PC - Item 5B - Public Haring of Tentative Parcel Map 71692 - 8929 Emerson PlaceI
ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: JULY 18, 2011
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 71692 (Originally filed as TPM 70753)
8929 EMERSON PLACE
SUMMARY
Charles Tran & Duc Tran have submitted an application for a Tentative Parcel Map to
subdivide one (1) existing 19,920 square foot parcel into three (3) parcels. The existing
house at the front of the lot would remain and the subdivision would allow for the
construction of two (2) additional houses. The subject site is located at 8929 Emerson
Place in the R -1 (Single Family Residential) zone.
Environmental Determination
Section 15315 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempt
projects that consist of minor land division of property in urbanized areas zoned for
residential, commercial, or industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is
in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are
required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are
available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous
two (2) years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater 20 percent.
Accordingly, Tentative Parcel Map 71692 is classified as a Class 15 Categorical.
Exemption pursuant to Section 15315 of the CEQA guidelines.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE Tentative Parcel Map
71692 and ADOPT Resolution 11 -11 with findings, subject to fifty -eight (58)
outlined in Exhibit "B" attached hereto.
Project History and Description
The subject property is located in a single - family residential area on Emerson Place
between Ivar Street and River Avenue. Emerson Place is a dead -end street accessed
from the east from River Avenue. The subject site consists of one (1) parcel to be
subdivided into three (3) parcels; one (1) conventional lot and two (2) flag lots. The
Planning Commission Meeting
July 18, 2011
Page 2 of 21
tentative parcel map was originally submitted as TPM 70753. It has come to the City's
attention that there was a clerical error in the issuance of this number for this
subdivision and the applicant has obtained a new number (71692) from the Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works for this proposed subdivision.
The subject site consists of one (1) parcel of land, totaling approximately 19,920 square
feet (0.44 acres). According to the Los Angeles County Assessor's records, the site is
currently developed with one (1) single - family home, which was constructed in 1936.
Site & Surrounding Land Uses
The General Plan designates the area wherelthe site is located as Low Density
Residential. On the zoning map, it is designated R -1 (Single - Family Residential). The
site is surrounded by the following land uses:
►He"11
General Plan: Low Density Residential
Zoning: R- 1- (Single Family- Residential)
Land Use: Residential
South:
General Plan:
Low Density Residential
Zoning:
R -1 (Single Family Residential)
Land Use:
Residential
Planning Commission Meeting
July 18, 2011
Paae 3 of 21
East:
General Plan:
Zoning:
Land Use:
West:
General Plan:
Zoning:
Land Use:
Low Density Residential
R -1 (Single Family Residential)
Residential
Low Density Residential
R -1 (Single Family Residential)
Residential
Three -Lot Subdivision
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing parcel into three (3) lots, in
accordance with the City's Flag Lot Subdivision Ordinance. Lot 1 will have a gross lot
area of 6,310 square feet. Lot 2 will have a gross lot area of 6917.5 square feet and a
net lot area of 5,087.25 square feet. Lot 3 will have a gross lot area of 6692.5 square
feet and a net lot area of 5,083.75 square feet. The gross and net lot areas of each lot
comply with the minimum 5,000 square foot lot size required in the R -1 Zone.
As shown on the Tentative Parcel Map, the conventional lot (Lot 1) has been developed
with a new private driveway for vehicular access on the west side of the lot, and Lots 2
and 3 will be served by a separate, shared common driveway. The common driveway
width will be 18 feet to the east of Lot 1 and measure 20 feet wide to the east of Lots 2
and 3. Both driveways are accessed from Emerson Place.
A 20 -foot wide by 30 -foot long Fire Department turnaround will be dedicated to the City
at the front of the new common driveway that will serve Lots 2 and 3. The purpose of
this dedication is to provide an area for Fire Department emergency vehicles to better
serve the entire street. Since Emerson Place is a 50 -foot wide dead end street without
adequate room for emergency vehicles to turn around at the end of the street, the
proposed "hammerhead" turn - around that will be dedicated to the City on the subject
property will serve improve access for emergency vehicles. .
The map was distributed to various agencies for their review on April 22, 2010. The
agencies made their comments and the City Engineer has checked the parcel for its
accuracy. There are no unusual or special conditions that were requested by any of the
outside public agencies.
By subdividing the land, the opportunity for individual home ownership becomes a
possibility, thus creating a higher standard of property maintenance, which is difficult to
achieve if the units are occupied as rentals. Lastly, the General Plan Land Use element
specifies the density for Low Density Residential properties as 0 -7 units per acre. The
proposed project will be developed at a density of approximately 6.56 dwelling units per
acre.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 18, 2011
Page 4 of 21
Development Standards
The subject parcel is zoned R -1 (Single - Family Residential). Staff has verified that the
existing structure on Lot 1 will be in compliance with the development standards of the
R -1 (Single - Family Residential) zone, with one exception. Section 17.16.060 of the
Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) requires a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet
or ten (10) percent of the lot width, whichever is greater. The proposed width of Lot 1 is
65 feet, which requires a 6' -6" side yard setback. However, due to the location of the
existing single family home on the proposed Lot 1, a side yard setback of only 5' -9" can
be provided from the newly created side property line on the east.
Due to the hardship to the property that would result from having to remove nine (9)
inches of the existing home on Lot 1 in order to comply with the RMC setback
requirements, the Community Development Director has granted a twenty (20) percent
slight modification, as authorized by Section 17.16.210 of the RMC, to allow the existing
home to encroach into the newly required side yard setback. In support of the
applicant's request for a slight modification, the applicant obtain signatures from six
neighboring property owners consenting to the reduced side yard setback. The signed
letters are attached as Exhibit D.
Development
Standard
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot Area
Minimum Required
6,000
6,000
6,000
Provided
6,310
6,917.5
6,692.5
Front Yard Setback
Minimum Required
25'
20'
20'
Provided
25'
20'
20' -5"
Side Yard Setback
Minimum Required
6' -6'
8' -1"
6-2"
Provided
5-9" - 6-6"
6 8' -1"
6' -3" — 7' -8"
Rear Yard Setback
Minimum Required
19' -6"
114' -10"
16'x"
Provided
20' -2"
1'5' -0"
20' -0"
Architectural Plans
As indicated above the existing house will remain on the property: The applicant-has
indicated that Lots 2 and 3 would be developed with single family homes in the future.
However, since single family homes are permitted by right in the R -1 Zone, the design
of the future homes is not subject to review as part of TPM 71692. The design of - the
existing home that will remain on lot 1 is required to demonstrate conformance with the
development standards that apply to that lot, such as setbacks, parking, floor area. The
applicant is proposing to demolish and existing garage at the rear of he existing_ home
and to convert a portion of the front of the house into a new two -car garage in order for
the existing house to fit within the confines of the new lot lines. With the exception of the
Planning Commission Meeting
July 18, 2011
Paae 5 of 21
east side yard setback as described above, the renovated existing home on Lot 1 will
comply with all development standards in the R -1 zone.
The submitted site plan and architectural plans include floor plans and elevations for
future homes on Lots 2 and 3. The purpose of the plans is to provide the Commission
and community with a sense of the orientation of the buildings on the lots and the
compatibility of the homes to the surrounding area. The applicant will be responsible for
designing any future homes on Lots 2 and 3 in compliance with the development
standards in the R -1 zone applicable at the time of construction.
Landscaping and Fencinq
The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan that indicates that the subdivision will
include new landscaping with a combination of trees, sod, shrubs, and vines. A variety
of plants and ground covers have been chosen. These plant types include Evergreen
Pear Trees, Crape Myrtle Trees, Carolina Laurel Cherry, Variegated Mock Orange,
Juniper, Iceberg Rose, India Hawthorn, New Zealand Flax, French Lavender, Orange
Daylily, Lily of the Nile, Ivy Geranium, Tall Fescue, and Creeping Fig Vines. Each
parcel will be equipped with an automatic irrigation system. A final landscape plan and
irrigation plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits.
As illustrated on the site plan, new concrete block walls that will have a painted stucco
finish to match the buildings' exteriors will be installed along the side and rear property
lines of Lots 1 and 2. The existing block walls onsite will be maintained and treated with
the same painted stucco finish. A condition of approval has been incorporated into
Resolution No. 11 -11 to require all new perimeter walls to be split face block.
Opposition Letters
On July 13, 2011, the Planning Division received three letters (Exhibit E) from residents
in the area raising various concerns about the proposed three (3) lot subdivision. The
letters indicated concern for additional traffic that would be generated by any future
homes that would be built on lots 2 and 3. Additionally, one letter raised concern about
the location of the new driveway on Lot 1 which would be approximately 15 feet from
the west property line. Planning Division staff and the City Engineer have reviewed the
location of the proposed driveway and have determined there would not be enough
room at the end of the street for vehicles backing out of this proposed driveway to make
a- full turning movement in the public street to drive eastbound on Emerson Place
without - driving onto the driveway of the property at the west end of the street. For this
reason the City Engineer is recommending that Condition of Approval No. 40 be placed
on the subdivision to require that the centerline of any new curb cut on Emerson Place
for the existing house on Lot 1 be placed a minimum of 34 feet from the west property
line and that any new driveway have a maximum width of 16 feet. Staff believes that
this condition will move any new driveway far enough to the east on Lot 1 so that turning
movements from a new garage on Lot 1 will not impact any other private properties on
the street. In order to comply with this condition the applicant may chose to relocate the
garage and still have it face Emerson Place or redesign the front house to add a new
Planning Commission Meeting
July 18, 2011
Paoe 6 of 21
garage at the rear of Lot 1 with access from the common driveway serving Lots 2 and
3.
Soils Report
The California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey has identified
the location of the project site within an area susceptible to seismically induced
liquefaction. Liquefaction is the sudden failure! and fracturing of saturated ground
resulting from an earthquake, which can cause structural failure of buildings, roadways,
bridges, etc. For this reason, a soils report was prepared for this project by Cal Land
Engineering, Inc. The City's independent geology consultant has reviewed the report
and has deemed it acceptable as presented. Additionally, the City's independent
engineering geotechnical consultant has reviewed the report and has deemed it
acceptable for the feasibility level of the permitting process, however, they are
requesting to review the grading and final development plans prior to building plan
check submittal. Staff has added a condition of approval to assure that this requirement
is met.
Municipal Code Requirements
Section 66474 et seq of the Subdivision Map Act describes the grounds for approving a
subdivision map. In addition, Chapter 16.08 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides
subdivision regulations for minor subdivisions (4 or less lots). The following are findings
that must be made in order to approve a tentative parcel map:
• The map will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to
the property, or improvements in the immediate vicinity.
The large size and depth of the subject lot would allow the lot to be subdivided
and developed with new single - family residences without creating detrimental
visual or privacy impacts to the surrounding parcels. The project site is located
within a low density residential General Plah designation and Zoning district. The
subdivision is designed within the parameters of the low density definition of 0 -7
units per acre with approximately 6.56 units per acre. The homes will be built
within the adopted development standards of the R -1 (Single - Family Residential)
zone and are not anticipated to be detrimental to the public welfare.
The proposed division will not be contrary to any official plan, policy or standards
adopted by the City.
The site is designated for the proper land use designation to permit such a
development. The R -1 zone allows for residential uses at a density of one unit
for each 6,000 square feet of lot area. The proposed parcels and residential
units meet the required parcel size standards. The proposed front lot (Lot 1) will
have a total lot area of 6,310 square feet. Lot 2 will have a net lot area of
Planning Commission Meeting
July 18, 2011
Page 7 of 21
5,087.25 square feet and a gross lot area of 6,917.5 square feet. Lot 3 will have
a net lot area of 5,083.75 square feet and a gross lot area of 6,692.5 square feet.
• Each proposed parcel conforms in area and dimension to the City codes.
The proposed flag lots and conventional lot dimensions comply with the minimum
requirements for both flag lot and conventional lot subdivisions. According to
Section 17.16.080 of the Rosemead Municipal Code a conventional lot shall have
a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet. Section 17.16.140 of the Rosemead
Municipal Code requires flag lots to have a minimum developable lot area of
5,000 square feet, exclusive of vehicle access leg or common driveway access
easements. The proposed conventional lot, Lot 1, will have a total lot area of
6,000 square feet. The proposed flag lots, Parcel 2, will have a developable lot
area of 5,087.25 square feet and Parcel 3 will have 5,083.75 square feet.
• All streets, alleys, and driveways proposed to serve the property have been
dedicated and that such streets, alleys, and driveways are of sufficient design to
provide adequate access and circulation for vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
The City Engineer has reviewed this proposed subdivision relative to the
adjacent right -of -way. Access to the proposed parcels is provided from Emerson
Place, which is a fully improved public local street. Based on this review, it is
determined that the design and construction of this project would preserve the
public safety and provide adequate access and circulation for vehicular and
pedestrian traffic with the dedication of a 20 foot wide by 30 -foot long Fire
Department turnaround. This dedication will be constructed like a public alley
with radial curb returns and handicap accessible sidewalk ramps adjacent to the
d riveway.
• Alley easements and covenants required for the approval of the Tentative Map or
plot have been duly executed and recorded.
The proposed subdivision will create one (1) conventional lot and two (2) flags
lots with two. (2) _separate driveways. The conventional lot (Lot 1) has been
developed with a private driveway for vehicular access, and Lots 2 and 3 will be
served by a -separate, shared common driveway measuring 18 -20 feet wide
adjacent to Lot -1 and 20 feet wide adjacent to Lots 2 and 3. Both driveways will
be accessed from Emerson-Place. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the
applicant will be required to record a covenant for ingress and egress, fire lane,
and maintenance of the shared common driveway that serves Lots 2 and 3.
In addition to the general findings required by Section 66474 et seq of the Subdivision
Map Act for the approval of a Tentative Parcel Map, City of Rosemead Ordinance No.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 18, 2011
Page 8 of 21
901 requires additional necessary findings for approval of Flag Lot subdivisions. The
following are findings that must be made in order to approve Flag Lot divisions:
• That the design is justified by topographic conditions, or the size and shape of
the property prohibits conventional lot division practices.
The subject lot is narrow and deep, measuring at 83.00' X 240.00', which does
not allow for conventional 50' wide lot subdivisions.
• That the proposed Flag Lot division is not so at variance with the existing
neighborhood pattern or development as to create detrimental visual or privacy
impacts.
Staff has worked closely with the designer in designing a project that will not
create detrimental visual or privacy impacts. Block walls will be installed along
the existing and proposed property lines of each lot. Staff has incorporated
conditions of approval to assure that all proposed residential development will
conform to building orientation and setback requirements of the Rosemead
Municipal Code. In addition, there are r ine (9) existing flag lot subdivisions
within 300 -feet from the subject site, including the lot abutting the property to the
east. Therefore, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the established
neighborhood pattern of development.
Public Hearing Process
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which
includes a 300' radius public hearing notice to seventy -three (73) property owners,
publication in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, and postings of the notice at the six (6)
public locations and on the subject site.
Prepare d by:
_661 / 2
Paul Garry y V
Senior Planner
Attachments:
Submitted by: PP
Stan Wong �o(
Community Development Director
A. Resolution 11 -11
B. Conditions of Approval
C. Site /Floor /Elevation Plans /Landscaping Plans and Tentative Parcel Map 71692
D. Applicant's Petition
E. Letters of Opposition received July 13, 2011
F. Assessor's Parcel Map (5289- 017 -047)
Planning Commission Meeting
July 18, 2011
Page 9 of 21
EXHIBIT "A"
PC RESOLUTION 11 -11
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 71692 TO SUBDIVIDE ONE
EXISTING PARCEL INTO THREE PARCELS. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 8929 EMERSON PLACE IN THE R -1
(SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE (APN: 5289- 017 -047).
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2010, Charles Tran & Duc Tran filed an application for a
Tentative Parcel Map, proposing to subdivide one existing parcel into three parcels; and
WHEREAS, 8929 Emerson Place is located in the R -1 (Single - Family
Residential) zone; and
WHEREAS, Sections 66473.5 and 66474 of the California Government Code
(Map Act) and 16.08.130 of the Rosemead Municipal Code specify the criteria by which
a subdivision map may be granted:
• The map will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor Injurious to
the property;
• The proposed subdivision will not be contrary to any official plan;
• Each proposed parcel conforms in area and dimension to the City codes;
• All streets, alleys, and driveways proposed to serve the property have been
dedicated and that such streets, alleys and driveways are of sufficient design
to provide adequate access and circulation for vehicular and pedestrian
traffic;
• Easements and covenants required for the tentative map have been executed
and recorded; and
WHEREAS, Section 66474 et seq of the Subdivision Map Act for the approval of
a Tentative Parcel Map, City of Rosemead Ordinance No. 901 requires additional
necessary findings for approval of Flag Lot subdivisions.
WHEREAS, Sections 66451 et seq. of the California Government Code (Map
Act) and Section 16.08.130 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning
Commission to approve, conditionally approve, or deny tentative subdivision maps; and
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2011, seventy -three (73) notices - were sent to property
owners within a 300 -foot radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted
in six (6) public locations and on -site, specifying the availability of the application, plus
Planning Commission Meeting
July 18, 2011
Page 10 of 21
the date, time, and location of the public hearing for Tentative Parcel Map 71692, and
on July 8, 2011, the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune; and
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2011, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and
advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Tentative
Parcel Map 71692; 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:
i
SECTION 1 . The Planning Commission HEREBY DETERMINES that Tentative
Parcel Map 71692 is Categorically Exempt under Section 15315 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines where the project is a minor land division
of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use into
four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and
zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the
proposed parcels meeting local standards are available or will be provided as needed,
the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous two (2)
years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent.
Accordingly, Tentative Parcel Map 71692 is classified as a Class 15 Categorical
Exemption pursuant to Section 15315 of CEQA.
i
SECTION 2 , The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES
that facts do exist to justify approving Tentative Parcel Map 7692, according to the
criteria of Section 16.08.130 -of the Rosemead Municipal Code, as follows:
A. The proposed division will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
nor injurious to the property or improvements in the immediate vicinity;
- FINDING: The large size and depth of the subject lot would allow the lot to be
subdivided. and developed with new single - family residences without creating
detrimental - visual -or privacy impacts to the surrounding parcels. The project site is
located within a low density residential General Plan designation and Zoning district.
The subdivision -is designed within the parameters of the low density definition of 0 -7
units per acre -with approximately.6.56 units per acre. The homes will be built within the
adopted development standards of the R -1 (Single - Family Residential) zone and are not
anticipated to be detrimental to the public welfare.
B. The proposed division will not be contrary to any official plan adopted by the
City Council -of the City of Rosemead, or to any official policies or standards adopted by
the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk at or prior to the time of filing of
the application hereunder.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 18, 2011
Page 11 of 21
FINDING: The site is designated for the proper land use designation to permit
such a development. The R -1 zone allows for residential uses at a density of one (1)
unit for each 6,000 square feet of lot area. The proposed parcels and residential units
meet the required parcel size standards. The proposed front lot (Lot 1) will have a total
lot area of 6,310 square feet. Lot 2 will have a net lot area of 5,087.25 square feet and a
gross lot area of 6,917.5 square feet. Lot 3 will have a net lot area of 5,083.75 square
feet and a gross lot area of 6,692.5 square feet.
C. Each proposed parcel conforms in area and dimension to the provisions of
zoning and subdivision requirements of the City of Rosemead.
FINDING: The proposed flag lots and conventional lot dimensions comply with
the minimum requirements for both flag lot and conventional lot subdivisions. According
to Section 17.16.080 of the Rosemead Municipal Code a conventional lot shall have a
minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet. Section 17.16.140 of the Rosemead Municipal
Code requires flag lots to have a minimum developable lot area of 5,000 square feet,
exclusive of vehicle access leg or common driveway access easements. The proposed
conventional lot, Lot 1, will have a total lot area of 6,000 square feet. The proposed flag
lots, Parcel 2, will have a developable lot area of 5,087.25 square feet and Parcel 3 will
have 5,083.75 square feet
D. All streets, alleys, and driveways proposed to serve the property have been
dedicated or such dedication is not required for the protection of public safety, health,
and welfare and that such streets, alleys, and driveways are of sufficient width, design,
and construction to preserve the public safety and to provide adequate access and
circulation for vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
FINDING: The City Engineer has reviewed this proposed subdivision relative to
the adjacent right -of -way. Access to the proposed parcels is provided from Emerson
Place, which is a fully improved public local street. Based on this review, it -is
determined that the design and construction of this project would preserve the public
safety and provide adequate access and circulation for vehicular and pedestrian traffic
with the dedication of a 20 foot wide by 30 -foot long Fire Department turnaround. This
dedication will be constructed like a public alley with radial curb returns and handicap
accessible sidewalk ramps adjacent to the driveway
E. Alley easements and covenants required for the approval of the Tentative
Map or plot have been duly executed and recorded.
FINDING: The proposed, subdivision will create one (1) conventional lot and two
(2) flags lots with two (2) separate driveways. The conventional lot (Lot 1) has been
developed with a private driveway for vehicular access, and Lots 2 and 3 will be served
by a separate, shared common driveway measuring 18 -20 feet wide adjacent to Lot 1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 18, 2011
Page 12 of 21
and 20 feet wide adjacent to Lots 2 and 3. Both driveways will be accessed from
Emerson Place. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant will be required to
record a covenant for ingress and egress, fire lane, and maintenance of the shared
common driveway that serves Lots 2 and 3.
SECTION 3 . The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES
that facts do exist to justify approving Tentative. Parcel Map 71692, according to the
criteria of Section 66474 et seq of the Subdivision Map Act and City of Rosemead
Ordinance No. 901, as follows:
1
A. That the design is justified by topographic conditions or the size and shape of
the property prohibits conventional lot division practices.
FINDING: The subject lot is narrow and deep, measuring at 83.00' X 240.00',
which does not allow for conventional 50' wide lot subdivisions.
B. That the proposed Flag Lot division is not so at variance with the existing
neighborhood pattern or development as to create detrimental visual or privacy impacts.
FINDING: Staff has worked closely with the designer in designing a project that
will not create detrimental visual or privacy impacts. Block walls will be installed along
the existing and proposed property lines of each lot. Staff has incorporated conditions
of approval to assure that all proposed residential development will conform to building
orientation and setback requirements of the Rosemead Municipal Code. In addition,
there are nine (9) existing flag lot subdivisions within 300 -feet from the. subject site,
including the lot abutting the property to the east. Therefore, the proposed subdivision is
consistent with the established neighborhood pattern of development.
SECTION 4 . The Planning Commission HEREBY APPROVES Tentative Parcel
Map 71692 to allow the subdivision of one (1) existing lot into three (3) lots. The subject
development shall fully comply with the conditions listed in Exhibit "B," attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 5 . This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning
Commission on July 18, 2011, by the following vote:
YES: C
NO:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Meeting
July 18, 2011
Page 13 of 21
SECTION 6 . The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and
shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 2011.
Nancy Eng, Chairwoman
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on 18th day of July,
2011, by the following vote:
YES:
NO:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Stan Wong, Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting
July 18, 2011
Pape 14 of 21
EXHIBIT "B"
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 71692
8929 Emerson Place
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
July 18, 2011
1. Tentative Parcel Map 71692 is approved for the subdivision of one (1) existing
lot into three (3) lots for development of three new single - family residential units
to be developed in accordance with the Tentative Parcel Map and architectural
plans marked Exhibit "C" dated July 14, 2011. Any revisions to the approved
plans must be resubmitted for review and approval by the Planning Division.
2. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 71692 shall not take effect for any purpose
until the applicant has filed with the City of Rosemead an affidavit stating that
they are aware of and accept all of the conditions set forth in the letter of
approval and this list of conditions.
3. Conditions of approval listed on Exhibit "B" shall be copied directly onto final
development plans submitted to the Planning and Building Division for review.
4. Tentative Parcel Map 71692 is approved for a two -year period. The applicant
shall commence the proposed use or request an extension within 30- calendar
days prior to expiration. The two (2) years initial approval period shall be
effective from the Planning Commission approval date. For the purpose of this
petition, project commencement shall be defined as beginning the permitting
process with the Planning and Building Divisions, so long as the project is not
abandoned. If Tentative Parcel Map 71692 has been unused, abandoned, or
discontinued for a period of two (2) years, it shall become null and void.
5. The applicant shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws relative to the
approved use including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire-, Sheriff,
and Health Departments.
a
6. Building permits will not be issued in connection with any project until such time
as all plan check fees and all other applicable fees are paid in -full.
7. The Planning Commission hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make or
approve minor modifications to the approved Plans where necessary.
8. Tentative Parcel Map 71692 is granted or approved with the City of Rosemead
and its Planning Commission retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction
to review and to modify the permit- including the conditions of approval -based
on changed circumstances. Changed ; circumstances include, but are not
Planning Commission Meeting
July 18, 2011
Page 15 of 21
limited to, the modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or
nature of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of
use. This reservation of right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the
right of the City, its Planning Commission, and City Council to review and
revoke or modify any permit granted or approved under the Rosemead
Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed on Tentative Parcel
Map 71692.
9. Each applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Rosemead or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the Planning Commission
and /or City Council concerning the project, which action is brought within the
time period provided by law.
10. Prior to issuance of building permits, all school fees shall be paid. The
applicant shall provide the City with written verification of compliance from the
Unified School District.
11. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday
Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any Federal
holidays without prior approval by the City.
12. Planning staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during
construction to monitor progressi
13. The onsite public hearing notice posting shall be removed within 30 days from
the end-of the 10 -day appeal period of Tentative Parcel Map 71692.
14. Prior to the issuance of building 'permits, the developer shall provide a courtesy
notice of the start of construction to the occupants of abutting properties and
provide a copy of the notice to the Planning Division.
15. Occupancy will not be granted dntil all improvements required by this approval
have been completed, inspected, and approved by the appropriate
department(s).
16. Driveways and parking areas shall be surfaced and improved with 4 inches of
asphalt concrete over 4 inch -base material crushed aggregate or 6 inches of
concrete, the.layout shall be as shown on Exhibit "C "; and thereafter maintained
in good serviceable condition.
17. All ground level mechanical /utility equipment (including meters, back flow
preservation devices, fire valves, A/C condensers, furnaces, and other
equipment) shall be located away from public view or adequately screened by
Planning Commission Meeting
July 18, 2011
Paoe 16 of 21
landscaping or screening walls so as not to be seen from the public right -of-
way. Said screening shall be approved by the City Planner before installation.
18. No portion of any required front and /or side yards shall be used for storage of
any type.
19. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least 4" tall with a minimum
character width of 1/4 ", contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level
from the street.
20. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for all work in the public right of
way.
Y
21. Applicant shall install and complete all necessary public improvements,
including but not limited to street, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, handicap ramps,
and storm drains, along the entire street frontage of the development site as
required by the City Planner.
22. Any future dwelling units constructed on Lots 2 and 3 shall be provided with
water conservation fixtures such as low flush toilets and low flow faucets. The
hot water heater and lines shall be insulated. Landscaping irrigation systems
for the subdivision shall be designed for high efficiency and irrigation timers
programmed for maximized water usage.
23. All requirements of the Building and Safety Department and Planning Division
shall be complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction.
24. Prior to issuance of Building permits, a final landscape and irrigation plan shall
be submitted to the Planning Division for review, reflecting preliminary approval
of landscape /site plan, commonly referred to as Exhibit "C." The landscape
plan shall include a wide variety colorful and drought tolerant trees, shrubs,
flowers, and ground covers. The irrigation plan shall include automatic timers
and moisture sensors. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed and
completed prior to final Planning Division approval.
25. A minimum of one (1) 24" box tree (non- deciduous, evergreen shade trees)
shall be planted in the front yards and rea yards of all three (3) lots.
26. Prior to issuance of Building permits, a detailed fence plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Division for review and approval. The perimeter walls surrounding
the development shall be constructed of decorative slump stone, decorative
split -faced block, or concrete block that is stuccoed and painted to match the
exterior of the buildings.
27. Vine pockets shall be installed along the driveway of Lots 2 and 3 to soften the
Planning Commission Meeting
July 18, 2011
Paae 17 of 21
appearance of walls.
28. Along the driveway of Lots 1, 2, and 3, a series of stamped, colored concrete
bands shall be incorporated with a minimum depth of 12 feet. The bands shall
be a natural earth toned color.
29. All windows located on front elevations of any future homes developed on Lots
2 and 3 shall be recessed a minimum of four (4) inches (Per Single Family
Design Guidelines Incentive Bonus Program).
30. Any future homes developed on Lots 2 and 3 shall incorporate eave overhangs
of 18- inches or more with exposed decorative rafter tails (Per Single Family
Design Guidelines Incentive Bonus Program).
31. Any future homes developed on Lots 2 and 3 shall have a second story plate
that does not exceed 20 feet (Per Single Family Design Guidelines Incentive
Bonus Program).
32. Any future homes developed on Lots 2 and 3 shall incorporate natural
architectural materials, such as wood and stone (Per Single Family Design
Guidelines Incentive Bonus Program).
33. Each lot shall use drought- tolerant plant materials and automatic irrigation with
moisture sensors (Per Single Family Design Guidelines Incentive Bonus
Program).
34. Each lot shall incorporate interlocking pavers, decomposed granite, or other
decorative hardscape materials for walkways and driveways (Per Single Family
Design Guidelines Incentive Bonus Program).
35. The private 20 -foot wide driveway shall be posted as a "No Parking Fire Lane"
including signage -and red curbing striping.
36. A covenant assuring that private common driveways shall be continually
maintained and that cost associated -with such maintenance shall be equally
shared by all future property owners, whose properties benefit within the
division shall be prepared by the applicant review and approval of the City
Attorney (Per RMC Section 17.16.140 1.5.g). Upon review and approval, the
covenant shall be recorded against Lot 2 and Lot 3.
37. Vehicle access easements for- reciprocal use or otherwise shall be shown on
the Tentative Parcel Map, together with a statement identifying which lots are
subservient and which lots are to benefit from such easements (Per RMC
Section 17.16.140 1.4). The vehicle access easements shall be recorded for
Lot 2 and Lot 3.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 18, 2011
Paae 18 of 21
38. The City's independent engineering geotechnical consultant shall review and
approve the grading and specific development plans prior to the issuance of
building permits.
39. Violation of conditions of approval may result in citation and /or initiation of
revocation proceedings.
40. The centerline of any new curb cut on Emerson Place for a driveway to serve
the existing house on Lot 1 of TPM 71692 shall be a minimum of 24 feet from
the west property line of Lot 1. Any such curb cut shall be a maximum width of
16 feet. The location and design of any such curb -cut shall be subject to the
review and approval of the City Engineer.
CITY ENGINEER'S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAPS IN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
GENERAL
1. Details shown on the tentative map are not necessarily approved. Any details
which are inconsistent with requirements of ordinances, general conditions of
approval, or City Engineer's policies must be specifically approved in the final
map or improvement plan approvals.
2. A final parcel map prepared by, or under the direction of a Registered Civil
Engineer authorized to practice land surveying, or a Licensed Land Surveyor,
must be processed through the City Engineer's office prior to being filed with
the County Recorder.
3. A preliminary subdivision guarantee is required showing all fee interest holders
- arrd encumbrances. An updated title report shall be provided before the final
parcel map is released for filing with the County Recorder.
4. The final parcel map shall be based on afield survey, and monuments shall be
set to permanently mark parcel map boundaries, street center lines and lot
boundaries to the satisfaction of the Cityl Engineer. The basis of bearing used
for the field survey required for the final map shall include two survey well
monuments found or set. The City Engineer may waive this requirement upon
petition should this be impractical. Well monuments shall be set in accordance
with standard plan No. S08 -001, if required.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 18, 2011
Paae 19 of 21
5. Final parcel map shall be filed with the County Recorder and one (1) mylar
copy of filed map shall be submitted to the City Engineer's office. Prior to the
release of the final map by the City, a refundable deposit in the amount of
$1,000 shall be submitted by the developer to the City, which will be refunded
upon receipt of the mylar copy of the filed map.
6. Comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
7. Approval for filling of this land division is contingent upon approval of plans and
specifications mentioned below. If the improvements are not installed prior to
the filing of this division, the developer must submit an Undertaking Agreement
and a Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bond in the amount
estimated by the City Engineer guaranteeing the installation of the
improvements.
8. The City reserves the right to impose any new plan check and /or permit fees
approved by City Council subsequent to tentative approval of this map.
DRAINAGE AND GRADING
9. Prior to the recordation of the final map, grading and drainage plans must be
approved to provide for contributory drainage from adjoining properties as
approved by the City Engineer, including dedication of the necessary
easements.
10. A grading and drainage plan must provide for each lot having an independent
drainage system to the public street, to a public drainage facility, or by means
of an approved drainage easement.
11. Historical or existing storm water flow from adjacent lots must be received and
directed by gravity to the public street, to a public drainage facility, or an
approved drainage easement.
12. Developer must comply with the City's storm water ordinance
- p
13. New drive approaches shall be constructed at least 3' from any above - ground
obstructions in the public right -of -way to the top of "x" or the obstruction shall -
be relocated. New drive approaches shall be limited to the frontage of the
parcel. The drive approach is intended to serve and is designed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 18, 2011
Paae 20 of 21
14. All work proposed within the public right -of -way shall require permits from the
Public Works Department.
SEWER
15. Approval of this land division is contingent upon providing a separate house
sewer lateral to serve each lot of the land division.
UTILITIES
16. All power, telephone and cable television shall be underground.
17. Any utilities that are in conflict with the development shall be relocated at the
developer's expense.
WATER
18. Prior to the filing of the final map, there shall also be filed with the City
Engineer, a statement from the water purveyor indicating subdivider
compliance with the Fire Chiefs fire flow requirements.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 18, 2011
Paoe 21 of 21
Exhibit "F"
PROJECT SITE
r
a BEATRICE
PL.3
lO8'AV :•
Z
A
s
I r3
J9
y
c
I
M
142 �
a i l P
9
I
a
\
! Y
1
K— L �]—
79
.CIF ` i,
*1
1M.
�i
G
]JI
a
2G
o
143.03
;]e
is
0
Po +. aiar.
O 3
d9 I 5�
T
7A { 1 2
s, 9s
f
I
r.
s2
sr•f
q/! r"\
776�se ••
b qs
LL
am
567, �
�� Asrr•
p
_-- '_ - - -'-
�
o
IS.
0s2
6c
IS
°�
to
144
c
—e
33
0
tle9
1
pas IS
ns!••r'7s'E.
�/•��]
EMERSON
PROJECT SITE
PATRICK CHIU and ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECCURE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT
637 W. Garvey Ave., Monterey Park, CA 91754
TEL (626) 272 -7058 FAX (626) 308 -9983
June 28, 2011
Mr. Paul Garry
Senior Planner
Planning Department
City of Rosemead
8838 E. Valley Blvd.
Rosemead CA 91770
Receiv , -J by lily
Planr�;� F:;vision
Dat
Re: Responses from neighbors on side yard setback modification
PM 70753, 8929 Emerson Place, Rosemead
Dear Mr. Garry:
For all ten neighbors directly adjacent to the above - mentioned property listed in your e-
mail, Mr. Tran, one of the owners, had spent the whole weekend to talk to all of them one
by one and he had obtained 6 signatures from the neighbors who have no objection to the
modification of side yard set back.
The reasons for 4 neighbors who did not sign the letters are:
3202 Ivar: did not want to comment
8926 Emerson Place: not objecting but did not want to sign
8922 Emerson Place: concerned the change of driveway of the front unit to the
front directly to the street and not the setback, did not sign:
8924 Emerson Place: did not want to sign anything.
Thank you for your attention to the above.
call Patrick at (626) 272 -7058.
Sincerely,
If you need any further - information, Please
Patrick Chiu,
Architect
EXHIBIT D
PATRICK CHID and ASSOCIATES
AROUTFEnW PIANNING DEVELOPMENT
637 W. Garvey Ave., Monterey Park, CA 91754
TEL(626)272 -7058 FAX (626) 308 -9983
June 22, 2011
To our neighbors of 8929 Emerson Place, Rosemead
Re: Reduction of east side yard setback from 6' -6" to 5' - 9 " for Flag lot Subdivision
8929 Emerson Place, Rosemead
Dear Neighbors:
I am the architect for the owners of the property at 8929 Emerson Place. The owners are proposing a
flag lot subdivision to divide the property into three parcels with one parcel in front and two flag lot
parcels in back. The existing home at the front of the lot is proposed to remain. We have already
received preliminary approvals from the City Public Works Department and County Fire Department
for the 2 additional flag lots at the back. The project meets all of the City's Zoning Requirements
except for the proposed east side yard setback for the existing home that will remain.
The separation from the existing house to the new driveway property line on the east side of the front
lot would be 5' -9" instead of 6'-6" as required by the by the City. The actual separation from the
existing house to the property line for the homes to the east of the site would be 23' -9" (5' -9" plus an
18' wide driveway).
Since we cannot change the existing house to meet the required 6'-6" side yard setback without
making significant structural modifications to the home, we do hope that you have no objection to this
5' -9" setback.
The City has asked my client to obtain consent from adjacent property owners for this reduction in
side yard setback. We would appreciate it if you can support our effort by signing this letter. If you
need any further information, Please call me at (626) 272 -7058.
Si ce l�l�,
Pa ck-Chiq
Architect
1 have no objection to the east side yard setback of 5' -9" for the existing house as part of the proposed
subdivision.
Signature:
Name: � g Vj D Y- MtA
Address: 91 34 6MA50P PL
Date:
EXHIBIT D
PATRICK CI U and ASSOCIATES
ARCHTMCIIIRE PLANNING DEVELOPIHINr
637 W. Garvey Ave., Monterey Park, CA 91754
TEL (626) 272 -7058 FAX (626) 308 -9983
June 22, 2011
l'
To our neighbors of 8929 Emerson Place, Rosemead 1'
Re: Reduction of east side yard setback from 6 to 5; -9" for Flag lot Subdivision
8929 Emerson Place, Rosemead
Dear Neighbors:
1 am the architect for the owners of the property at 8929 Emerson Place. The owners are proposing a
flag lot subdivision to divide the property into three parcels with one parcel in front and two flag lot
parcels in back. The existing home at the front of the lot is proposed to remain. We have already
received preliminary approvals from the City Public Works Department and County Fire Department
for the 2 additional flag lots at the back. The project meets all of the City's Zoning Requirements
except for the proposed east side yard setback for the existing home that will remain.
The separation from the existing house to the new driveway property line on the east side of the front
lot would be 5' -9" instead of 6'-6" as required by the by the City. The actual separation from the
existing house to the property line for the homes to the east of the site would be 23' -9" (5' -9" plus an
18' wide driveway).
Since we cannot change the existing house to meet the required 6 side yard setback without
making significant structural modifications to the home, we do hope that you have no objection to this
5' -9" setback.
The City has asked my client to obtain consent from adjacent property owners for this reduction in
side yard setback. We would appreciate it if you can support our effort by signing this letter. If you
need any further information, Please call me at (626) 272 -7058.
Ste ly,
W✓L
P ck Chiu,
Architect
I have no objection to the east side yard setback of 5' -9" for the existing house as part of the proposed
+�tiT.ljl�l�
Signature:
Name: p /il t -iC -k (�
Address: p 41iaLW
Date: 6
EXHIBIT D
PATRICK CHIU and ASSOCIATES
ARCtIIMMIRE PLANNING DEVEWPNIM
637 W. Garvey Ave., Monterey Park, CA 91754
TEL(626)272 -7058 FAX (626) 308 -9983
June 22, 2011
To our neighbors of 8929 Emerson Place, Rosemead
Re: Reduction of east side yard setback from 6' -6" to 5' -9" for Flag lot Subdivision
8929 Emerson Place, Rosemead
Dear Neighbors:
I am the architect for the owners of the property at 8929 Emerson Place. The owners are proposing a
flag lot subdivision to divide the property into three parcels with one parcel in front and two flag lot
parcels in back. The existing home at the front of the lot is proposed to remain. We have already
received preliminary approvals from the City Public Works Department and County Fire Department
for the 2 additional flag lots at the back. The project meets all of the City's Zoning Requirements
except for the proposed east side yard setback for the existing home that will remain.
The separation from the existing house to the new driveway property line on the east side of the front
lot would be 5' -9" instead of 6'-6" as required by the by the City. The actual separation from the
existing house to the property line for the homes to the east of the site would be 23' -9" (5' -9" plus an
18' wide driveway).
Since we cannot change the existing house to meet the required 6'-6" side yard setback without
making significant structural modifications to the -home, we do hope that you have no objection to this
5' - setback.
The City has asked my client to obtain consent from adjacent property owners for this reduction in
side yard setback. We -would appreciate R if you can support our effort by signing this letter. If you
need anv further information, - Please call me at (626) 272 -7058.
S' cc ly,
P1 c if "
Architect
I have no objection to the east side yard setback of 5' -9" for the existing house as part of the proposed
.subdivision.
Signature:
Name:
Address:
Date: S/- z-o It
EXHIBIT D
PATRICK CHIU and ASSOCIATES
ARCWTEC[URE PLANNING DEVELOPNENr
637 W. Garvey Ave., Monterey Park, CA 91754
TEL (626) 272 -7058 FAX (626) 308 -9983
June 22, 2011
To our neighbors of 8929 Emerson Place, Rosemead
Re: Reduction of east side yard setback from 6'-6" to 5' -9" for Flag lot Subdivision
8929 Emerson Place, Rosemead
Dear Neighbors:
I am the architect for the owners of the property at 8929 Emerson Place. The owners are proposing a
flag lot subdivision to divide the property into three parcels with one parcel in front and two flag lot
parcels in back. The existing home at the front of the lot is proposed to remain. We have already
received preliminary approvals from the City Public Works Department and County Fire Department
for the 2 additional flag lots at the back. The project meets all of the City's Zoning Requirements
except for the proposed east side yard setback for the existing home that will remain.
The separation from the existing house to the new driveway property line on the east side of the front
lot would be 5' -9" instead of 6' -6" as required by the by the City. The actual separation from the
existing house to the property line for the homes to the east of the site would be 23' -9" (5' -9" plus an
18' wide driveway).
Since we cannot change the existing house to meet the required 6'-6" side yard setback without
making significant structural modifications to the home, we do hope that you have no objection to this
5' -9" setback.
The City has asked my client to obtain consent from adjacent property owners for this reduction in
side yard setback. We would appreciate it if you can support our effort by signing this letter. If you
need any further information, Please call me at (626) 272 -7058.
la ly,
ck hiu, Y
itect I
I have no objection to the east side yard setback of 5' -9" foc the existing house as part of the proposed
subdivision.
Signature: > ��v v �l� �/ z � Date: 6 2 C- ( (
Name: A C ?i✓r I✓
Address:. SCq m6 A N. 1
EXHIBIT D
PATRICK CIRU and ASSOCIATES
ARCHUEMME PLANNING DEVELOPMENT
637 W. Garvey Ave., Monterey Park, CA 91754
TEL (626) 272 -7058 FAX (626) 308 -9983
June 22, 2011
To our neighbors of 8929 Emerson Place, Rosemead
Re: Reduction of east side yard setback from 6'-6" to 5' -9" for Flag lot Subdivision
8929 Emerson Place, Rosemead
Dear Neighbors:
I am the architect for the owners of the property at 8929 Emerson Place. The owners are proposing a
flag lot subdivision to divide the property into three parcels with one parcel in front and two flag lot
parcels in back. The existing home at the front of the lot is proposed to remain. We have already
received preliminary approvals from the City Public Works Department and County Fire Department
for the 2 additional flag lots at the back. The project meets all of the City's Zoning Requirements
except for the proposed east side yard setback for the existing home that will remain.
The separation from the existing house to the new driveway property line on the east side of the front
lot would be 5' -9" instead of 6'-6" as required by the by the City. The actual separation from the
existing house to the property line for the homes to the east of the site would be 23'-9" (5' -9" plus an
18' wide driveway).
Since we cannot change the existing house to meet the required 6'-6" side yard setback without
making significant structural modifications to the home, we do hope that you have-no objection to this
5' -9" setback.
The City has asked my client to obtain consent from adjacent property owners for this reduction in
side yard setback. We would appreciate it if you- can - support effort-by signing this letter. If you
need any further information, Please call me at (626)-272-7058.
C 4 1
Architect
I have no objection to the east side yard setback of ' -9" for the existing house as part of the proposed
subdivision.
Signature: Date: C2 go I
Name: _ j R M E tAAK)
Address: `37 r1 q 67 ,So 1.) PL
f2c��E i ��},� C►R 0 0?0
EXHIBIT D
PATRICK CB 1U and ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECIVRE PLAMINC DEVELOPMEM
637 W. Garvey Ave., Monterey Park, CA 91754
TEL (626) 272 -7058 FAX (626) 308-9983
June 22, 2011
To our neighbors of 8929 Emerson Place, Rosemead
Re: Reduction of east side yard setback from 6'-6" to 5' -9" for Flag lot Subdivision
8929 Emerson Place, Rosemead
Dear Neighbors:
1 am the architect for the owners of the property at 8929 Emerson Place. The owners are proposing a
flag lot subdivision to divide the property into three parcels with one parcel in front and two flag lot
parcels in back. The existing home at the front of the lot is proposed to remain. We have already
received preliminary approvals from the City Public Works Department and County Fire Department
for the 2 additional flag lots at the back. The project meets all of the City's Zoning Requirements
except for the proposed east side yard setback for the existing home that will remain.
The separation from the existing house to the new driveway property line on the east side of the front
lot would be 5' -9" instead of 6'-6" as required by the by the City. The actual separation from the
existing house to the property line for the homes to the east of the site would be 23' -9" (5' -9" plus an
18' wide driveway).
Since we cannot change the existing house to meet the required 6'-6" side yard setback without
making significant structural modifications to the home, we do hope that you have no objection to this
5' -9" setback.
The City has asked my client to obtain consent from adjacent property owners for this reduction in
side yard setback We would appreciate it if you can support our effort by signing this letter. If you
need any f ether information; Please call me at (626) 272 -7058.
Since ly,
1� - c Ch
Architect
*** t* tss* s** t* t** t* st** ts* t* tts* s* tttt*** tt** t* tt* *s * * *ssssttts * * * *sttst * * * * * * * *t
I have no objection to the east side yard setback of 5' -9" for the existing house as part of the proposed
subdivision.
Signature: Date:
Name:
Address:
EXHIBIT D
LRl a ^� "
7/10/11
Mr. Paul Garry,
I am writing in regards to the proposed property division of 8929 Emerson Pl. Rosemead Ca. I would like to
- express some concerns I have in regards to this proposal. First let me say that I am very familiar with this particular piece
of property since it belonged to my father prior to its current owners. I spent my childhood and much of my young life
living on this street and in particular at that address. l currently reside at 8922 Emerson PI and have lived at this address
for the past 24 years. I purchased my house to be close to my mother and father and also because, at that time, I
believed Rosemead to be a good place to raise a family.
The concerns that I have are based on a couple things: First. In the past, the size of the parcel was never
sufficient to be divided into three separate residences. Over the years I have seen many of the adjacent lots attempt to
divide in this same fashion. The city has always held that the square footage was insufficient for this type of division and
would not alloy.-it. At one time in my life I thought this was an unfair decision on the part of the city, but I now
understand the wisdom of limiting this type of overbuilding. This parcel is no larger than any of the other lots on this
street and does not deserve special treatment. Our current traffic and parking conditions are horrible and will only
become worse with an additional TWO houses and the accompanying host of people and cars. I sat in my front yard one
evening and counted sixty (60) different vehicles traveling on this little dead end street. On trash day there is barely
enough street to get all the trash cans out. We already have one house with driveway access from Ivar St. who is parking
their cars and trash -cans on Emerson and that is extra burden enough. As you know we have two `alleys" on this street
with extra houseson each and it just seems a bit too much to add more. Secondly, the current owners approached both
- my wile-and I at different times and asked us to "just sign off". When I asked what they wanted to do, I was shown a
proposed plan-of the new project. In this plan they show a major modification to the properties'structures. The tentative
proposal claims that the existing house would remain, but the reality is, this existing house would change dramatically
and a new garage and driveway access would be placed at the front of the house. This completely changes the dynamics
of west end of Emerson. This new driveway would be less than 8 ft from my current driveway and would be
perpendicular to my current driveway. This will cause even more congestion with cars being parked long enough to open
and close gates. Also there is already a driveway to the south of my address and would be directly across from the new
access. This will create a t -bone effect and will be considerably less than safe. Additionally, this extra driveway will
further limit street parking and cause even more trash day congestion.
I won't deny the current homeowners have a right to add a (1) house to their property, but I believe two
additional houses, along with changes to the street, are unfair to this neighborhood and to the people who currently live
here.
Thank you for your time and consideration for my concerns.
Darrel W. Hausler, Salley L Hausler
8922 Emerson PI. Rosemead, Ca. 91770
626 - 307 -0473
EXHIBIT E
0.
7f 9cl/
H Pa ti-I
(�e5 we have a. wmMeOf on fhe. case N° ienl`a};ve.
Parcel Map. 070753 e!f.S929 �mGrsol? i?I�ce �Tth. .
I &t of /9,920 59 F
e comment j 6 Ae i9,920 XIFf iof inn r_ , aure_OvA. _ ... .
�0 1✓1 appro ve fio devide t0 3 s71 le �am es,den.fial...... ------ _ .
units H^af R;&6�h Piece Ti; qv ?n f M he 6nly I m� 66 0 sgFi~
wArch w 1 de ivf Know I- +e awnerCsl beable fv meet c; fy's.
," usyement oyP PRCh unit to provide 2
Cavr-5 obi -a. bedrvorrm 07 - home OR_ qarag85 S'31 .
2 aY' "7e cars og 3 bedd Toms and CAP
we Nape arr( wouU liKe to 5 our wander/ �;�`1 _
fo maKe 5ure each 'home to provide TP5 own partdrys
:Znd s2vo, f our sfreeF P4- 1<Pny5 7OL7*f ih a4 put.
�i'rTeS� S fn} e5 of
p ienfy of stet aYid busm j amings
meanbly i5 better - Ay Our m c5ly by lSlne55e5.
W do mod own- bu5pne55, -but we N ould I ?Ke to see.
K�Seri�ad bets nesses � ma.i <e mon�Y �;� 1-�,e c1�.
We mo ved. out &rn 4-crl ( f3 e�ccli i _Rasernead ��
1949 because for betfr cK ''merurbe�Mr lv�r�.
14 ope MuS comment 1 u5RAl,
`Tl4nkseer your Sen OU® lafMor;
626 - 572 --M
any Ae
'3292 zvur A l
[?o6emead, cA! /7Y .
EXHIBIT E
W
a g
LoSRno1dO? 0
(J
CTC4,fry Q lv» rl- ,
EXHIBIT E
Planning Commission Meeting
July 18, 2011
Page 21 of 21
Exhibit "F
$J
r - -- SO .�
t lay
P°r
gvs°rr �).•
° EMERSON
f
O
2 eX
if
e BEATRICE
b
0
i
�
r
ss
8 I
1
�
si
Q
stof
Id2 s6
i'ttil
I ,:�
I
1
—
a[ 2A
e l
.
f7
FS .
y Yer. uttt.•'
f< m
Go
e4 (Jai
="
PL.«
f
u
1
143
043 1
7L
- 3
$J
r - -- SO .�
t lay
P°r
gvs°rr �).•
° EMERSON
f
O
2 eX
if
n
r�Pf.
GL IS [3
�
r
1 NglO- �
8 I
1
�
si
stof
J
I ,:�
I
1
- 144
ye76a.
) y 2A1
.
f7
FS .
y Yer. uttt.•'
I
Go
6[ f!)
PL.«
f
u
1
043 1
$J
r - -- SO .�
t lay
P°r
gvs°rr �).•
° EMERSON
f
O
PROJECT SITE
2 eX
PL. r'
r�Pf.
GL IS [3
8
I
I
1 NglO- �
8 I
1
�
15
lira'
w
J
I ,:�
I
1
w
) y 2A1
N
O
PROJECT SITE
2 eX
1 NglO- �
I D
lira'
w
Uj
w
6. - 7 — ,33
N
O
I
Go
6[ f!)
PL.«
f
PROJECT SITE