by -case basis. For example, 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 likely include
signage to identify the location as being within the City of Rosemead.
In order to provide the needed flexibility to permit freestanding signs on public property
with redevelopment areas, the Zoning Code would need to be amended to revise
Section 17.105.050D prohibiting 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
completed), are within 200 feet of property zoned P -D and within 75
feet of the Interstate 10 (San Bernardino) Freeway, the physical
E. Freestanding signs displayed from trucks, autos, trailers or
other vehicles except public buses;
F. Revolving and /or flashing signs."
City Council Meeting
July 12, 2011
Page 3 of 4
ANALYSIS
The proposed revision to the sign regulation is narrowly defined to allow freestanding
signs only on public property that meet specific location criteria. An example of a
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 I -10 Freeway (Exhibit E). 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
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 F). 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 City Council
City Council Meeting
July 12, 2011
Page 4 of 4
is inclined to approve this project, the City 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 publication in the San Gabriel Valley
Tribune and posting of the notice at six (6) public locations in the City.
LEGAL REVIEW
The attached Ordinance No. 916 has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
Prepared by:
Submitted by:
*6a
Qvlv" 0.
Paul Garry 4F
Stan Wong
Senior Planner
Community Development Director
Exhibits:
A. Ordinance No. 916
B. Planning Commission Staff Report, June 20, 2011
C. Draft Minutes from June 20, 2011 Planning Commission Public Hearing
D. Planning Commission Resolution No. 11 -08
E. Aerial Photo of affected area
F. Initial Study and Negative Declaration
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 A
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 11 -02 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 A
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.
Steven Ly, Mayor
City of Rosemead, CA
ATTEST:
Gloria Molleda, City Clerk
City of Rosemead, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Rachel Richman, City Attorney
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
3 EXHIBIT A
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 12 day of July, 2011. That after
said Ordinance was adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the
26 day of July, 2011, by the following vote, to wit:
Yes:
No:
Absent:
Abstain:
GLORIA MOLLEDA, City Clerk
4 EXHIBIT A
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
5'T'.if-3BRE
Planning Commission Meeting
June 20, 2011
Page 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
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."
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
EXHIBIT B
Planning Commission Meeting
June 20, 2011
Page 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:
A \ -
Paul Garry Stan Wong
Senior Planner Community-Development Director
_ ea • - m
-D----Aerial-Rhote-ef-affeete"fea—
EXHIBIT B
Minutes of the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 20, 2011
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission 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 - Vice - Chairwoman Eng
INVOCATION - Commissioner Saccaro
ROLL CALL - Commissioners Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz,
OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, City C
Director Wong, Senior Planner Garry, Planning Tech
Lockwood
REORGANIZATION OF CHAIRPERSON
Commissioner Saccaro made a motion,: seconded by
Chairwoman Eng for Chairperson.
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz, Saccaro
No: None
Abstain: None
Eng
Ruiz to nominate Vice-
Commissioner Saccaro made a motion to nominate Commissioner Ruiz for Vice -
Chairperson, a second was not needed as there are no other nominations.
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz, Saccaro
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE
City Clerk Molleda administered the Oath of Office for Planning Commissioners Herrera, Hunter,
and Ruiz.
1 EXHIBIT C
1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS
Greg Murphy, City Attorney, presented the procedures and appeal rights of the meeting.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
None
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes - May 16, 2011
B. Extension of Zone Variance 10 -03
Vice - Chairman Ruiz made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Saccaro, to approve the
Minutes of May, 16, 2011, as presented and the Extension of Zone Variance 10.03.
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Eng, Hunter, Ruiz, Saccaro
No: None
Abstain: Herrera
Absent: None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 11.02, AMENDING THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL
CODE TO REVISE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO SIGNS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY IN
THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD - 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._,
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.
Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT
Resolution No. 11.08, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT
Ordinance No. 916, amending the Rosemead Municipal Code to allow signs on public
property under certain circumstances.
2 EXHIBIT C
Senior Planner Garry presented staff report.
Chairwoman Eng asked if there were any questions for staff.
11150 MIT
Chairwoman Eng opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on
this item.
None
Chairwoman Eng closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Ruiz made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, to ADOPT
Resolution No. 11.08, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance
No. 916, amending the Rosemead Municipal Code to allow signs on public property under
certain circumstances.
Vote resulted in:
Yes:
Eng, Herrera,
No:
None
Abstain:
None
Absent:
None
B. CONDITIONAL' USE PERMIT 10.09.On November 18, 2010, Derrick Hang, submitted a
Conditional Use Permit application requesting to establish and operate a garment
manufacturing business within an existing commercial unit located at 8819 Garvey
Avenue in Unit A -1. The subject site is`located in the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and
PC RESOLUTION 11 -09 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10 -09, FOR THE OPERATION OF A
GARMENT "MANUFACTURING BUSINESS LOCATED AT 8819 GARVEY AVENUE,
WITHIN UNIT Al, IN THE M -1 (LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL) ZONE.
Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE
Conditional Use Permit 10.09 and ADOPT Resolution 11 -09 for a period of six (6)
months subject to conditions of approval.
Planning Technician Casillas presented staff report.
Chairwoman Eng asked if there were any questions for staff.
3 EXHIBIT C
Commissioner Herrera asked staff if this business has been operating prior to this Planning
Commission meeting without a business license and permits.
Planning Technician Casillas replied yes.
Chairwoman Eng asked staff to clarify surrounding land uses and asked what type of mixed -
use this site is considered.
Community Development Director Wong replied that mixed -use in Rosemead is usually referred to
as residential combined with commercial use, but this application is a mixed -use of industrial and
offices.
Chairwoman Eng asked staff if the other three garment factories; operating at this location currently
have permits and licenses to operate.
Planning Technician Casillas replied yes.
Chairwoman Eng asked staff how long has this business been
Planning Technician Casillas replied
Vice - Chairman Ruiz asked staff if there
Planning Technician Casillas replied that the floor plan shows a small area provided for a break
room.
Vice - Chairman Ruiz expressed concern that all applicable state labor laws be posted and available
for review.
Planning Technician Casillas explained that this is not a requirement of the Planning realm or
zoning code. She stated that the applicant will be required to obtain a State of California Garment
Manufacturing license which includes inspections of the business and enforcement of all applicable
laws by the state.
City Attorney Murphy if this is something that the City should
require before it
City Attorney Murphy replied that this would be an operational matter and agrees with staff that this
would fall under the legislation of a State Licensing Agency.
Chairwoman Eng asked staff if the applicant already has a state license to operate.
Planning Technician Casillas replied the applicant is available to answer that question. She
also stated that this is a requirement that would need to be met under the Conditions of Approval
prior to receiving the City's final approval.
Chairwoman Eng stated that she noticed the applicant submitted their application in November
2010, and asked if it usually takes this long to process a Conditional Use Permit.
Planning Technician Casillas replied no, and explained that the delay was due to a language
barrier.
Commissioner Hunter questioned that the parking as the staff report reads that for 1,448 square
feet, four parking spaces will be required, and that there are six employees plus the owners all
working at the same time. She asked staff if there will be sufficient parking.
Community Development Director Wong explained that the Mui
based on square footage of the building and building size, and
also stated the applicant is in compliance with the Municipal Co(
Commissioner Hunter asked staff where the
Community Development Director Wong
Municipal Code.
Chairwoman Eng stated that the staff
and the current requirement is 64 par
address this parking concern.
Chairwoman Eng
applicant.
None
is
states
were any questions for the
or questions for staff.
Eng closed
Conditional
subject to c
Vote resulted in:
Yes:
No:
Abstain:
Absent:
and asked for a motion.
i motion, seconded by Commissioner Saccaro, to APPROVE
and ADOPT Resolution 11.09 for a period of six (6) months
Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz, Saccaro
None
None
None
Community Development Director stated the decision made tonight by the Planning Commission is
final unless it is appealed within 10 days.
cipal Code parking requirement is
iot the number of employees. He
regarding parking requirements.
if there is not enough parking.
aired to follow the direction of the
of 84 parking spaces at this site
- e is sufficient parking spaces to
5. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRMAN & COMMISSIONERS
None
6. MATTERS FROM STAFF
Community Development Director Wong stated that he would like to
are two upcoming events sponsored by the City of Rosemead. The
July Parade and Carnival to be held on Monday, July 4, 2011 at I
event is the Grand Opening and Dedication of the new Aquatic Cel
be held on July 9, 2011 at Garvey Park.
remind the Commission there
rst event will be the Fourth of
Park. The second
h Zone ", which will
7. ADJOURNMENT
The next regular Planning Commission m
to City Hall being closed for the Fourth of
meeting will be held on Monday, July 18,
iday, July 4, 2011 will be cancelled due
The next regular Planning Commission
/_\11111Ix.911
f 1 METV&
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 D
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 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.
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: ENG, HERRERA, HUNTER, RUIZ, AND SACCARO
NO: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
2 EXHIBIT D
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.
Nancy Eng, Chairwoman
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: ENG, HERRERA, HUNTER, RUIZ, AND SACCARO
NO: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Stan Wong, Secretary,
City of Rosemead, California
3 EXHIBIT D
1
MENEMEMEEM 88 ft
N CityGIS
Copyright 02006 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.
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
PLANNING DIVISION
8838 E. VALLEY BLVD.
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770
1. Project title:
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
N/A
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.)
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 -31D (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.
EXHIBIT F
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
❑
Agriculture Resources
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
Hazards & Hazardous
❑
Materials
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Public Services
El
Significance
Significance
Systems
Systems
❑
Air Quality
❑
Geology /Soils
❑
Hydrology/Water Quality
❑
Noise
❑
Recreation
El
Findings of
Significance
Significance
Z T, ff k - _ e
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Q 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.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project may have a "potentially significant impact' or "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
3 EXHIBIT F
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.
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.
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 F
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
a)
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
El
El
El
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
vista?
_
. .
...........................
.-
b)
..... .. -------- -- ------ - ----------
Substantially damage scenic resources,
-...................................................
- - - -- ..
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
El
El
El
0
outcroppings, and historic building within a state
agricultural use?
I ...................................... I-, .....................
I - - - --- - - _
...................... - .............
---- ---- ---
..............
scenic highway?
.. .. .. .......... _. ----------- --- _- - ......................... ....., .......... I..., ...................... --_-----------
El
............
---------- - - - - ...................................
c)
Substantially degrade the existing visual
- - -
.. . ............... I....., ------ - -- -- - -- - -- -
c)
........... I .. .. ........ I ........... I....., ............ 11 ----- -- --- ------ .......... - ..........
Conflict with existing zoning for or cause
.- .............. -----
character or quality of the site and its
❑
❑
0
❑
-------------_-----
surroundings?
- - __ .................... I.., ....... I-, ----------- - .........................
..........................
I ----------- - - __
.......... ........... -
d)
Create a new source of substantial light or glare
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
❑
❑
❑ E
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
❑
❑
0
❑
Production (as defined by Government Code
views in the area?
section 51104(g))?
a)
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
El
El
El Z
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
.............................
agricultural use?
I ...................................... I-, .....................
I - - - --- - - _
...................... - .............
---- ---- ---
b)
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
El
El
El N
or a Williamson Ac contract?
Act tra
- - -
.. . ............... I....., ------ - -- -- - -- - -- -
c)
........... I .. .. ........ I ........... I....., ............ 11 ----- -- --- ------ .......... - ..........
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
❑
❑
❑ E
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 0
forest land to non-forest use?
e)
Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
El
El
El E
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
EXHIBIT F
6 EXHIBIT F
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant ' with Significant No
. Environmental-Issues
impact Mitigation Impact impact
3. `Air Qualify
Where available, the significance criteria established established by the applicable air, quality management or
atrpollution cdntloidistrict may be relied upon to make the fallowing 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?
.....I... ........... ... ----------------- --- .....
... __ _ .
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
El El E]
pollutant conce ntrations?
.......... .. . .. ... . .
. .. -.
.......... ......... - . -- - -- .......
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
El 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,
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Servic
............................ . -------------------- - - ----- .............
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
Wil dlife 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 0
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 F
EXHIBIT F
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less
- ,Significant
With
Significant
No
Errvironmentai 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
El
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.
--- .- .. -. -. ......................... I........ ....
------ ......-
._. - -. -.. ..........................
.. ... ... - -- -
-- -- -.._._.
c)
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
❑
❑
❑
geologic feature?
.......... - 111111111 . . ... .. ... .................. .
d)
Disturb any human remains including those
El
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?
------- ._ ... - -- ..... ..
- .........................
E] _-
El
❑
iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including
El
El
El
liquefaction?
- . -. .........
....
........ ......... - ........ -.
iv) L
..........
❑
-..... -
El
...........................................
El
b)
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
El
❑
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 F
EXHIBIT F
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
hVoutd 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
environ
- ..... ......... . ..........
----------------
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
................ .
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
El 1:1 E]
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 F
9 EXHIBIT F
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Signifwant With Significant No
Environmentallssues
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
El El El
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
El El El
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner, which would result in
flooding g on- or off -site?
..... - ...
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
El 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
El El El
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
............
flood haza delineation map?
.... ...... .. _.......... ......... ........
_.............. -. ..................... ........ _.__.
h) Place within a 1 00 year flood hazard area
structures, which would impede or redirect flood
❑ ❑ ❑
flows?
9 EXHIBIT F
10 EXHIBIT F
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than'
Significant - With' Significant No
Environmental Issues
lmpact Mitigation' , impact impact
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
El El El
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
- ..... - _.- . -........... - ... - .................... - . --- _ -..
i) Inundation by seiche tsunami, or mudflow?
❑ ❑ ❑
70.E Lana Use and Planning
Would the project: '
a) Physically divide an established community?
........ ---- . -. -.- .....I.... ...............................
❑ ❑ ❑
--- -- .. -.- .. ......................................................... ............. _
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
envir onmental effect?
.......- ... -. -... -. -.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
El El El
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
E] 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 El El
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
-- ......... ......... -- I ------------------ ----- - - --
--- ------- ... ........ ...................... -- --- --
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 F
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
0
public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
.....................
.............. I .... .. .. .. .. ...... .......... - --------------- - --------- - - - ------ I ............
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
. .............................
-------------
airstrip, would the project expose people
El
1:1
El
E
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
13.
Populailon afid Housing
Would the project.
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes
El
El
El
El
z
and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
---------- I-- - .... I ............................................. - ................ ..........
..................... .......
........... ............ -
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
❑
❑
❑
0
replacement housing elsewhere?
--- - ------ -- -1-1- .............. ............. ........ .......... 1 1111111 -- -- - - -_.
.........
c) Displace substantial numbers of people
necessitating the construction of replacement
❑
❑
❑
H
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 orphysically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios,, response times or other perf6rmance objectives for any of the
public services.
a) Fire Protection?
❑
El
❑
.....
..... .............................
b) Police Protection?
I ----------------
❑
❑
.........................
❑
. .. .. .. ......... .. .... ............ ---------------- --- I ------ ......................
c) Schools?
I I -
❑
------------------ - -
❑
. . ................. ..............
El
.......- ........ 1.1.-.-.,.,.,-.-.-, ------------ - --- - - - - ----- ...................
d) Parks?
-
El
--------- -
❑
---- -- . . . ........................ ..........
❑
1 11
z
--- 1-1-1- 1 .......... .. .. .. .. .. I-- .. .. .. .. .. .. I ........ --------------------- - - - ---------
e) Other public facilities?
......................... .........
❑
- ---
❑
- - ------ ----- I ........................ ----
❑
11.11,
z
15: Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
❑
❑
❑
E
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
z
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
11 EXHIBIT F
12 EXHIBIT F
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant nth Significant No
Enwiionmental Issues
impact Mitigation impact impact
16.I Transportation/Traffic
"W.ould
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
El F-1 El El
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
....... -.
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
--- 111 - -_ .. ... .. . .. .... .. .. .. . .. ... ........ ........
...._.. -. -.. .. --
b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
❑ El El El
county congestion management agency for
des ignated roads or highways?
—..
......... - -- -
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
El E] El
change in location that results in substantial
safety ris ks? .....................................................
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
El El El
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
....... ...... - - - -- - -..._ .... ---------------- ................................................................................................
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
_.___
- ..-
❑ El El
..... . -- - -_ ..... .......- ............
...... .... . .... .. .. .. -- .. .
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
El El El
existing facilities, the construction of which could
— ..
cause significant environmental effects?
....... .. . ...... ...... ........ . - 111 -
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and
El El El
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
12 EXHIBIT F
13 EXHIBIT F
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With ; 'Significant No
EnvitonmentalIssues
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
El El El
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
E] El El
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or
- .- . -. -. -.
prehistory?
...... _.
b)
Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
El El El
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 F
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 F
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.
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 F
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.
16 EXHIBIT F
5. 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 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. 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 F
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 F
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 F
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 F
13. 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.
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 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,
21 EXHIBIT F
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. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC
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 F
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 F
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 F
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.gg.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: / /geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov /mom/
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
r