Loading...
CC - Item 3A - Design Review 12-05, General Plan Amendment 12-02, Zone Change 12-02, Tentative Tract Map 7529 7801-7825 Garvey Avenue, 3012 Del Mar Avenue, and 3017 Brighton StreetROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER DATE: APRIL 28, 2015 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 12 -05, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 12 -02, ZONE CHANGE 12 -02, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 72529 7801 -7825 GARVEY AVENUE, 3012 DEL MAR AVENUE, AND 3017 BRIGHTON STREET Summary Gerard Ngo has submitted entitlement applications requesting to develop a new residential /commercial mixed -use development. The project consists of the demolition of all existing structures to construct a five -story, mixed -use development with 15,553 square feet of retail /restaurant space on the basement /first and second floors and 60 residential units on the third through fifth floors, comprising 54,609 square feet, for a total built area of 70,162 square feet. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and two stories of subterranean basement parking. The project requires vacation of the existing public alley that bisects the site, which will entail a separate process. Access to the proposed project will be provided via the rear of the structure with one entrance each on Del Mar Avenue and Brighton Street. The project also includes a density bonus application under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, which amended the state bonus law to allow density bonuses up to 35 %. The property is located at the northeast corner of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue in the C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone and R -2 (Light Multiple Residential) zone. This item was on the Planning Commission Agenda for June 16, 2014. However, due to extensive comments from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) during the 20 -day public review distribution period for the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project, the Planning Commission continued this item to a future Planning Commission meeting. On December 15, 2014, this item was again presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. During the meeting, three people discussed their concerns regarding the project. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14 -10, recommending that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 2015 -01 (Attachment "A ") and Ordinance 942 (Attachment "B "). The Planning Commission Staff Report, Planning Commission Resolution No. 14- 10, and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes are attached as Attachments "C ", "D ", ITEM NUMBER: City Council Meeting April 28, 2015 Page 2 of 16 and "E ", respectively. Environmental Analysis The City of Rosemead acting as a Lead Agency, has completed an Initial Study /Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed mixed -use project pursuant to Section 15070 (b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Initial Study has been undertaken to determine if the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study was prepared and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. On the basis of the Initial Study, the City of Rosemead has concluded that the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment if certain mitigation measures are adopted and carried out, and the City has therefore prepared a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The MND reflects the independent judgment of the City as a lead agency per CEQA Guidelines. The project site is not on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The proposed project is not considered a project of statewide, regional or area -wide significance and would not affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was distributed for a 20 -day public review and comment period from May 21, 2014 to June 9, 2014. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, along with Agency comments and a Mitigation Monitoring Program as required by CEQA guidelines, is attached to this staff report for your review. If the Commission recommends this project to the City Council for approval, the Commission must make a finding of adequacy with the environmental assessment and also recommend that the City Council to adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit "H "). Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the following actions are taken: 1. The City Council conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; 2. The City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2015 -01 with findings, subject to the eighty -six (86) conditions outlined in Exhibit "A" attached hereto; and 3. Introduce for First Reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 942: Zone Change 12- 02" and to bring back Ordinance No. 942 to the meeting of May 12, 2015 for consideration of adoption. 4. The City Council ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration and file the Notice of Determination for the project. Design Review 12 -05 Rosemead Municipal Code Section (RMC) 17.74.030(A)(1) states a precise plan of design for residential /commercial mixed -use development shall be submitted, and approved in accordance with the requirements of Section 17.72.060, with the exception that the City Council shall approve or disapprove such project upon receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission. City Council Meeting April 28, 2015 Page 3 of 16 General Plan Amendment 12 -02 The project will change the existing Rosemead General Plan land use designations from Commercial and the residence at the northeast corner Medium Density Residential (0 -12 du /ac.) to Mixed -use: Residential /Commercial (60 du /ac; 4 stories). Zone Change 12 -02 The project will change the zoning from C -3 Medium Commercial and the single - family residence at the northeast corner of the site R -2 Light Multiple Residential to C -3 Medium Commercial and add a Residential /Commercial Mixed -Use Development Overlay (RCMUDO) and Design Overlay to allow the development of the project as proposed. Tentative Tract Map 72529 The applicant has submitted a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 72529) application for the consolidation of six (6) existing parcels into one (1) parcel. Property History and Description The subject property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue. The site consists of six (6) parcels, totaling approximately 44,260 square feet. The alley to be vacated totals approximately 5,590 square feet. According to Los Angeles County records, the six (6) parcels are currently developed with five (5) commercial buildings totaling approximately 8,000 square feet, one (1) single family residence totally 1,080 square feet, and a parking lot. According to Business License records, the commercial buildings are occupied by a bar, a law office, and a used car sales dealership. View from Southwest Corner of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue City Council Meeting April 28, 2015 Page 4 of 16 Project Analysis Project Description The project consists of the demolition of all existing structures to construct a five -story, mixed -use development with 15,553 square feet of retail /restaurant space on the basement /first and second floors and 60 residential units on the third through fifth floors, comprising 54,609 square feet, for a total built area of 70,162 square feet. Of the 60 units, the project proposes 9 low- income rental units. An outdoor seating area is proposed in the central area of the ground level on the north side of the building. New landscaping will be provided within the building setbacks around the perimeter of the site and throughout the outdoor seating area. The project is requesting two concessions to allow the development as proposed. Due to the slope of the property, a concession is requested to allow a building height of 60 feet at Brighton Street, exceeding the allowable building height of 55 feet. A second concession is requested to allow the north side of the building to extend into a 20 degree angle that extends onto the site from the north property line because the project abuts existing residences north of the site. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and two stories of subterranean basement parking. The project will incorporate an existing alley that extends east -west through the middle of the site from Brighton Street on the east to Del Mar Avenue on the west. Access to the proposed project will be provided via the rear of the structure with one entrance each on Del Mar Avenue and Brighton Street. The project also includes a density bonus application under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, which amended the state bonus law to allow density bonuses up to 35% Site & Surrounding Land Uses The project site is designated in the General Plan as Commercial and Medium Density Residential (0 -12 du /ac) and on the Zoning Map it is designated C -3 (Medium Commercial) and R -2 (Light Multiple Residential) zones. The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North General Plan — Commercial and Medium Density Residential Zoning — C -3 (Medium Commercial) and R -2 (Light Multiple Residential) Land Use — Residential South General Plan - Commercial Zoning - C -3 (Medium Commercial) Land Use - Commercial East General Plan - Commercial Zoning - C -3 (Medium Commercial) and R -2 (Light Multiple Residential) Land Use - Commercial and Residential City Council Meeting April 28, 2015 Page 5 of 16 West General Plan - Commercial Zoning - C -3 (Medium Commercial) Land Use - Commercial Development Standards The developer has incorporated the Residential /Commercial Mixed -Use Development Overlay Zone standards for the proposed mixed -use project (Zoning Code prior to November, 2013). The Residential /Commercial Mixed -Use Development Overlay Zone allows the Planning Commission and the City Council to grant approval of a well - designed development project that combine residential with nonresidential uses. Development Required Proposed Feature Lot Size 30,000 s.f. 49,850 s.f. Floor Area Ratio 2.0:1 (max allowed) 1.41:1 (FAR) 12' -0' with T -0" wide sidewalk (clear zone) and 5' -0" 12' -0' with 7' -0" wide sidewalk Public Sidewalk wide parkway (amenity zone) (clear zone) and 5' -0" wide p ar way (amenity zone Front Setback Zero (0) feet Zero (0) feet Interior Lot Line May be zero (0) but shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet No interior lot line Setback if more than zero (0). Del Mar Avenue: Zero (0) feet Side Street None Setback Brighton Street: Zero 0 feet Rear Abutting Residential 10' -0" 10' -0" Setback Del Mar Avenue: Four - stories and fifty (50) feet Height Four (4) stories with a maximum height of fifty -five (55) Brighton Street: Five - stories and feet sixty (60) feet *Requesting concession The second floor and above shall be stepped back from Requesting concession to Variable Height the rear property line as follows: establishing a height at encroach into variable height six (6) feet above finished grade of the adjacent requirement residential property line, a 20-degree Two (2) parking spaces per dwelling plus one (1) guest 82 parking spaces Parking parking space per two (2) dwelling units (Residential) Total Required: 150 parking spaces *Density bonus allows deviation of required guest parking spaces Retail: One (1) parking space per two hundred fifty (250) square feet of floor space Retail: 4,780/250 = 19 Parking Restaurant: One (1) parking space per one hundred Restaurant: 10,773/100 = 108 (Commercial) (100) square feet of floor space Total Provided: 129 parking spaces Total Required: 127 parking spaces City Council Meeting April 28, 2015 Page 6 of 16 Bicycle Parking Ten (10) percent ( %) of required off - street parking. 21 bicycle parking spaces 211 = 21 bicycle parking spaces Open Space Common Open Space: 150 s.f. /dwelling unit (9,000 s.f.) Common Open Space: 9,510 s.f. Private Open Space: 60 s.f /dwelling unit (3,600 s.f.) Private Open Space: 5,915 s.f. Building 77.8% Residential and Commercial/ 75% Residential and 25% Commercial 22.2% Commercial Residential Ratio *Requesting concession Proposed Floor Plans Commercial — The floor plans submitted with this application show a 3,262 square foot restaurant and an 821 square foot leasing office on the basement (B -1) level. The first floor contains three (3) retail units totaling 3,959 square feet and four (4) restaurant units totaling 7,511 square feet on the first floor. The project is designed with sufficient on -site parking to accommodate the commercial users. Residential — A total of 60 condominium units are proposed within this development. All units will be located on the third through fifth floors of the building. The unit floor plans submitted show a variety of unit types, from one - bedroom units to two- bedroom units, ranging in size from 826 square feet to 1,130 square feet of living area. Each unit contains a living room, dining room, kitchen, bedroom(s), bathroom(s), closet, storage, washer and dryer, and private open space. Proposed Landscaping and Fencing: A conceptual landscape plan has been attached as Exhibit "B ". New landscaping is proposed throughout the site. Landscaping is shown in the form of perimeter planting areas and landscaped islands within the surface parking lot areas. Additionally, the central courtyard provides added landscaping in the form of raised planter beds, water feature, and shade trees. The Applicant will be required to submit a detailed landscape and irrigation plan to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of any Building Permits. The Applicant is proposing to construct new decorative perimeter block walls along the north property line. Parking and Circulation Access to the site would be provided from two (2) driveways along Del Mar Avenue and Brighton Street. The Applicant is proposing surface and two levels of subterranean basement parking. A total of two hundred eleven (211) parking spaces would be provided, which includes one hundred twenty -nine (129) spaces for commercial parking and eighty -two (82) spaces for residential parking. Through the application of the density bonus law under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, the applicant is entitled to a reduction in parking. The maximum standards for residential parking are: City Council Meeting April 28, 2015 Page 7 of 16 • One (1) onsite parking space for up to one (1) bedroom. • Two (2) onsite parking spaces for up to three (3) bedrooms. • No requirement for guest parking. In addition, the proposed project would also include twenty -one (21) bicycle parking spaces. Traffic A traffic report was prepared by VA Consulting Inc. dated January 2014, to determine the potential traffic impacts of the project. The traffic report studied 7 area intersections. The following intersections are included in the traffic study area: • Del Mar Avenue and Hellman Avenue (signalized) • Del Mar Avenue and Emerson Place (signalized) • Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue (signalized) • Garvey Avenue and Jackson Avenue (signalized) • Del Mar Avenue and Highcliff Street (signalized) • Garvey Avenue and Brighton Street (2 -way stop control) • Garvey Avenue and Kelburn Avenue (signalized) Based on the traffic study, the proposed development will not create any significant environmental effects upon the traffic and circulation systems. The study findings and recommendations are as follows: Study Area Circulation Impacts The existing (2013) study area intersections are operating at Level of Service D or better based on existing peak hour intersection volumes. Several intersections are operating at LOS A or B during peak hours. Study area roadways are operating below capacity based on weekday 24 -hour roadway volumes. For Existing 2013 with Project, Baseline 2015 (no project), and Baseline 2015 with Project conditions the study area intersections will continue to operate at Level of Service D or better with several maintaining LOS A and B in peak hours. No circulation system mitigation measures are required for implementation of the Garvey Del Mar Plaza Project. This analysis also concludes that no project access locations satisfy warrants for signalization. These findings were based on a worst -case analysis for Project trip generation. However, an area of potential concern is the proximity of the Del Mar Avenue project access to the intersection at Garvey Avenue. The existing southbound left -turn pocket storage length at the intersection is 200 feet and existing left -turn queuing may exceed this length during pm peak hour conditions. Under future project traffic conditions, left - turn volumes are anticipated to increase and the existing southbound left -turn pocket storage length may be exceed during both the am and pm peak hours. Although the project left -turn volumes at this access are forecast to be low, 10 vehicles in and 13 vehicles out during the pm (highest) peak hour, it is recommended that the impact of City Council Meeting April 28, 2015 Page 8 of 16 left- turning vehicles be monitored at this location, with restrictions imposed, if necessary. On -site Circulation There are no concerns regarding on -site circulation associated with the proposed project. The project access driveways and roadways are appropriately sized and configured for the project volumes and will be designed in accordance with applicable agency standards. Sight- distance requirements at project access driveways and intersections will be provided per agency standards. Site parking supply has been provided to meet or exceed City code. Because of height restrictions, the proximity to residences, and potential on -site circulation impacts, the project owner has identified the following measures to address commercial deliveries to the site. 1. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering and exiting the site from Brighton Street shall have a maximum height of 8'6 ". Delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering the site from Del Mar Avenue shall have a maximum height of 10'. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering the site from Del Mar Avenue shall be restricted to the first level — no internal access to level B -1. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) that are 8'6" or less can access the site from either Del Mar Avenue or Brighton Avenue and access internally both the first level and B -1. 2. There shall be no delivery vehicle (no trucks) deliveries between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. 3. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) shall park in the designated loading areas located within the commercial parking areas. Traffic Signal Warrants In this study, no unsignalized study area intersections or access driveways satisfy peak hour traffic signal warrants for any scenario. The Brighton Street and Garvey Avenue intersection will remain a two -way stop. The Project will create a new driveway access on Del Mar Avenue which should be one -way stop controlled on the driveway approach. Proposed Architecture: The Applicant has worked with the Planning Division in designing an aesthetically interesting project that meets the City's design goals for the MUDO -D overlay. The architectural style is modern, characterized by multi -story street - facing facades, tall, narrow and arched windows with painted foam - stucco trims, and predominately flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines. The front fagade has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted through the use of a distinct corner element at the southwest and southeast corners of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as the water features and potted plants along the front elevation, the use of contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer at the base of the City Council Meeting April 28, 2015 Page 9 of 16 building. The subtle details of common open spaces and pedestrian - scaled architectural elements echo the modern design aspect for this mixed -use development. Lighting New exterior lighting is proposed for the property. New wall mounted fixtures will be placed along the front, side, and rear of the building. New light standards will be installed in the parking lot area. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. The Mitigated Negative Declaration includes a lighting mitigation measure, which states: Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project applicant shall submit a lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division that incorporates any of the following light reducing measures as applicable: • Improved physical barriers such as increased wall height. • Relocate and /or change the height and /or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures. • Select lighting fixtures with more - precise optical control and /or different lighting distribution. • Add external shielding and /or internal reflectors to fixtures. • Select lower- output lamp /lamp technologies • A combination of the above. Alley Vacation In conjunction with the approval of this project, the applicant is requesting the City to vacate the alley between the four parcels fronting Garvey Avenue and the two parcels to the north, as illustrated below. This request would allow the applicant to incorporate the alley into this mixed -use development. The City Engineer has agreed to this request since it is not necessary for the City to retain the alley. A condition of approval has been added, requiring the approval of the alley vacation, prior to the issuance of Building permits. City Council Meeting April 28, 2015 Page 10 of 16 Planning Commission Direction Since the Planning Commission meeting on December 15, 2014, staff has worked closely with the applicant and environmental consultant to ensure that the Planning Commission's concerns were addressed. 1. Study the ability or feasibility of converting the apartment project to a condominium project. • The applicant has studied the project and has modified the project from apartments to condominiums. 2. Review the placement of the HVAC systems on the roof to ensure minimal noise. • The Architect has determined that the plans illustrate the best placement of the HVAC systems to ensure minimal noise. 3. Add a condition of approval which limits access on Del Mar Avenue into the project site with physical barriers. • Condition of Approval Number 85 requires the installation of physical barriers to limit access on Del Mar Avenue into the project site. 4. Add a condition of approval which limits the length and width of trucks or delivery vehicles onsite. • Condition of Approval Number 44 limits the size of the delivery vehicles. 5. Add a condition of approval relating to the requirement of a Construction Management Plan. • Condition of Approval Number 86 requires the Developer to develop a comprehensive Construction Management Plan 6. Review the MND to ensure these issues will not affect the document. • The Environmental Consultant has reviewed the MND. 7. Work with the surrounding residents on their concerns of the project. • On December 17, 2015, Planning Division staff reached out to residents and property owners within a 300 foot radius of the project site by sending a letter (Attachment "G "), informing them to contact staff if they have any questions or concerns on the proposed project. To date, staff has only received one comment, in which the applicant has been working closely with the property owner to resolve all of his concerns. Municipal Code Requirements Section 17.72.030 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) states that design review procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior fagade, or landscaping. Section 17.72.050 provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a design review application: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; City Council Meeting April 28, 2015 Page 11 of 16 The proposed development is located within an established commercial district of the City. The Applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic quality, which in Staff's determination will improve the aesthetics of one of the City's prominent intersections and the project site's relationship to the commercial district. The proposed project is consistent with the Goal 3, Policy 3.1 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan in that the goal and policy call for encouraging mixed -use development as a means of upgrading established uses and developing vacant parcels along arterials to provide new commercial, residential, and employment opportunities. In addition, Goal 3, Policy 3.5 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan calls for promoting lively and attractive ground -floor retail uses that will create public revenues needed to provide for City services and the City's tax base. B. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas; To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses noise and lighting mitigation measures. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. Conditions of approval have been incorporated to eliminate adverse effects on the environment as a result of the proposed project. This development will not generate any permanent impacts to noise levels for the surrounding area. All construction work will be required to comply with the timeframe, and decibel levels indicated in the City's Noise Ordinance. Conditions of approval will specifically address factors such as noise, construction hours, screening of mechanical equipment, landscaping, lighting, and the overall maintenance of the property. C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing building or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value; The proposed project will improve the aesthetics of the prominent corner by establishing a mixed -use development of high architectural quality. The improvements to the site, in terms of new construction, landscape, and hardscape will provide a marked improvement over the existing appearance of the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenue. City Council Meeting April 28, 2015 Page 12 of 16 D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially in those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size, or style; The property is not part of the Civic Center Plan, precise plan or land reserved for public or educational use, so there is no special need to create harmony with the general area. Notwithstanding this, the approved design will create a development that is an aesthetic upgrade over the surrounding area and that has the potential to enhance land values in the general area. This is due to the proposed new building fagade with higher quality materials, a design that blends better with the area, and greatly improved landscaping and parking lot area. E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and The proposed development meets all of the minimum code requirements for the C -3 MUDO -D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed -Use and Design Overlay) zone and all applicable referenced code sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code, as modified by the request for concessions under SB 1818. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. The Applicant has worked with the Planning Division in designing an aesthetically high - quality project. The front fagade has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted through the use of a distinct corner element at the southwest and southeast corners of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as the water features and potted plants along the front elevation, the use of contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer at the base of the building. The subtle details of common open spaces and pedestrian - scaled architectural elements echo the modern design aspect for this mixed -use development. Section 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth the procedures and requirements for zone changes and amendments. A zone change may be permitted whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice justifies such action. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65860 (a), a City Council Meeting April 28, 2015 Page 13 of 16 zone change must be found consistent with the City's General Plan. A. Land Use: The General Plan Land Use Designation of the subject site is currently Commercial and Medium Density Residential. However, with implementation of the zone change, the site would change to a Mixed -Use: High Density Residential /Commercial Land Use Designation with a maximum density of 60 dwelling units per acre and maximum floor -area ratio of 2.0:1. The project site area consists of 1.14 acres. With a total of 60 residential dwelling units and 1.61 acres of total floor area, the project is consist with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. B. Circulation: The proposed project will result in an increase in vehicle trips from the proposed residential and commercial land uses of the mixed -use project. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, this increase will not result in significant environmental impacts upon the Level of Service of surrounding street intersections and project entry driveways, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties. The proposed project will provide adequate off - street parking, including two levels of subterranean parking and one level of surface parking, to serve the parking needs of future residents and patrons and minimize traffic - related impacts upon the neighborhood. C. Housing: The proposed project is consistent with the City of Rosemead Housing Element, which seeks to provide a variety of housing types for the various demographics of the community. The proposed development will provide 60 new residential dwelling units, including 9 designated low- income rental units. D. Resource Management: The proposed development is located in a developed urban area, and as such, will not result in any significant impact upon natural resources. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, such as building setback and landscaping, the proposed building will have a less than significant impact upon the aesthetics from adjoining properties. E. Noise: This development will not generate any significant permanent impacts to the noise levels of the surrounding area. The proposed project will result in additional pedestrian and vehicular traffic noises, but is not considered to be substantial. There will be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels above the existing levels due to the presence of heavy equipment and trade personnel during construction activities. All construction work will be required to comply with the defined timeframe and City's Noise Ordinance. All mechanical equipment will be designed to minimize noise impacts on adjoining properties. City Council Meeting April 28, 2015 Page 14 of 16 F. Public Safety: The proposed development will allow the construction of residential and commercial uses in a developed urbanized area where there are no known public safety concerns. The site is not located in a seismic safety zone, and the entire City of Rosemead is located in Flood Zone C (flood insurance is not mandatory) and is free from any flood hazard designations. The project will be designed to meet the latest Building Code and Fire Code to maximized public safety of the site. Section 16.08.130 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the standards for approval for a tentative map: A. The proposed division will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to the property or improvements in the immediate vicinity. The proposed division will not have any foreseeable, materially detrimental impacts on the surrounding area. The proposed project will enhance the aesthetics of the immediate vicinity and potentially increase the property values of the neighborhood. The improvements to the landscape and hardscape of the site will enhance the overall appearance of the surrounding area. B. The proposed division will not be contrary to any official plan adopted by the City Council; or to any official policies or standards adopted by the City Planning Commission or 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. The proposed project was not a part of any official plan at the time of filing of the application. The proposed project consists of concurrent application filings for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, to ensure that the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Plan. The proposed subdivision will be consistent with the purpose of Chapter 16.08 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, Minor Subdivisions, in that it will be in compliance with the official land use zoning plan of the City and any other applicable design standards. C. Each proposed parcel conforms in area and dimension to the provisions of zoning and subdivision requirements of the City. The proposed subdivision will conform to the zoning and subdivision requirements of the City in area and dimension. The C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone does not provide minimum or maximum standards for the lot area or dimensions. 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, City Council Meeting April 28, 2015 Page 15 of 16 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. The applicant has proposed a necessary number of driveways with sufficient dimensions to provide adequate access and circulation for vehicles and pedestrians. Additionally, the proposed project includes a dedication to enlarge the public right -of -way. E. All easements and covenants required for the approval of the tentative map or plot plan have been duly executed and recorded. The proposed subdivision will not require any easements or covenants for the approval of the tentative map. STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS Authority for and Scope of General Plans Section 65300 et seq of the California Government Code sets standards for each City to prepare, adopt, and amend a comprehensive general plan. This plan coordinates the long -term physical development goals and objectives of the City. Government Code Sections 65860, 66473.5 and 66474 require that day -to -day development decisions, such as zoning and land subdivisions should be consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment to the General Plan will change the land use designation of six (6) parcels from Commercial and Medium Density Residential to Mixed -use High Density Residential /Commercial (60 du /ac). The proposed change will not eliminate any active or passive recreation areas since the subject properties are private property and not open to the public. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS On April 16, 2015, thirty -nine (39) notices were sent to property owners within a 300 - feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in five (5) public locations, on -site, and published in the Rosemead Reader. City Council Meeting April 28, 2015 Page 16 of 16 Prepare y: 4 4a Lily T. Valenzuela Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS: Submitted by: Michelle Ramirez Community Development Director A. Resolution 2015 -01 with Exhibit "A" (Conditions of Approval) B. Ordinance 942 C. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 15, 2014 D. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, date December 15, 2014 E. Planning Commission Resolution 14 -10 F. Letter of Request for Density Bonus G. Letter Sent to Residents and Property Owners H. Mitigated Negative Declaration /Mitigation Monitoring Program I. Architectural Plans RESOLUTION 2015 -01 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 12 -05, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 12 -02, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 72529, AND PROPOSED ALLEY VACATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL /COMMERCIAL MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF 15,553 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL /RESTAURANT SPACE AND SIXTY (60) RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR A TOTAL BUILT AREA OF 70,162 SQUARE FEET. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 7801 -7825 GARVEY AVENUE, 3012 DEL MAR AVENUE, AND 3017 BRIGHTON STREET IN THE C -3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) AND R -2 (LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) ZONE (APN's: 5287 - 039 -001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 011). WHEREAS, on December 19, 2012, Gerard Ngo submitted entitlement applications for the construction of a new residential /commercial mixed -use development comprised of 15,553 square feet of retail /restaurant space and 60 residential units for a total built area of 70,162 square feet. The project is located at 7801 -7825 Garvey Avenue, 3012 Del Mar Avenue, and 3017 Brighton Street; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested development incentives, pursuant to Section 65915 of the California Government Code, for reduced parking in order to set aside twenty (20) percent of the proposed residential condominiums to persons or households of low- income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code; and, WHEREAS, Section 65358 of the California Government Code allows the City Council, as the legislative body, to amend all or part of the City's adopted General Plan when it is deemed in the public interest; and, WHEREAS, Section 17.72.020 & 17.72.050 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) provides the purpose and criteria for a design review; and WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Section 17.72.050 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove design review applications; 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; and 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 ATTACHMENT "A" Commission to approve, conditionally approve or deny tentative subdivision maps; and WHEREAS, Section 65300 et seq. of the California Government Code sets standards for each City to prepare, adopt, and amend a comprehensive general plan. This plan coordinates the long -term physical development goals and objectives of the City. Government Code Sections 65860, 66473.5 and 66474 require that day -to -day development decisions, such as zoning and land subdivisions should be consistent with the General Plan. WHEREAS, on December 15, 2014, the Planning Commission considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program that was prepared for the proposed project, along with agency comments and public testimony. The Planning Commission concurred with the findings of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed mixed -use development, finding that no potentially significant environmental impacts could occur with the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, on December 15, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to various entitlement requests for the proposed mixed -use project; and, WHEREAS, on December 15, 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead, recommended that the City Council consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration as the environmental clearance for Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529; and WHEREAS, on April 16, 2015, thirty -nine (39) notices were sent to property owners within a 300 -feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in five (5) public locations, on -site, and published in the Rosemead Reader, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2015, the City Council fully studied the proposed Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529, Mitigated Negative Declaration, environmental findings, and considered all public comments; and WHEREAS, City Council, having final approval authority over this project, has reviewed and considered all comments received during the public review period prior to the approval of this project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD HEREBY FINDS, DECLARES, AND RECOMMENDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Design Review 12 -05 in accordance with Section 17.72.030 et seq., of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: 2 A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; FINDING: The proposed development is located within an established commercial district of the City. The Applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic quality, which in Staff's determination will improve the aesthetics of one of the City's prominent intersections and the project site's relationship to the commercial district. The proposed project is consistent with the Goal 3, Policy 3.1 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan in that the goal and policy call for encouraging mixed -use development as a means of upgrading established uses and developing vacant parcels along arterials to provide new commercial, residential, and employment opportunities. In addition, Goal 3, Policy 3.5 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan calls for promoting lively and attractive ground -floor retail uses that will create public revenues needed to provide for City services and the City's tax base. B. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas; FINDING: To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses noise and lighting mitigation measures. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. Conditions of approval have been incorporated to eliminate adverse effects on the environment as a result of the proposed project. This development will not generate any permanent impacts to noise levels for the surrounding area. All construction work will be required to comply with the timeframe, and decibel levels indicated in the City's Noise Ordinance. Conditions of approval will specifically address factors such as noise, construction hours, screening of mechanical equipment, landscaping, lighting, and the overall maintenance of the property. C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing building or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value; FINDING: The proposed project will improve the aesthetics of the prominent corner by establishing a mixed -use development of high architectural quality. The improvements to the site, in terms of new construction, landscape, and hardscape will provide a marked improvement over the existing appearance of the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenue. 3 D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially in those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size, or style; FINDING: The property is not part of the Civic Center Plan, precise plan, or land reserved for public or educational use, so there is no special need to create harmony with the general area. Notwithstanding this, the approved design will create a development that is an aesthetic upgrade over the surrounding area and that has the potential to enhance land values in the general area. This is due to the proposed new building fagade with higher quality materials, a design that blends better with the area, and greatly improved landscaping and parking lot area. E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and FINDING: The proposed development meets all of the minimum code requirements for the C -3 MUDO -D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed -Use and Design Overlay) zone and all applicable referenced code sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code, as modified by the request for concessions under SIB 1818. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. FINDING: The Applicant has worked with the Planning Division in designing an aesthetically high - quality project. The front fagade has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted through the use of a distinct corner element at the southwest and southeast corners of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as the water features and potted plants along the front elevation, the use of contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer at the base of the building. The subtle details of common open spaces and pedestrian - scaled architectural elements echo the modern design aspect for this mixed -use development. Section 2. General Plan Consistency with State Law Determination. The City Council finds that the Rosemead General Plan Amendment as proposed is consistent with the requirements of State law governing general plans. A. Land Use: The General Plan Land Use Designation of the subject site is currently Commercial and Medium Density Residential. However, with implementation of the zone change, which proposes a Mixed -Use: High Density Residential /Commercial 51 Land Use Designation with a maximum density of 60 dwelling units per acre and maximum floor -area ratio of 2.0:1. The project site area consists of 1.14 acres. With a total of 60 residential dwelling units and 1.61 acres of total floor area, the project is consist with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. B. Circulation: The proposed project will result in an increase in vehicle trips from the proposed residential and commercial land uses of the mixed -use project. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, this increase will not result in significant environmental impacts upon the Level of Service of surrounding street intersections and project entry driveways, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties. The proposed project will provide adequate off - street parking, including two levels of subterranean parking and one level of surface parking, to serve the parking needs of future residents and patrons and minimize traffic - related impacts upon the neighborhood. C. Housing: The proposed project is consistent with the City of Rosemead Housing Element, which seeks to provide a variety of housing types for the various demographics of the community. The proposed development will provide 60 new residential dwelling units, including 12 designated low- income rental units. D. Resource Management: The proposed development is located in a developed urban area, and as such, will not result in any significant impact upon natural resources. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, such as building setback and landscaping, the proposed building will have a less than significant impact upon the aesthetics from adjoining properties. E. Noise: This development will not generate any significant permanent impacts to the noise levels of the surrounding area. The proposed project will result in additional pedestrian and vehicular traffic noises, but is not considered to be substantial. There will be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels above the existing levels due to the presence of heavy equipment and trade personnel during construction activities. All construction work will be required to comply with the defined timeframe and City's Noise Ordinance. All mechanical equipment will be designed to minimize noise impacts on adjoining properties. F. Public Safety: The proposed development will allow the construction of residential and commercial uses in a developed urbanized area where there are no known public safety concerns. The site is not located in a seismic safety zone, and the entire City of Rosemead is located in Flood Zone C (flood insurance is not mandatory) and is free from any flood hazard designations. The project will be designed to meet the latest Building Code and Fire Code to maximized public safety of the site. Section 3. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Tentative Tract Map 72529; according to the criteria of Section 16.08.130 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: 5 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 proposed division will not have any foreseeable, materially detrimental impacts on the surrounding area. The proposed project will enhance the aesthetics of the immediate vicinity and potentially increase the property values of the neighborhood. The improvements to the landscape and hardscape of the site will enhance the overall appearance of the surrounding area. B. The proposed division will not be contrary to any official plan adopted by the City Council; or to any official policies or standards adopted by the City Planning Commission or 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. FINDING: The proposed project was not a part of any official plan at the time of filing of the application. The proposed project consisted of concurrent application filings for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, to ensure that the project is consist with the General Plan and Zoning Plan. The proposed subdivision will be consistent with the purpose of Chapter 16.08 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, Minor Subdivisions, in that it will be in compliance with the official land use zoning plan of the City and any other applicable design standards. C. Each proposed parcel conforms in area and dimension to the provisions of zoning and subdivision requirements of the City. FINDING: The proposed subdivision will conform to all applicable zoning and subdivision requirements of the City in area and dimension. The C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone development standards do not provide minimum or maximum standards for lot area or dimensions. The RCMUDO (Residential /Commercial Mixed - Use Development Overlay) zone development standards require a minimum of thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of lot area, with no lot dimension requirement. Accordingly, the proposed project site consists of 49,850 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 applicant has proposed driveways with sufficient dimensions to provide adequate access and circulation for vehicles and pedestrians. Access to the parking areas of the site will be provided on Del Mar Avenue and Brighton Street, splitting the vehicular traffic associated with the proposed project. Additionally, the proposed project includes a dedication to enlarge the public right -of -way. The alley to the north of the site, between Del Mar Avenue and Brighton Street, will be vacated. L E. All easements and covenants required for the approval of the tentative map or plot plan have been duly executed and recorded. FINDING: The proposed subdivision will not require any easements or covenants for the approval of the tentative map. The site will have direct access from the public right -of -way. Section 4. The Mayor shall sign this resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the adoption thereof. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of April, 2015. Margaret Clark, Mayor City of Rosemead, California ATTEST: Gloria Molleda, City Clerk City of Rosemead, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: Rachel Richman, City Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP rA EXHIBIT "A" (CC Resolution 2015 -01) Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL April 28, 2015 1. Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529 are approved for the construction of a new residential /commercial mixed -use development totaling 70,162 square feet, in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit "I ", dated December 4, 2014. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division. 2. Approval of Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529 shall not take effect for any purpose until the Applicant has filed with the City of Rosemead a notarized affidavit stating that he /she is aware of and accepts all of the conditions of approval as set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions, within ten (10) days from the City Council approval date. 3. The onsite public hearing notice posting shall be removed by the end of the 10- day appeal period of Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529. 4. Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529 is approved for a period of one (1) year. The Applicant shall commence the proposed use or request an extension within 30- calendar days prior to expiration. The one (1) year initial approval period shall be effective from the City Council 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 Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529 have been unused, abandoned, or discontinued for a period of one (1) year it shall become null and void. 5. The City Council hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and /or approve minor modifications. 6. The following conditions must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Planning Division prior to final approval of the associated plans, building permits, occupancy permits, or any other appropriate request. 7. Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, M and Tentative Tract Map 72529 are granted or approved with the City and its Planning Commission and City Council retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit, including the modification of existing or imposition of new conditions of approval based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not 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 Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529. 8. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval of the Planning Commission and /or City Council concerning the project, which action is brought within the time period provided by law. 9. The Applicant shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws relative to the approved use including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff and Health Departments. 10. Building permits will not be issued in connection with any project until such time as all plan check fees, and all other applicable fees, are paid in full. 11. Occupancy will not be granted until all improvements required by this approval have been completed, inspected, and approved by the appropriate department(s), including but not limited to all improvements required to file a final tract map and the filing and recordation of that final map. 12. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least 6" tall with a minimum character width of 3/4 ", contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street. Materials, colors, location, and size of such address numbers shall be approved by the Planning Division, prior to installation. 13. All requirements of the Planning Division, Building Division, and Public Works Department shall be complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction. 14. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday to Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any federal holidays without prior approval by the City. 15. The Planning, Building, and Public Works staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to monitor progress. N 16. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti -free state. Any new graffiti shall be removed within twenty -four (24) hours. A 24 -hour, Graffiti Hotline can be called at (626) 569 -2345 for assistance. 17. The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed, and litter free state in accordance with the Rosemead Municipal Code. All trash containers shall be stored in the appropriate trash enclosure at all times. All trash, rubbish, and garbage receptacles shall be regularly cleaned, inspected, and maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition. 18. A detailed elevation drawing shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval all trash enclosures prior to submittal of construction drawings. All trash enclosures shall be of an integral part of the building design, and incorporate complementary colors and materials. All trash enclosures shall have a solid roof cover and doors shall be opaque, self - closing and self - latching. 19. All off - street parking shall comply with the relevant section of the Rosemead Municipal Code applicable as of the date these Conditions of Approval are adopted. The parking area, including loading and handicapped spaces, shall be paved and re- painted periodically to City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. In accordance with the currently applicable section of the Rosemead Municipal Code, all designated parking stalls shall be double striped. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly manner. 20. The Applicant shall keep the electrical and mechanical equipment and /or emergency exits free of any debris, storage, furniture, etc., and maintain a minimum clearance of five (5) feet. 21. All roof top appurtenances and equipment shall adequately be screened from view to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. There shall be no mechanical equipment located on the sides of the building. Such equipment shall not exceed the height of the parapet wall. All ground level mechanical /utility equipment (including meters, back flow preservation devices, fire valves, A/C condensers, furnaces, utility cabinets and other equipment) shall be located away from public view or adequately screened by landscaping or screening walls so as not to be seen from the public right of way or other public space within the development. The Planning Division shall approve said screening prior to installation. 22. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer /Applicant shall comply with the City's storm water ordinance and storm water mitigation plan requirements with respect to the proposed project. 23. Prior to issuance of building permits, Deed Restrictions or an Affordable Housing Agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney must be recorded against the twelve (12) affordable condominium units that meet all of the requirements for affordability for low- income families and meet all other criteria outlined in Government Code Section 65915. In addition, in an effort to respond to the 10 needs of City residents before nonresidents and to provide affordable housing, the Applicant shall give existing qualified City of Rosemead residents priority in obtaining an affordable unit. 24. All open areas not covered by concrete, asphalt, or structures shall be landscaped and maintained on a regular basis. Maintenance procedures of such landscaped and common areas shall be specifically indicted in the CC &R's prior to issuance of any building permit. 25. Prior to the issuance of any sign permit, the Applicant shall submit a Master Sign Program to the Planning Division for review and approval. The sign program shall address sign materials, colors, height, width and location. It shall also address the use of temporary signage such as banners as well as appropriate window signage. 26. A final landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The new planting materials shall include a combination of colorful and drought tolerant trees, large potted plants, shrubs, and low growing flowers. The landscape and irrigation plan shall include a sprinkler system with automatic timers and moisture sensors. 27. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and /or initiation of revocation proceedings. Mitiaation Measure Conditions Aesthetics 28. The City Council authorizes the applicant to work with the Planning Division on the public art plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. 29. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project applicant shall submit a lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division that incorporates any of the following light reducing measures as applicable: • Improved physical barriers such as increased wall height • Relocate and /or change the height and /or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures. • Select lighting fixtures with more - precise optical control and /or different lighting distribution. • Add external shielding and /or internal reflectors to fixtures. • Select lower- output lamp /lamp technologies. • A combination of the above. 11 Air Quality 30. During construction, the contractor shall apply water three times daily, or non- toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas, unpaved road surfaces, and active construction areas. Geology and Soils 31. As recommended in the geotechnical engineering investigation prepared for the project and approved by the City Engineer, the project shall be designed for a peak acceleration value of 0.79g. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 32. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any structure, the project developer shall provide a building survey to determine if asbestos or lead paint are present. The asbestos and lead paint survey shall be conducted by a Cal - OSHA Certified Asbestos consultant in accordance with sampling criteria of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). If lead paint and /or asbestos containing materials are found, all lead containing paint and /or asbestos shall be removed and disposed by a licensed and certified lead paint and /or asbestos removal contractor, as applicable in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations prior to the start of activities that would disturb any ACM containing materials or lead paint. Hydrology and Water Quality 33. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project developer shall submit a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSWMP) to the City for approval. All applicable erosion control measures including Best Management Practices (BMP's), to reduce erosion and minimize water quality impacts during grading and construction shall be installed and maintained during construction to control water quality impacts. 34. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install a surface storm water collection system to collect and treat the first 3 /4 of an inch of surface water runoff from the site as approved by the City Engineer. 35. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install two underground water storage tanks totaling 3,500 gallons and a dry well system to capture on- site surface water flows. If the dry well fills up during a storm a sump pump located adjacent to the dry well will pump any overflow from the dry well into Brighton Street. 12 36. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install a catch basin with a filter to filter the storm water prior to its discharge into the underground storage tanks. Noise 37. Project related operational hours for the following activities are recommended to be restricted as follows: • There shall be no delivery vehicle (no trucks) deliveries between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. • Refuse collection vehicles shall restrict activity to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. • Loading of boxes, crates and building materials is restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. adjacent to a residential property line. • Construction activities are restricted by the City of Rosemead Noise Ordinance. While construction noise is not expected to exceed 85 dB at the nearest sensitive use (residences north of the site), construction noise can be minimized with the implementation of the following conditions: • All motorized construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. • Equipment and materials shall be staged in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction - related noise sources and the noise - sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. • Haul truck and other construction - related trucks traveling to and from the project site shall be restricted to the same hours specified for the operation of construction equipment. • To the extent feasible, construction haul routes shall not pass directly by sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. 38. An acoustical study shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit to show that all balconies facing Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenue have a transparent glass or plastic shield to create outdoor space that achieves the 65 dB CNEL or less. Public Services 39. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall pay any required student impact fee to the Garvey Unified School District. 40. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall pay any required park fee to the City of Rosemead. 13 Transportation/Traffic 41. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install a new bus stop and shelter on Garvey Avenue at a location determined by the City and 21 bicycle stalls, with 10 bicycle stalls on the first subterranean level (B -1) and 11 bicycle stalls on the lower parking level (B -2). 42. Within six months after 75% of the retail /commercial space is occupied, the project developer shall provide weekday PM peak hour left turn traffic volumes on Del Mar Avenue to the City's Traffic Consultant to confirm that project left -turns do not cause congestion with the existing southbound left -turns at Garvey Avenue. If determined by the City's Traffic Consultant that project left -turns onto Del Mar Avenue during the PM peak hour cause congestion, left -turns at the Del Mar Avenue driveway shall be restricted. 43. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall design the two project driveways in compliance with City driveway standards for site access. 44. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering and exiting the site from Brighton Street shall have a maximum height of 8' -6 ". Delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering the site from Del Mar Avenue shall have a maximum height of 10'. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering the site from Del Mar Avenue shall be restricted to the first level — no internal access to level B -1. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) that are 8' -6" or less can access the site from either Del Mar Avenue or Brighton Avenue and access internally both the first level and level B -1. 45. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) shall park in the designated Loading areas located within the commercial parking areas. Utilities and Service Systems 46. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install all State mandated low -flow water fixtures. Engineering Conditions of Approval GENERAL 47. 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. 14 48. A final tract 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. 49. The Public Right -of -Way Vacation for the Alley northerly of Garvey Avenue between Del Mar Avenue and Brighton Avenue pursuant Municipal Code, California Streets and Highways Code and California Subdivision Map Act shall be approved prior to the issuance of Building permits. 50. A preliminary subdivision guarantee is required showing all fee interest holders and encumbrances. An updated title report shall be provided before the final parcel map is released for filing with the County Recorder. 51. The final tract map shall be based on a field survey, and monuments shall be set to permanently mark parcel map boundaries, street center lines and lot boundaries to the satisfaction of the City 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. 52. Final tract 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. 53. Comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 54. 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. 55. 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. 56. Prior to performing any grading, obtain a permit from the Engineering Division. Submit grading and drainage plans pre the City's grading guidelines and the latest edition of the Los Angeles County Building Code. The plans shall be stamped and signed by a California State Registered Civil Engineer. 57. 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. 15 58. 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. 59. 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. 60. Prepare and submit hydrology and hydraulic calculations for sizing of all proposed drainage devices. The analysis shall also determine if changes in the post development versus pre development conditions have occurred. The analysis shall be stamped by a California State Registered Civil Engineer and prepared per the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Method. 61. All grading projects require an Erosion Control Plan as part of the grading plans. Grading permit will not be issued until and Erosion Control Plan is approved by the Engineering Department. 62. The project is greater than one acre; therefore, a Storm Water Pollution Plan is required. A Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. When submitting the SWPPP for the City's review, please include the NOI and the Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number. 63. Adjust, relocate, and /or eliminate lot lines, lots, streets, easements or other physical improvements to comply with ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the date the City determined the application to be completed all to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 64. Show clearly all existing lot lines and proposed lot line on the plans. 65. Provide a complete boundary and topographic survey. 66. Show any easement on the plans if applicable. ROAD 67. 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. 68. All work proposed within the public right -of -way shall require permits from the Public Works Department. 69. Remove and replace existing curb and gutter from northerly property line along Brighton Street to northerly property line along Del Mar Avenue. 16 70. Remove and replace sidewalk from northerly property line along Brighton Street to northerly property line along Del Mar Avenue. 71. Remove and construct driveway approaches as indicated on the plans. 72. Construct five feet parkway. Install parkway trees as indicated on the plans. All street trees shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Urban Forester. Street trees shall be planted in a manner that provides a minimum clearance of eight (8) feet from any existing or proposed sewer laterals to be used to serve the project. The size of the trees shall be minimum 48 inches box. 73. Traffic Signal Modification at the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenue as indicated by traffic impact analysis and Public Works Department. 74. Show dimensions of existing and proposed right -of -way along Brighton Avenue, Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue. 75. A $2,000.00 fee will be required per each storm drain adjacent to the property per retrofit pursuant Los Angeles River Trash TMDL requirements. F1A/F R 76. Approval of this land division is contingent upon providing a separate house sewer lateral to serve each lot of the land division. 77. Prepare and submit a sewer calculations analysis for sizing of proposed laterals including capacity conditions of existing sewer trunk line. The analysis shall be stamped by a California State Registered Civil Engineer and prepared per the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Guidelines. 78. If the new sewer flow alters the capacity conditions of the existing sewer main along Garvey Avenue, a sewer main improvement will be required. 79. All existing laterals to be abandoned shall be capped at the public right of way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Building Official of the City of Rosemead. Utilities 80. All power, telephone and cable television shall be underground. 81. Any utilities that are in conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's expense. 82. Provide a street lighting plan. 17 Water 83. Prior to the filing of the final map, there shall also be filed with the City Engineer, a statement from the water purveyor indicating compliance with the Fire Chiefs fire flow requirements. 84. Water hydrant, water meter box and utilities box shall be located 8 feet away from parkway trees and 3 feet away from driveway approach. Conditions Added bV the Plannin_g Commission on December 15, 2014 85. Physical barriers shall be installed to limit access on Del Mar Avenue into the project site. 86. Prior to the issuance of Building permits, the Developer shall develop a comprehensive Construction Management Plan, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, and Public Works Department. The Construction Management Plan shall address noise, vibrations, traffic control, parking, debris removal, staging, dust control, sanitary facilities, and other potential construction impacts, as well as other details involving the means and methods of completing the project, including the construction equipment route. The City has the authority to require modifications and amendments to the Construction Management Plan as deemed necessary throughout the course of the project and until the final inspection. IN ORDINANCE NO. 942 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 12 -02 CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF SIX PARCELS FROM C -3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) AND THE SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE R -2 (LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) TO C -3 MUDO -D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A RESDIENTIAUCOMMERCIAL MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND DESIGN OVERLAY). THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 7801- 7825 GARVEY AVENUE, 3012 DEL MAR AVENUE, AND 3017 BRIGHTON STREET (APN's: 5287 - 039 -001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 011). WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has an adopted Zoning Ordinance and associated maps, including specific development standards to control development; and WHEREAS, approval of Zone Change 12 -02 will change the zoning of six (6) parcels from C -3 Medium Commercial and the single - family residence at the northeast corner of the site R -2 Light Multiple Residential to C -3 Medium Commercial and add a Residential /Commercial Mixed -Use Development Overlay (RCMUDO) and Design Overlay; and WHEREAS, State Planning and Zoning Law, Title 17, and Chapter 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes and sets standards for approval of Zone Change applications and governs development of private properties; and WHEREAS, Section 17.116.010 of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to approve zone change applications whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practices justify such action; and WHEREAS, City of Rosemead policy encourages consistency of its Zoning Code with the General Plan and promotes separation of conflicting land uses through good planning practices; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2014, the City of Rosemead Planning Commission considered Zone Change 12 -02 and recommended approval to the City Council after the Commission made findings that the proposed application will not have a significant impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive testimony, and after hearing all testimonies from the public, the Commission recommended approval to the City Council of Zone Change 12 -02; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted ATTACHMENT "B" Resolution 14 -10, thereby recommending approval to the City Council of Zone Change 12 -01; and WHEREAS, on April 16, 2015, thirty -nine (39) notices were sent to property owners within a 300 -feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in five (5) public locations, on -site, and published in the Rosemead Reader, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2015, the City Council held a public hearing to receive public testimony relative to Zone Change 12 -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: SECTION 1 . The City Council hereby makes a finding of adequacy with the Mitigated Negative Declaration and HEREBY ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration, as the environmental clearance for Zone Change 12 -02. SECTION 2. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that Zone Change 12 -02 is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan as follows: A. Land Use: The General Plan Land Use Designation of the subject site is currently Commercial and Medium Density Residential. However, with implementation of the zone change, the site would change to a Mixed -Use: High Density Residential /Commercial Land Use Designation with a maximum density of 60 dwelling units per acre and maximum floor -area ratio of 2.0:1. The project site area consists of 1.14 acres. With a total of 60 residential dwelling units and 1.61 acres of total floor area, the project is consist with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. B. Circulation: The proposed project will result in an increase in vehicle trips from the proposed residential and commercial land uses of the mixed -use project. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, this increase will not result in significant environmental impacts upon the Level of Service of surrounding street intersections and project entry driveways, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties. The proposed project will provide adequate off - street parking, including two levels of subterranean parking and one level of surface parking, to serve the parking needs of future residents and patrons and minimize traffic - related impacts upon the neighborhood. C. Housing: The proposed project is consistent with the City of Rosemead Housing Element, which seeks to provide a variety of housing types for the various demographics of the community. The proposed development will provide 60 new residential dwelling units, including 12 designated low- income rental units. 2 D. Resource Management: The proposed development is located in a developed urban area, and as such, will not result in any significant impact upon natural resources. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, such as building setback and landscaping, the proposed building will have a less than significant impact upon the aesthetics from adjoining properties. E. Noise: This development will not generate any significant permanent impacts to the noise levels of the surrounding area. The proposed project will result in additional pedestrian and vehicular traffic noises, but is not considered to be substantial. There will be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels above the existing levels due to the presence of heavy equipment and trade personnel during construction activities. All construction work will be required to comply with the defined timeframe and City's Noise Ordinance. All mechanical equipment will be designed to minimize noise impacts on adjoining properties. F. Public Safety: The proposed development will allow the construction of residential and commercial uses in a developed urbanized area where there are no known public safety concerns. The site is not located in a seismic safety zone, and the entire City of Rosemead is located in Flood Zone C (flood insurance is not mandatory) and is free from any flood hazard designations. The project will be designed to meet the latest Building Code and Fire Code to maximized public safety of the site. SECTION 3 . The City Council hereby AMENDS the City's Zoning Map to change the zoning of six (6) parcels from C -3 Medium Commercial and the single - family residence at the northeast corner of the site R -2 Light Multiple Residential to C -3 Medium Commercial and add a Residential /Commercial Mixed -Use Development Overlay (RCMUDO) and Design Overlay. SECTION 4. The Zoning Map as a part of Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code is HEREBY AMENDED to read as read as incorporated by this reference as Exhibit A: SECTION 5 . If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rosemead HEREBY DECLARES that it would have passed and adopted Ordinance No. 942 and each and all provisions thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provisions may be declared to be invalid. 3 SECTION 6 . The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance. PASSED AND APPROVED, this 28 day of April, 2015. Margaret Clark, Mayor City of Rosemead, California ATTEST: Gloria Molleda, City Clerk City of Rosemead, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: Rachel Richman, City Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP rd ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 2014 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 12 -05, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 12 -02, ZONE CHANGE 12 -02, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 72529, AND ALLEY VACATION 7801 -7825 GARVEY AVENUE, 3012 DEL MAR AVENUE, AND 3017 BRIGHTON STREET Summary Gerard Ngo has submitted entitlement applications requesting to develop a new residential /commercial mixed -use development. The project consists of the demolition of all existing structures to construct a five - story, mixed -use development with 15,553 square feet of retail /restaurant space on the basement/first and second floors and 60 residential units on the third through fifth floors, comprising 54,609 square feet, for a total built area of 70,162 square feet. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and two stories of subterranean basement parking. The City is proposing to participate by vacating the existing public alley that bisects the site. Access to the proposed project will be provided via the rear of the structure with one entrance each on Del Mar Avenue and Brighton Street. The project also includes a density bonus application under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, which amended the state bonus law to allow density bonuses up to 35 %. The property is located at the northeast corner of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue in the C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone and R -2 (Light Multiple Residential) zone. This item was on the Planning Commission Agenda for June 16, 2014. However, due to extensive comments from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) during the 20 -day public review distribution period for the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project, the Planning Commission continued this item to a future Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes are included in this report as Exhibits "C" and "D ". On June 4, 2014 (attached as Exhibit "E "), Caltrans submitted a comment letter to the City indicating their concerns that the 1 -10 /Del Mar Avenue freeway on -off ramps is ATTACHMENT "C" Planning Commission Meeting December 15, 2014 Page 2 of 48 operating at or near capaCity. Any project trips will contribute significant traffic impact to the State Facilities. For this reason, the Environmental Consultant, Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. was directed to have the traffic consultant conduct the necessary traffic counts at the 1 -10 /Del Mar Avenue freeway intersections to gather the traffic information necessary to respond to Caltrans. Traffic counts were taken at the 1 -10 /Del Mar Avenue freeway intersections the week of September 8, 2014 when the public schools were in session to gather the traffic data necessary to respond to your comment. Based on the collected traffic counts and analysis, project traffic will not impact any of the Del Mar Avenue at 1 -10 freeway on -off ramps during the AM or PM peak hours. The traffic study addendum is attached to this staff report as Exhibit "F ". On June 6, 2014, staff received a comment letter from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works indicating that storm drain BI 1109 - Monterey Park Area belonging to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) and the 8 -inch sewer line that will serve the project may not have the capaCity to serve the project. For this reason, a sewer analysis study was completed and the LACDPW has reviewed and approved the study (attached as Exhibit "G). Environmental Analysis The City of Rosemead acting as a Lead Agency, has completed an Initial Study /Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed mixed -use project pursuant to Section 15070 (b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Initial Study has been undertaken to determine if the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study was prepared and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. On the basis of the Initial Study, the City of Rosemead has concluded that the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment if certain mitigation measures are adopted and carried out, and the City has therefore prepared a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The MND reflects the independent judgment of the City as a lead agency per CEQA Guidelines. The project site is not on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The proposed project is not considered a project of statewide, regional or area -wide significance and would not affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was distributed for a 20 -day public review and comment period from May 21, 2014 to June 9, 2014. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, along with Agency comments and a Mitigation Monitoring Program as required by CEQA guidelines, is attached to this staff report for your review. If the Commission recommends this project to the City Council for approval, the Commission must make a finding of adequacy with the environmental assessment and also recommend that the City Council to adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit "H "). Planning Commission Meeting December 15, 2014 Page 3 of 48 Staff Recommendation Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 14 -10 with findings (Exhibit "A "), which is a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance 942 (attached as Exhibit "I ") approving Zone Change 12 -02 and CC Resolution 2015 -01 (attached as Exhibit "J ") approving Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529 and recommending adoption of the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Design Review 12 -05 Rosemead Municipal Code Section (RMC) 17.74.030(A)(1) states a precise plan of design for residential /commercial mixed -use development shall be submitted, and approved in accordance with the requirements of Section 17.72.060, with the exception that the City Council shall approve or disapprove such project upon receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission. General Plan Amendment 12 -02 The project will change the existing Rosemead General Plan land use designations from Commercial and the residence at the northeast corner Medium Density Residential (0 -12 du /ac.) to Mixed -use: Residential /Commercial (60 du /ac; 4 stories). Zone Change 12 -02 The project will change the zoning from C -3 Medium Commercial and the single - family residence at the northeast corner of the site R -2 Light Multiple Residential to C -3 Medium Commercial and add a Residential /Commercial Mixed -Use Development Overlay (RCMUDO) and Design Overlay to allow the development of the project as proposed. Tentative Tract Map 72529 The applicant has submitted a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 72529) application for the consolidation of six (6) existing parcels into one (1) parcel. Property History and Description The subject property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue. The site consists of six (6) parcels, totaling approximately 44,260 square feet. The alley to be vacated totals approximately 5,590 square feet. According to Los Angeles County records, the six (6) parcels are currently developed with five (5) commercial buildings totaling approximately 8,000 square feet, one (1) single family residence totally 1,080 square feet, and a parking lot. According to Business License records, the commercial buildings are occupied by a bar, a law office, and a used car sales dealership. Planning Commission Meeting December 15, 2014 Page 4 of 48 Project Analysis Proiect Description The project consists of the demolition of all existing structures to construct a five -story, mixed -use development with 15,553 square feet of retail /restaurant space on the basement/first and second floors and 60 residential units on the third through fifth floors, comprising 54,609 square feet, for a total built area of 70,162 square feet. Of the 60 units, the project proposes 12 low- income rental units. An outdoor seating area is proposed in the central area of the ground level on the north side of the building. New landscaping will be provided within the building setbacks around the perimeter of the site and throughout the outdoor seating area. The project is requesting two concessions to allow the development as proposed. Due to the slope of the property, a concession is requested to allow a building height of 60 feet at Brighton Street, exceeding the allowable building height of 55 feet. A second concession is requested to allow the north side of the building to extend into a 20 degree angle that extends onto the site from the north property line because the project abuts existing residences north of the site. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and two stories of subterranean basement parking. The project will incorporate an existing alley that extends east -west through the middle of the site from Brighton Street on the east to Del Mar Avenue on the west. Access to the proposed project will be provided via the rear of the structure with one entrance each on Del Mar Avenue and Brighton Street. The project also includes a View from Southwest Corner of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue Planning Commission Meeting December 15, 2014 Page 5 of 48 density bonus application under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, which amended the state bonus law to allow density bonuses up to 35% Site & Surrounding Land Uses The project site is designated in the General Plan as Commercial and Medium Density Residential (0 -12 du /ac) and on the Zoning Map it is designated C -3 (Medium Commercial) and R -2 (Light Multiple Residential) zones. The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North General Plan — Commercial and Medium Density Residential Zoning — C -3 (Medium Commercial) and R -2 (Light Multiple Residential) Land Use — Residential South General Plan - Commercial Zoning - C -3 (Medium Commercial) Land Use - Commercial East General Plan - Commercial Zoning - C -3 (Medium Commercial) and R -2 (Light Multiple Residential) Land Use - Commercial and Residential West General Plan - Commercial Zoning - C -3 (Medium Commercial) Land Use - Commercial Development Standards The developer has incorporated the Residential /Commercial Mixed -Use Development Overlay Zone standards for the proposed mixed -use project (Zoning Code prior to November, 2013). The Residential /Commercial Mixed -Use Development Overlay Zone allows the Planning Commission and the City Council to grant approval of a well - designed development project that combine residential with nonresidential uses. Development Required Proposed Feature Lot Size 30,000 s.f. 49,850 s.f. Floor Area Ratio 2.0:1 (max allowed) 1.41:1 (FAR) 12' -0' with T -0" wide sidewalk (clear zone) and 5-0" 12' -0' with T -0" wide sidewalk Public Sidewalk wide parkway (amenity zone) (clear zone) and 5-0" wide p arkway (amenity zone Front Setback Zero (0) feet Zero (0) feet Interior Lot Line May be zero (0) but shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet No interior lot line Setback if more than zero (0). Planning Commission Meeting December 15, 2014 Page 6 of 48 Proposed Floor Plans Commercial — The floor plans submitted with this application show a 3,262 square foot restaurant and an 821 square foot leasing office on the basement (13-1) level. The first floor contains three (3) retail units totaling 3,959 square feet and four (4) restaurant units totaling 7,511 square feet on the first floor. The project is designed with sufficient on -site parking to accommodate the commercial users. Residential — A total of 60 apartment units are proposed within this development. All units will be located on the third through fifth floors of the building. The unit floor plans submitted show a variety of unit types, from one - bedroom units to two- bedroom units, ranging in size from 826 square feet to 1,130 square feet of living area. Each unit contains a living room, dining room, kitchen, bedroom(s), bathroom(s), closet, storage, washer and dryer, and private open space. Del Mar Avenue: Zero (0) feet Side Street None Setback Brighton Street: Zero 0 feet Rear Abutting Residential 10' -0" 10' -0" Setback Del Mar Avenue: Four - stories and fifty (50) feet Height g Four (4) stories with a maximum height of fifty -five (55) Brighton Street: Five - stories and feet sixty (60) feet *Requesting concession The second floor and above shall be stepped back from Requesting concession to Variable Height the rear property line as follows: establishing a height at encroach into variable height six (6) feet above finished grade of the adjacent requirement residential pro line, a 20-degree Two (2) parking spaces per dwelling plus one (1) guest 82 parking spaces Parking parking space per two (2) dwelling units (Residential) Total Required: 150 parking spaces *Density bonus allows deviation of required guest parking spaces Retail: One (1) parking space per two hundred fifty Parking (250) square feet of floor space Retail: 4,780/250 = 19 (Commercial) Restaurant: One (1) parking space per one hundred Restaurant: 10,773/100 = 108 (100) square feet of floor space Total Provided: 129 parking spaces Total Required: 127 parking spaces Bicycle Parking Ten (10) percent ( %) of required off - street parking. 21 bicycle parking spaces 211 = 21 bicycle parking spaces Open Space Common Open Space: 150 s.f. /dwelling unit (9,000 s.f.) Common Open Space: 9,510 s.f. Private Open Space: 60 s.f /dwelling unit (3,600 s.f.) Private Open Space: 5,915 s.f. Building 77.8% Residential and Commercial/ 75% Residential and 25% Commercial 22.2% Commercial Residential Ratio *Requesting concession Proposed Floor Plans Commercial — The floor plans submitted with this application show a 3,262 square foot restaurant and an 821 square foot leasing office on the basement (13-1) level. The first floor contains three (3) retail units totaling 3,959 square feet and four (4) restaurant units totaling 7,511 square feet on the first floor. The project is designed with sufficient on -site parking to accommodate the commercial users. Residential — A total of 60 apartment units are proposed within this development. All units will be located on the third through fifth floors of the building. The unit floor plans submitted show a variety of unit types, from one - bedroom units to two- bedroom units, ranging in size from 826 square feet to 1,130 square feet of living area. Each unit contains a living room, dining room, kitchen, bedroom(s), bathroom(s), closet, storage, washer and dryer, and private open space. Planning Commission Meeting December 15, 2014 Page 7 of 48 Proposed Landscaping and Fencing: A conceptual landscape plan has been attached as Exhibit "B ". New landscaping is proposed throughout the site. Landscaping is shown in the form of perimeter planting areas and landscaped islands within the surface parking lot areas. Additionally, the central courtyard provides added landscaping in the form of raised planter beds, water feature, and shade trees. The Applicant will be required to submit a detailed landscape and irrigation plan to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of any Building Permits. The Applicant is proposing to construct new decorative perimeter block walls along the north property line. Parking and Circulation Access to the site would be provided from two (2) driveways along Del Mar Avenue and Brighton Street. The Applicant is proposing surface and two levels of subterranean basement parking. A total of two hundred eleven (211) parking spaces would be provided, which includes one hundred twenty -nine (129) spaces for commercial parking and eighty -two (82) spaces for residential parking. Through the application of the density bonus law under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, the applicant is entitled to a reduction in parking. The maximum standards for residential parking are: • One (1) onsite parking space for up to one (1) bedroom. • Two (2) onsite parking spaces for up to three (3) bedrooms. • No requirement for guest parking. In addition, the proposed project would also include twenty -one (21) bicycle parking spaces. Traffic A traffic report was prepared by VA Consulting Inc. dated January 2014, to determine the potential traffic impacts of the project (attached in Appendices of Exhibit "H "). The traffic report studied 7 area intersections. The following intersections are included in the traffic study area: • Del Mar Avenue and Hellman Avenue (signalized) • Del Mar Avenue and Emerson Place (signalized) • Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue (signalized) • Garvey Avenue and Jackson Avenue (signalized) • Del Mar Avenue and Highcliff Street (signalized) • Garvey Avenue and Brighton Street (2 -way stop control) • Garvey Avenue and Kelburn Avenue (signalized) Based on the traffic study, the proposed development will not create any significant environmental effects upon the traffic and circulation systems. The study findings and recommendations are as follows: Planning Commission Meeting December 15, 2014 Page 8 of 48 Study Area Circulation Impacts The existing (2013) study area intersections are operating at Level of Service D or better based on existing peak hour intersection volumes. Several intersections are operating at LOS A or B during peak hours. Study area roadways are operating below capaCity based on weekday 24 -hour roadway volumes. For Existing 2013 with Project, Baseline 2015 (no project), and Baseline 2015 with Project conditions the study area intersections will continue to operate at Level of Service D or better with several maintaining LOS A and B in peak hours. No circulation system mitigation measures are required for implementation of the Garvey Del Mar Plaza Project. This analysis also concludes that no project access locations satisfy warrants for signalization. These findings were based on a worst -case analysis for Project trip generation. However, an area of potential concern is the proximity of the Del Mar Avenue project access to the intersection at Garvey Avenue. The existing southbound left -turn pocket storage length at the intersection is 200 feet and existing left -turn queuing may exceed this length during pm peak hour conditions. Under future project traffic conditions, left - turn volumes are anticipated to increase and the existing southbound left -turn pocket storage length may be exceed during both the am and pm peak hours. Although the project left -turn volumes at this access are forecast to be low, 10 vehicles in and 13 vehicles out during the pm (highest) peak hour, it is recommended that the impact of left- turning vehicles be monitored at this location, with restrictions imposed, if necessary. On -site Circulation There are no concerns regarding on -site circulation associated with the proposed project. The project access driveways and roadways are appropriately sized and configured for the project volumes and will be designed in accordance with applicable agency standards. Sight - distance requirements at project access driveways and intersections will be provided per agency standards. Site parking supply has been provided to meet or exceed City code. Because of height restrictions, the proximity to residences, and potential on -site circulation impacts, the project owner has identified the following measures to address commercial deliveries to the site. 1. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering and exiting the site from Brighton Street shall have a maximum height of 8'6 ". Delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering the site from Del Mar Avenue shall have a maximum height of 10'. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering the site from Del Mar Avenue shall be restricted to the first level — no internal access to level B -1. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) that are 8'6" or less can access the site from either Del Mar Avenue or Brighton Avenue and access internally both the first level and B -1. 2. There shall be no delivery vehicle (no trucks) deliveries between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. Planning Commission Meeting December 15, 2014 Page 9 of 48 3. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) shall park in the designated loading areas located within the commercial parking areas. Traffic Signal Warrants In this study, no unsignalized study area intersections or access driveways satisfy peak hour traffic signal warrants for any scenario. The Brighton Street and Garvey Avenue intersection will remain a two -way stop. The Project will create a new driveway access on Del Mar Avenue which should be one -way stop controlled on the driveway approach. Proposed Architecture: The Applicant has worked with the Planning Division in designing an aesthetically interesting project that meets the City's design goals for the MUDO -D overlay. The architectural style is modern, characterized by multi -story street - facing facades, tall, narrow and arched windows with painted foam - stucco trims, and predominately flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines. The front fagade has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted through the use of a distinct corner element at the southwest and southeast corners of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as the water features and potted plants along the front elevation, the use of contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer at the base of the building. The subtle details of common open spaces and pedestrian - scaled architectural elements echo the modern design aspect for this mixed -use development. Lighting New exterior lighting is proposed for the property. New wall mounted fixtures will be placed along the front, side, and rear of the building. New light standards will be installed in the parking lot area. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. The Mitigated Negative Declaration includes a lighting mitigation measure, which states: Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project applicant shall submit a lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division that incorporates any of the following light reducing measures as applicable: • Improved physical barriers such as increased wall height. • Relocate and /or change the height and /or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures. • Select lighting fixtures with more - precise optical control and /or different lighting distribution. • Add external shielding and /or internal reflectors to fixtures. • Select lower- output lamp /lamp technologies • A combination of the above. Planning Commission Meeting December 15, 2014 Page 10 of 48 Alley Vacation In conjunction with the approval of this project, the applicant is requesting the City to vacate the alley between the four parcels fronting Garvey Avenue and the two parcels to the north, as illustrated below. This request would allow the applicant to incorporate the alley into this mixed -use development. The City Engineer has agreed to this request since it is not necessary for the City to retain the alley. Municipal Code Requirements Section 17.72.030 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) states that design review procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior fagade, or landscaping. Section 17.72.050 provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a design review application: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; The proposed development is located within an established commercial district of the City. The Applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic quality, which in Staff's determination will improve the aesthetics of one of the City's prominent intersections and the project site's relationship to the commercial district. The proposed project is consistent with the Goal 3, Policy 3.1 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan in that the goal and policy call for encouraging mixed -use development as a means of upgrading established uses and developing vacant parcels along arterials to provide new commercial, residential, Planning Commission Meeting December 15, 2014 Page 11 of 48 and employment opportunities. In addition, Goal 3, Policy 3.5 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan calls for promoting lively and attractive ground -floor retail uses that will create public revenues needed to provide for City services and the City's tax base. B. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas; To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses noise and lighting mitigation measures. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. Conditions of approval have been incorporated to eliminate adverse effects on the environment as a result of the proposed project. This development will not generate any permanent impacts to noise levels for the surrounding area. All construction work will be required to comply with the timeframe, and decibel levels indicated in the City's Noise Ordinance. Conditions of approval will specifically address factors such as noise, construction hours, screening of mechanical equipment, landscaping, lighting, and the overall maintenance of the property. C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing building or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value; The proposed project will improve the aesthetics of the prominent corner by establishing a mixed -use development of high architectural quality. The improvements to the site, in terms of new construction, landscape, and hardscape will provide a marked improvement over the existing appearance of the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenue. D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially in those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size, or style; The property is not part of the Civic Center Plan, precise plan or land reserved for public or educational use, so there is no special need to create harmony with the general area. Notwithstanding this, the approved design will create a Planning Commission Meeting December 15, 2014 Page 12 of 48 development that is an aesthetic upgrade over the surrounding area and that has the potential to enhance land values in the general area. This is due to the proposed new building fagade with higher quality materials, a design that blends better with the area, and greatly improved landscaping and parking lot area. E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and The proposed development meets all of the minimum code requirements for the C -3 MUDO -D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed -Use and Design Overlay) zone and all applicable referenced code sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code, as modified by the request for concessions under SB 1818. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. The Applicant has worked with the Planning Division in designing an aesthetically high - quality project. The front fagade has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted through the use of a distinct corner element at the southwest and southeast corners of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as the water features and potted plants along the front elevation, the use of contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer at the base of the building. The subtle details of common open spaces and pedestrian - scaled architectural elements echo the modern design aspect for this mixed -use development. Section 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth the procedures and requirements for zone changes and amendments. A zone change may be permitted whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice justifies such action. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65860 (a), a zone change must be found consistent with the City's General Plan. A. Land Use: The General Plan Land Use Designation of the subject site is currently Commercial and Medium Density Residential. However, with implementation of the zone change, the site would change to a Mixed -Use: High Density Residential /Commercial Land Use Designation with a maximum density of 60 dwelling units per acre and maximum floor -area ratio of 2.0 :1. The project site area consists of 1.14 acres. With a total of 60 residential dwelling units and 1.61 acres of total floor area, the project is consist with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Planning Commission Meeting December 15, 2014 Page 13 of 48 B. Circulation: The proposed project will result in an increase in vehicle trips from the proposed residential and commercial land uses of the mixed -use project. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, this increase will not result in significant environmental impacts upon the Level of Service of surrounding street intersections and project entry driveways, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties. The proposed project will provide adequate off - street parking, including two levels of subterranean parking and one level of surface parking, to serve the parking needs of future residents and patrons and minimize traffic - related impacts upon the neighborhood. C. Housing: The proposed project is consistent with the City of Rosemead Housing Element, which seeks to provide a variety of housing types for the various demographics of the community. The proposed development will provide 60 new residential dwelling units, including 12 designated low- income rental units. D. Resource Management: The proposed development is located in a developed urban area, and as such, will not result in any significant impact upon natural resources. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, such as building setback and landscaping, the proposed building will have a less than significant impact upon the aesthetics from adjoining properties. E. Noise: This development will not generate any significant permanent impacts to the noise levels of the surrounding area. The proposed project will result in additional pedestrian and vehicular traffic noises, but is not considered to be substantial. There will be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels above the existing levels due to the presence of heavy equipment and trade personnel during construction activities. All construction work will be required to comply with the defined timeframe and City's Noise Ordinance. All mechanical equipment will be designed to minimize noise impacts on adjoining properties. F. Public Safety: The proposed development will allow the construction of residential and commercial uses in a developed urbanized area where there are no known public safety concerns. The site is not located in a seismic safety zone, and the entire City of Rosemead is located in Flood Zone C (flood insurance is not mandatory) and is free from any flood hazard designations. The project will be designed to meet the latest Building Code and Fire Code to maximized public safety of the site. Section 16.08.130 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the standards for approval for a tentative map: Planning Commission Meeting December 15, 2014 Page 14 of 48 A. The proposed division will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to the property or improvements in the immediate vicinity. The proposed division will not have any foreseeable, materially detrimental impacts on the surrounding area. The proposed project will enhance the aesthetics of the immediate vicinity and potentially increase the property values of the neighborhood. The improvements to the landscape and hardscape of the site will enhance the overall appearance of the surrounding area. B. The proposed division will not be contrary to any official plan adopted by the City Council; or to any official policies or standards adopted by the City Planning Commission or 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. The proposed project was not a part of any official plan at the time of filing of the application. The proposed project consists of concurrent application filings for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, to ensure that the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Plan. The proposed subdivision will be consistent with the purpose of Chapter 16.08 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, Minor Subdivisions, in that it will be in compliance with the official land use zoning plan of the City and any other applicable design standards. C. Each proposed parcel conforms in area and dimension to the provisions of zoning and subdivision requirements of the City. The proposed subdivision will conform to the zoning and subdivision requirements of the City in area and dimension. The C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone does not provide minimum or maximum standards for the lot area or dimensions. 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. The applicant has proposed a necessary number of driveways with sufficient dimensions to provide adequate access and circulation for vehicles and pedestrians. Additionally, the proposed project includes a dedication to enlarge the public right -of -way. E. All easements and covenants required for the approval of the tentative map or plot plan have been duly executed and recorded. Planning Commission Meeting December 15, 2014 Page 15 of 48 The proposed subdivision will not require any easements or covenants for the approval of the tentative map. STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS Authority for and Scope of General Plans Section 65300 et seq of the California Government Code sets standards for each City to prepare, adopt, and amend a comprehensive general plan. This plan coordinates the long -term physical development goals and objectives of the City. Government Code Sections 65860, 66473.5 and 66474 require that day -to -day development decisions, such as zoning and land subdivisions should be consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment to the General Plan will change the land use designation of six (6) parcels from Commercial and Medium Density Residential to Mixed -use High Density Residential /Commercial (60 du /ac). The proposed change will not eliminate any active or passive recreation areas since the subject properties are private property and not open to the public. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS On December 4, 2014, forty (40) notices were sent to property owners within a 300 -feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in six (6) public locations, on -site, and published in the Rosemead Reader on December 4, 2014. Prepared by: Lily Trinh Associate Planner EXHIBITS: Submitted by: r Michelle Ramirez Community Development Director A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 14 -09 B. Site Plan /Floor Plan /Elevations C. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated June 16, 2014 D. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated June 16, 2014 E. Caltrans Response Letter, dated June 4, 2014 F. Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum (on CD) G. Sewer Analysis Study (on CD) H. Mitigated Negative Declaration /Mitigation Monitoring Program I. Draft City Council Ordinance 942 with Attachment "A" (Conditions of Approval) J. Draft City Council Resolution No. 2015 -01 with Attachment "A" (Conditions of Approval) K. Letter of Request for Density Bonus L. Assessor's Parcel Map (5287- 039 -001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 011) Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 2014 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Eng in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Vice -Chair Dinh INVOCATION - Chair Eng ROLL CALL - Commissioners Herrera, Lopez, Tang, Vice -Chair Dinh, and Chair Eng OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez, City Engineer Fajardo, Associate Planner Trinh, and Commission Secretary Lockwood 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS Greg Murphy, City Attorney, presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DESIGN REVIEW 12 -05, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 12 -02, ZONE CHANGE 12 -02, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 72529, AND ALLEY VACATION 7801 -7825 GARVEY AVENUE, 3012 DEL MAR AVENUE, AND 3017 BRIGHTON STREET - Gerard Ngo has submitted entitlement applications requesting to develop a new residential /commercial mixed -use development. The project consists of the demolition of all existing structures to construct a five - story, mixed -use development with 15,553 square feet of retail /restaurant space on the basement/first and second floors and 60 residential units on the third through fifth floors, comprising 54,609 square feet, for a total built area of 70,162 square feet. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and two stories of subterranean basement parking. The City is proposing to participate by vacating the existing public alley that bisects the site. Access to the proposed project will be provided via the rear of the structure with one entrance each on Del Mar Avenue and Brighton Street. The project also includes a density bonus application under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, which amended the state bonus law to allow density bonuses up to 35 %. The property is located at the northeast corner of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue in the C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone and R -2 (Light Multiple Residential) zone. This item was on the Planning Commission Agenda for June 16, 2014. However, due to extensive comments from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) during the 20 -day public review distribution period for the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project, the Planning Commission continued this item to a future Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes are included in this report as Exhibits "C" and "D ". On June 4, 2014 (attached as Exhibit "E "), Caltrans submitted a comment letter to the City indicating their concerns that the 1 -10 /Del Mar Avenue freeway on -off ramps is operating at or near capacity. Any project trips will contribute significant traffic impact to the State Facilities. For this reason, the Environmental Consultant, Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. was directed to have the traff ic consultant conduct the necessary traffic counts at the ATTACHMENT "D" 1 -10 /Del Mar Avenue freeway intersections to gather the traffic information necessary to respond to Caltrans. Traffic counts were taken at the 1 -10 /Del Mar Avenue freeway intersections the week of September 8, 2014 when the public schools were in session to gather the traffic data necessary to respond to your comment. Based on the collected traffic counts and analysis, project traffic will not impact any of the Del Mar Avenue at 1 -10 freeway on -off ramps during the AM or PM peak hours. The traffic study addendum is attached to this staff report as Exhibit 7 ". On June 6, 2014, staff received a comment letter from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works indicating that storm drain BI 1109 - Monterey Park Area belonging to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) and the 8 -inch sewer line that will serve the project may not have the capacity to serve the project. For this reason, a sewer analysis study was completed and the LACDPW has reviewed and approved the study (attached as Exhibit "G). PC RESOLUTION 14 -10 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 12- 05, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 12 -02, ZONE CHANGE 12 -02, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 72529, AND ALLEY VACATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIALICOMMERCIAL MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF 15,553 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL /RESTAURANT SPACE AND SIXTY (60) RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR A TOTAL BUILT AREA OF 70,162 SQUARE FEET. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 7801 -7825 GARVEY AVENUE, 3012 DEL MAR AVENUE, AND 3017 BRIGHTON STREET IN THE C -3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) AND R -2 (LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) ZONE. STAFF SUMMARY - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 14 -10 with findings, which is a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance 942 approving Zone Change 12 -02 and CC Resolution 2015 -01 approving Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529 and recommending adoption of the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Associate Planner Trinh presented the staff report. She added staff would like to modify Condition of Approval number twenty -eight (28), which is a "Mitigation Measure ", for the City Council to authorize the Planning Division on the Public Art Plan, instead of presenting it back to the City Council. Chair Eng asked for clarification on the change to Condition of Approval number twenty -eight (28). Associate Planner Trinh explained that this is a Mitigation Measure that was added as a Condition of Approval and that in the Mitigated Negative Declaration it states that the Public Art Plan would come back to the City Council for approval, however, staff is requesting that City Council authorize the Planning Division to approve it. Chair Eng asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff. Vice -Chair Dinh asked if the property owner's name is Gerard Ngo or Gerard Yang. Associate Planner Trinh replied it is Gerard Ngo and explained it is the same person. Commissioner Tang stated the applicant has requested a change in zoning and asked staff to explain the difference in the R -2 zoning and light- multiple residential, compared to mixed -use, in terms of what's allowable and what's not allowable for both. Associate Planner Trinh explained that light- multiple residential is for single - family homes and, if density allows, it may have two (2) or three (3) units. She added mixed -use is different because there is a combination of both commercial and residential using both components in one project. Commissioner Tang asked if the light- multiple zoning can be combined with the C -3 zoning. Associate Planner Trinh replied no. Chair Eng asked if this project was originally conceived as apartments. Associate Planner Trinh replied yes. Chair Eng stated that as part of the density bonus, the applicant is being allocated twelve (12) affordable housing units and asked who will administer the 12 units being allocated. Community Development Director Ramirez replied a housing agreement for those units will be entered into and the City will monitor it. Chair Eng asked if there is a term on how long they will remain affordable units. Community Development Director Ramirez replied thirty (30) years. Chair Eng stated street parking is currently available on Garvey Avenue in front of this project and asked if it that will be taken away. City Engineer Raphael Fajardo replied no, and explained that street parking will be taken away on the West side of Brighton Street to allow cars going westbound to make a right turn. Chair Eng asked if two parking spaces will be taken away on the East side of Garvey Avenue to permit signage that will state "Right turn only ". City Engineer Fajardo replied two parking spaces will be taken away on the West side of Brighton Street for signage purposes, to allow "right turn only" westbound onto Garvey Avenue. Chair Eng asked if the area on the West side of Brighton Street, South of Garvey, will not have parking due to an entrance being located there. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes. Chair Eng referred to the Staff Report and Conditions of Approval which states trucks are not permitted and asked if there are trucks with deliverables where will they be permitted to unload. Associate Planner Trinh replied that question can be deferred to the Environmental Consultant. Chair Eng asked how will the HVAC system work for commercial use verses residential use, will they be separated, and will they be put on the roof. Associate Planner Trinh replied everything will be placed on the rooftop. Chair Eng referred to the Mitigated Declaration which mentioned Cumulative Projects with one project location at 7419 -7459 Garvey Avenue, consisting of three buildings, and asked if staff knew what the anticipated height of those buildings will be. Associate Planner Trinh replied that question can be deferred to the Environmental Consultant because he is doing that project also. Chair Eng stated this project was first heard at the Planning Commission meeting held on June 16, 2014 and was continued due to issues from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) in regards to sewage. She asked staff if these issues were addressed. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes, and explained the sewer was approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. He added a second study was conducted regarding the 1 -10 /Del Mar Avenue freeway on -off ramps and Caltrans approved the second study. Chair Eng asked if there were any mitigation measures. City Engineer Fajardo replied no. Chair Eng referred to the 20 degree site line concession the applicant has requested. She asked what the functional impact on that one is, specifically how it will impact the single family residences by the project area, and what mitigation measures are being proposed to minimize that impact. Associate Planner Trinh replied there is a shadow analysis that was presented in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Environmental Consultant can discuss the shadowing with the building over the residential portion. Chair Eng stated the site line is a standard that the City has put together. Associate Planner Trinh replied that is correct and explained the variable height process. Chair Eng asked why the City imposed the site line standard. Associate Planner Trinh replied in respect to those residential properties so that it does not overshadow them. Chair Eng asked if there is a part of this project that will overshadow that. Associate Planner Trinh replied yes, and explained a shadow analysis was performed and the Environmental Consultant can explain the details. Chair Eng asked if there were any mitigation measures to address the shadowing. City Attorney Murphy explained there would not be mitigation measures for a concession. He added the concession itself is granted in light of the affordable units being provided, so it's not something that gets measured out in your normal use of conditions of approval. It's essentially something asked for and granted under state law that normally would not be part of a project or would not be allowable. Chair Eng asked how many single - family residents would be impacted by this. Associate Planner Trinh stated that information is not available. Commissioner Tang referred to the 20 degree angle and asked what the current standard allowable angle is. Associate Planner Trinh replied it is 20 degrees. 0 Commissioner Tang asked if the applicant is requesting to encroach into that 20 degree angle. Associate Planner Trinh replied yes. Commissioner Tang asked how much they want to encroach into that angle. Associate Planner Trinh referred to the elevation plan on page A4.1 and pointed out the portion above the 20 degree angle that is being requested. Commissioner Lopez asked what the footage is. Associate Planner Trinh replied it is about 25 feet. City Engineer Fajardo explained it is about two - stories. Commissioner Lopez asked how close the residents to that are. Associate Planner Trinh replied the distance is a little more than 50 feet. City Engineer Fajardo stated it is about 60 feet. Commissioner Lopez asked in that shadow what is being taken away from the residents as far as their land or site of anything. He commented this project is five (5) stories high with sixty (60) units and a lot of things are being added, such as HVAC units. He asked if there will be one (1) central unit or will they each have their own, and commented there will be noise levels. Community Development Director Ramirez stated those questions will have to be deferred to the applicant and the environmental consultant. Commissioner Herrera stated she is concerned with the traffic located at Del Mar and Garvey Avenue. She added the Traffic Engineer is present this evening and she is looking forward to hearing her comments. Chair Eng asked what type of testing, analysis, or measures were taken to make the determination that this site is not located in a seismic safety zone and will support subterranean parking. Associate Planner Trinh replied any questions related to the Mitigated Negative Declaration can be deferred to the Environmental Consultant. Chair Eng referred to Condition of Approval number twenty -three (23) and read that it states "twelve (12) affordable condominiums" and asked if that will make a difference if they are considered apartments in the staff report. Associate Planner Trinh replied that is a typo and it should state apartments. Chair Eng read Condition of Approval number forty -two (42) and asked how left -turns at the Del Mar Avenue driveway will be restricted if needed. Traffic Engineer Joanne Itagaki stated this is referring to the left -turns into the project driveway and explained that there was a concern that it is close to Garvey Avenue and how operationally traffic would move if there is a high demand for southbound left -turns into the project. Chair Eng asked if currently left -turns are permitted into the project. Traffic Engineer Itagaki replied yes. Chair Eng asked if there are impacts, then restrictions will be made. Traffic Engineer Itagaki replied yes. Chair Eng asked what type of restrictions will take place if needed. Traffic Engineer Itagaki replied it could be simple signage and opportunities for painted or raised constructed medians. Vice -Chair Dinh asked if there is signage stating "No Left -Tum" from the building onto Del Mar Avenue. Traffic Engineer Itagaki replied it is a condition of approval that states: "Right -Turn Only" going out. Chair Eng read Condition of Approval number forty-nine (49) and asked what the last sentence: "...This is not guarantee for approval" means. City Attorney Murphy explained that while the City Engineer has indicated support for this, "Vacation of a Public Right -of -Way" is a separate item that would go before the City Council. He added as this application moves forward one of the conditions of approval is to separately go and seek the vacation of the alley way. He stated that can be done in a number of different ways and what happens with the alley land is depending on which of the different vacation statues you utilize to vacate. He explained when it states "This is not guarantee approval ", it's stating that even if your body recommends approval of these conditions, and if City Council adopts these conditions of approval, by adopting Condition of Approval number forty-nine (49), City Council is not committing to the vacation of the alley. Chair Eng asked if the applicant will need the alley way for this project to work. City Attorney Murphy replied yes. Chair Eng read Condition of Approval number seventy-three (73) and asked what type of modification is taking place at Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenue. City Engineer Fajardo replied the types of modifications taking place will be the timing of traffic signals, checking right and left -turns of northbound and southbound directions. He added due to other projects, this intersection modification will be in conjunction with those projects and other capital improvement projects. Commissioner Tang asked if those modifications will include synchronization with surrounding area. City Engineer Fajardo replied that is part of the County's synchronization system. He stated three (3) months ago a container was installed to synchronize the traffic signals on Garvey Avenue and another project will be done with MTA to synchronize the bus system. He added grants are being obtained. Commissioner Tang asked if that will only be done on Garvey Avenue or will it include Del Mar Avenue also. City Engineer Fajardo replied there are three intersections and they will be Garvey Avenue, Rosemead Place, and River Avenue. 0 Chair Eng referred to the City of Rosemead's commercial parking standard of one (1) parking space per one hundred (100) square feet of floor space for restaurant and mixed -use and asked if staff knows if this is the same standard implemented with other surrounding cities or do they use a different standard. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that a comparison was conducted to other cities because the City wants to be consistent and as close as possible to other cities. She explained some cities are not as stringent as Rosemead. Chair Eng asked if other cities are using the parking standard of one (1) parking space per one hundred (100) square feet for mixed -use and commercial use. Community Development Director Ramirez replied staff did a comparison for restaurant use only, so she does not have that information. Chair Eng expressed concern that with the amount of restaurant use and depending on what type of restaurants that may come in, there may not be enough parking. She commented that the applicant is complying with the requirements for restaurant use. Vice -Chair Dinh referred to the low- income rental units and asked if it has been determined what floor they will be on or will they be scattered on separate floors. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that is up to the applicant and will be part of the housing agreement that is submitted to the City. Vice -Chair Dinh asked so it will be what the applicant choses. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes, and explained generally they keep it the same, so if it is decided to do this as a "for sale" condo project, then they would probably do these as a "for sale" also. Vice -Chair Dinh asked if there will be assigned parking for the residential units or will it be a first come option. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that question can be deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Tang asked how parking will be separated from residential use verses commercial use. Associate Planner Trinh replied for the residential use they will enter from Brighton Street and for commercial use they will enter through Del Mar Avenue. She added that there is a clear separation code that requires that. Commissioner Tang asked how many one (1) bedrooms apartments and how many up to three (3) bedroom apartments there will be. Associate Planner Trinh replied there are forty -two (42) one (1) bedroom apartments and eighteen (18) two bedroom apartments. Commissioner Tang asked if there was ever a consideration for this project to be considered as for -sale condominiums verses rental apartments. Associate Planner Trinh replied that question can be deferred to the applicant. 7 Commissioner Tang expressed he has two big concerns one regarding the land of site and the other being the traffic congestion along Del Mar Avenue. He asked based on the initial study do they think Del Mar Avenue has the capacity to sustain this type of development with such a large footprint. Chair Eng addressed Commissioner Tang and suggested the Planning Commission listen to the Traffic Consultants presentation and continue with questions afterwards. Commissioner Tang asked staff if development impact fees have been incorporated into this project. Community Development Director Ramirez replied the City has not adopted development impact fees. City Attorney Murphy addressed the Chair and stated in terms of the potential of this turning into condominiums is a good question for the developer. He added according to SB 1818, which is the affordable housing law, and is what the applicant has brought to the City as, there are different rules for different levels of affordability, and their proposal has been to provide these as low- income units. He stated in the County of Los Angeles, it is very difficult to have low - income unit's for -sale, and moderate income units could be used for -sale, but there are some restrictions on what they can or can't do. He added it really goes less to the land use aspects of the project and more to the overall business plan of the project. Commissioner Tang asked if this project is converted into condominiums instead of low- income apartments, how would that law apply to this project and would it still grant them the sixteen (16) units. City Attorney Murphy replied he does not know that answer, because he has not studied this project in terms of how the applicant is working out the square footage and density. He added he knows they are not asking for the same kind of bonus and staff would be better able to answer that question. Chair Eng asked if the Planning Commission had any more questions for staff. None Chair Eng opened the Public Hearing and requested the applicant to the podium. Planning Consultant, Michael Hastings, from Direct Point Advisors stated their company does entitlements throughout California. He introduced Simon Lee, Architect of this project, and added Mr. Lee will walk the Planning Commission through the design of the project and answer questions they may have after the presentation. Chair Eng thanked Simon Lee and the applicant for taking the time, effort, and investment for bringing this project to the City of Rosemead and added this project was first submitted in "2012 ". Architect Simon Lee stated the applicant is confident in the investment of twenty (20) to twenty-five (25) million dollars to develop this project. He added it has been a long process but they understand different agencies have different requirements. He explained that the project has been deferred for various reasons and explained that one was that the traffic count could not be conducted during the summer break so they had to wait for three (3) months. He explained that this is an ideal location for a residential and commercial mixed -use project, it is in close proximity to the 1 -10 Freeway, a short distance away from downtown Los Angeles, and it will benefit the community. He briefly explained the outlay of the project stating the commercial aspect will be facing Garvey Avenue, the residential access will be from Brighton Avenue, basements, setbacks, restaurant parking, parking ratios, landscaping, new trees, new bus stop, new sidewalks, and referred to the diagrams. Commissioner Tang asked Mr. Lee if there was any type of community outreach conducted to the residents of Brighton Avenue. Architect Lee replied no. Commissioner Tang asked if they had thought it was important enough, given the scale of this project. Architect Lee and Consultant Hastings replied that they had hoped tonight's meeting would give them the opportunity to communicate with the resident's concerns. Commissioner Tang asked why there are sixty (60) units. Consultant Hastings replied it is below the threshold of sixty -eight (68). Architect Lee explained that the City's Municipal Code for mixed -use density requires 40 -60 units per acre and this property is 1.44 acre's. He explained the calculation and that it added up to that they are allowed 40 -68 units. He stated they would like to provide 20% low income affordable housing, and then they would have a 35% increase, which allows it to be 60 to 91 units. He stated they proposed the minimum amount of 60 units. Community Development Director Ramirez referred to the applicant requesting SB 1818, and explained that he only requested the concessions, and not the increase in units, which he could have done. Commissioner Tang asked the applicant if there was a consideration to develop this with condominiums for home ownership verses apartments. Consultant Hastings replied it was submitted as residential units because that is what the applicant had originally anticipated for the site. He added it is not something that would be discounted, if the Planning Commission stated condominium use is preferable. He stated this project has been delayed and they would like to move forward, but condominiums is something they would consider, and they would have to check the SB 1818 guidelines to confirm it may be done. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that if that is something the applicant is willing to do, the Planning Commission can make a recommendation to the City Council to include that into their approval. City Attorney Murphy explained that under the City's Municipal Code multi - family is multi - family whether it is for rent or for sale. He stated because of that, if it is the Planning Commission's desire to have the applicant look into having this be condominiums, then that is something the applicant would voluntarily undertake. He added the Planning Commission can make this part of their recommendation to the City Council, so at the end of the meeting you can move to make some kind of recommendation, and if that is to be approval, then it may be with some contingencies related to the conditions of approval. It stated in this case it can recommended that the applicant work with staff to determine the feasibility of having this project be a for -sale condominium project instead of a rental project. He added in the time period of this hearing and the City Council hearing on the matter, the applicant and staff can work on that and present that proposal to the City Council in light of the Planning Commission's recommendation. Commissioner Tang referred to parking and stated that he knows the applicant has met the adequate commercial parking requirements, but he is concerned with parking and the circulation of parking, especially with only one entry point on Del Mar Avenue. He stated it may cause a lot of congestion inside and outside of the project area and asked the applicant to elaborate some more on this. Consultant Hastings stated there is commercial ingress and egress in both sides. He stated the residential is the one that has ingress and egress, which is on Brighton Avenue. He stated inside the commercial area there is a lot of 0 circulation area and they look at the Q -lines and everything that might cause congestion going in or coming out of the project when it comes to ramping or site lines. He added this was heavily reviewed because that is the last thing they would want is to have residents or patrons being unable to enter or exit the project. He stated the ingress and egress for residential is not off of Garvey Avenue or Del Mar Avenue, so they do not see that as a congested street. Commissioner Tang referred to the Atlantic Square in Monterey Park and stated that project had bad planning in terms of their inside parking structure and circulation. Architect Lee explained that the project building will be facing Garvey Avenue and that there are two commercial entrances, one being on Del Mar Avenue, and the second one will be on Brighton Street. He added there are two levels of commercial parking with a connecting ramp and circulation has been considered. Vice -Chair Dinh referred to "May Produce ", which is another business in close proximity of this project, and asked if there was any consideration, that when deliveries are made by delivery trucks to their site, it blocks traffic northbound and southbound on Del Mar Avenue. She asked if this traffic will affect the construction of this project, the residents, and access to the freeway. Consultant Hastings stated he went through the traffic study that was provided to the Planning Commission and when he looked at the level of services that were going to change or stay the same, it seemed that the concern Vice - Chair Dinh had, did not state specifically look at this. He stated the levels of service at the AM peak hours and the PM peak hours do not really change that substantially to make a specific impact according to the traffic study. He stated "Level D" is acceptable throughout the City of Rosemead and there is only one intersection that is a "Level D" the rest was "A's, B's ", and he believes there was one "C" and nothing dropped below the acceptable threshold. He referred to the City requiring a Construction Management Plan and stated they will comply with the hours of operation, when the trucks come and go, where they will be parking, and how they will be staged. He stated those are things that will be managed by staff with the developer. Architect Lee stated the concept of a mix -use development is to reduce traffic and explained having commercial uses on the ground floor will make it convenient for residents on the upper levels. Consultant Hastings added that for a mixed -use project you figure there will be some reduction in traffic because the residents will be using the commercial businesses on the first floor. He explained that in the traffic study, it is not considered as a reduction in traffic and in reviewing this project, it was not given. He stated the City was given the worst case scenario, in which no one shops on the ground level. He stated this traffic study is very stringent, whereas most cities would take into consideration that it would reduce traffic because it is a mixed -use. He stated there is the marriage of the residents using the commercial and in some instances the commercial owners may live in the residential up above and it does reduce traffic, but it is not considered in your traffic study. Vice -Chair Dinh expressed her concern is with the amount of restaurants being projected for this project. She explained that entices people from other communities to patronize the new businesses, which are good for the City, but it may create more traffic. Consultant Hasting stated the mix of retail within that project is one of the concerns that can be discussed. He added when it comes to restaurant uses and what type of restaurant uses, they are also there to answer questions and to keep this project going to move on to the next step. Commissioner Tang commented it is like the saying "when you build it, they will come ". He added especially here in San Gabriel Valley, any new development of this size, and where there will be an option of retail and restaurants, that area will be jammed packed. He stated that is why the Planning Commission has a lot of concerns, not only with parking, but with traffic and driving patterns of this community. 10 Consultant Hastings stated that is why in Southern California they are learning how mix -use will blend in with lifestyles of the entire Southern Region like the bike /walk live concept. He stated in their project there are a lot of bicycle racks, bike storage, and bike access is important to the project. He added when they build the new bus shelter it will be built to make it more appealing for people to take public transit. He stated there are certain things that can be conditioned like making notices to the residential units about taking public transportation. He added they are more than willing to do that and that they believe in the walk/bike concept, which is why it is heavily structured for bicycle riders. Chair Eng thanked the applicant for being open to the concept of condominiums because she would like to promote families and home ownership. She asked what the target market is as these are only one (1) and two (2) bedrooms and is not designed for young families with small children and asked what inspired the floor design. Architect Lee replied the one (1) bedroom would be for the younger generation such as a single occupant, or a young couple. He stated the two (2) bedrooms would be for a small family with a child. He explained the layout of the apartments, square footage, and stated rent will be $1,400 per month for the one (1) bedroom and for two (2) bedrooms it will be $1,900 per month. Consultant Hastings stated the demographic study in looking at what kind of tenant they are looking for here is a young professional. He stated that downtown Los Angeles is getting packed with the young professionals and it has priced itself out of that market. He stated the young professional cannot afford some of the rents in downtown Los Angeles, so in cities like Rosemead with the freeway so close, and with 8 -9 miles to get downtown LA, it is an attractive place for a young professional to want to live. He stated you would want to bring the young professional into the City, because they spend money and they would want to stay and raise a family here, because this is a family oriented community. Chair Eng asked if the applicant has any other mixed -use developments with apartments or experience managing apartments. Architect Lee replied as an architect they have designed many mixed -use developments and they have helped the owner. He stated the Planning Commission had previously approved a 28 -unit, residential /commercial mixed - use project, located on Garvey Avenue and Willard Avenue and this project is similar to that one. Consultant Hastings stated that their firm found it to be that the rental with the mixed -use seems to works very well for the young professional. He added that the young professionals sometimes cannot afford the down payment on condominiums. He stated their firm has found that their transiency that use to be in a rental facility was much shorter is now much longer if it is in a mixed -use now because they live /work. He stated if you have the right mix of retail down in the mix -use, then they like to go down and get their coffee or bagel. He stated they try to keep the type of mixed -use to match with the demographics of the City they are working in whether it is rentals or condominiums. He stated whether it is rentals or condominiums it really does not matter in the management of the mixed -use so long as the mixed -use and residential somewhat match. Chair Eng stated the reason she asked that question is because sometimes, based on her own personal experience, if a rental project is well managed and well run, it will have a better long term upkeep and better return in terms of maintaining it. She stated if it is condominiums and small investors buy them, but then you run into absentee land owners. She stated that is an aspect to consider also, and she would prefer to promote home ownership. She added that when it comes to apartments she would like to understand what type of management plan is in place. She added that she has seen what successful management of apartments can do and Oakwood is a company that does a wonderful job at that. Consultant Hastings stated he has done work with Oakwood in the past, the one in Hollywood Hills, and there is another firm that they do a lot of work with called Kosamono Development. He added Kosamono Development has 11 owned 25,000 rental units throughout Southern California and they do an excellent job in management. He stated with the types of resources they have they will make sure this is well managed project, because if it is not managed well it does not run well, and it is not worth the investment, and everybody loses. He added they want to make sure this is run correctly. Chair Eng stated different parcels are being requested and asked if all of the parcels needed to make this project work have been acquired. Architect Lee replied yes. Chair Eng asked how long will the Tentative Tract Map take. City Engineer Fajardo replied first they will have to submit an application for the vacation of the alley, and then they will have to submit a verification letter from Edison to the Engineering staff, because there are a lot of power poles at this location. He added they need to know that all the poles will be deleted from the alley way in order for them to proceed. He stated the applicant can submit the application for the Tentative Tract Map for approval but they will need to proceed with the vacation alley application before the final Tentative Tract Map will get approved and if they do not coordinate with Edison they will not be able to proceed. Chair Eng asked if there is already committed financing for the project. Architect Lee replied yes. Chair Eng commented she likes the garden area and one of the things she appreciates about the project is that there is private open space and public open space. She asked if the garden area is open from the top. Consultant Hastings replied that is what they call passive open space and' explained that it will not have a swimming pool, badminton, volley ball, or basketball courts. He stated it is basically passive and is sensitive to the residential neighborhoods in and around it and is not a party plaza. Chair Eng commented it is nice and she appreciates the thought that went into it. She referred to young professionals and stated they like fitness centers and asked if it had been considered for this project. Architect Lee replied that one of the retail vacancies may be a fitness center. Chair Eng referred to the solar panels in the roof plan for electricity and asked what will be generated from them. Architect Lee replied he has enjoyed solar panels in his own home and he encourages solar panels on every project he designs. He stated that mixed -use projects have several levels and solar panels can supply electricity for the common area lighting and electricity usage and reduce the HOA and homeowners expense. He added if there are enough panels they may provide electricity to the basement also. He explained cost and tier levels and stated solar will reduce cost. He informed the Planning Commission that all of the HVAC units will be on the roof and each unit will have an air conditioning unit on the roof and they will be screened by a parapet. He stated the HVAC units are not visible and noise will not be heard because the parapet wall is solid. Chair Eng asked if the parapet wall is sound reducing. Architect Lee replied yes. Chair Eng asked what the functual life of the parapet wall is. 12 Architect Lee replied the parapet wall is solid for safety reasons, going to be five (5) ft. tall, and the HVAC units will not be seen or heard Vice -Chair Dinh asked if the HVAC units will be placed as far back to the South towards the back if possible. Architect Lee replied that can be done. Consultant Hastings explained before that promise is made, they just finished another large project and that same question was asked. He added that they found that the noise decibels were higher as it got further away from the parapet because the sound can rise and drift over. He explained if you stay within the parapet the sound is absorbed by the wall and usually sends it straight up and if you move it the sound can drift over. Vice -Chair Dinh asked if the parapet wall can to be moved. Consultant Hastings replied the parapet goes along the edge of the building on the roof. He added it breaks your plane instead of having a flat roof and gives you a good texture of the building. He stated it also serves as a disguise for what is on the roof such as panels and HVAC units. Architect Lee added that this will be on the roof of the fourth floor and the sound will be going upwards and not towards the lower levels. He explained the HVAC will be placed on platforms as a softener due to vibration of the units because they also have to consider the units below the roof. Consultant Hastings referred to one of the Planning Commissioner's question in regards to earthquake safety. He stated when he read the study it did not look like it was in a liquefaction area. He added when a project is in a liquefaction area that is where you will have major issues with the building and gave examples of what would have to be done. Architect Lee stated the Soil /Geological Report has been reviewed and approved by the Consultant. He added it was found not to be on a fault line or in the liquefaction zone. Chair Eng asked what is planned in regards to the ventilation between the commercial units and residential units. Architect Lee explained that the restaurant kitchen ventilation is a VHS unit located on the roof. He added for the residential units there are shaft areas and the ventilation is through the roof or the exhaust fan from the kitchen. He stated the ventilation unit is also on the roof. Chair Eng asked what Mr. Lee's inspiration was in the design of the commercial area. Architect Lee replied to the developer /investor restaurants have a better return because they pay more rent. He stated this type of tenant has a tendency to not move out because they invest more into their business. He stated they proposed the allowed maximum square footage for the commercial /restaurant businesses and they will be available to rent as first come first serve. He added tenants change constantly. Chair Eng stated so the thinking here is that restaurant tenants have the tenancy to be long term. She stated she agrees that restaurants do have a tenancy to not move because of the investment in equipment and time. Consultant Hastings stated another thing that seems to be in every other city's study is that you can have more than one restaurant it's actually a draw like a car dealership, you don't just want to have one, you want a cluster so you get a different taste of different people. Chair Eng asked if they are open in having additional floor plans and opening it up to more bedrooms than just two. 13 Architect Lee replied no, and explained that in his opinion the market for two (2) bedroom apartments would work best with this mixed -use project. Vice -Chair Dinh expressed concern that there will be an additional sixty (60) apartments and people will be coming and going all the time. She stated in terms of security does the property owner have any plans in providing any type of security for the safety of the residents and neighbors. Architect Lee replied it will be necessary for the tenants to have their key or sensor to enter the gate and designated parking space. He added they will provide electrical chargers for tenants with electric vehicles that need it and explained the plug will be in the basement ceiling. He stated when entering the gate it will require digital, key card, or sensor access. He added that when entering the elevator you will also need to have a key. He stated if security is needed in the future the property owner will provide a reliable security company. Commissioner Tang asked if the goal is to target young professionals would you consider adding amenities into the project like a recreation room or tech rooms. He stated that if you go into a mixed -use project at USC you will see amazing tech rooms, which makes the students living there enjoy living there. Consultant Hastings stated he just finished a project that was very high end and high tech and it is very expensive to bring those types of things into a project. He added they are hoping to bring in and attract those types of retailers from the private sector to provide those types of amenities. Commissioner Tang expressed that Rosemead lags behind other cities in regards to projects of this magnitude and asked if the top fifth floor was eliminated, would the applicant still have a sound project. Consultant Hastings replied in looking at a project like this and when they looked at the density, they realized the community is not use to a project of this size and that is why they are not presenting ninety-six (96) units. He stated when you go into a community you do not want to overburden the community with something like this so out of the ordinary. He stated with sixty (60) units on that site and if they take a floor off, things will suffer because you will not get the amenities or quality. He stated if that is what you want for your community, then they can go up and build a box, take away the parapet and all the niceties and bring it down, but they have already taken down a third of the density in order to be accommodating to the community. He stated he does not represent projects that will be upsetting the community and he has been doing this for about fifteen (15) years, he comes from the elected side, so he knows what it is like to face the community. He stated this has been well thought out so that it can merge into the community and that is why they are looking into the retail and types of uses that will not just serve this project but the residents around it too, so they are trying to find the right mix. He added to take a floor off anything is possible but there would be sacrifices. Chair Eng thanked Consultant Hastings and Architect Lee for their comments and asked Environmental Consultant Phil Martin to the podium. City Environmental Consultant, Phil Martin, from Phil Martin & Associates stated he took notes and he will comment on questions that were asked of staff. He stated the first item was that some issues were raised about air conditioners and noise from the roof top. He explained the interaction of the parapet wall, placement of multiple HVAC units, and how noise will travel. He stated there is a mitigation measure in the MND to provide an acoustical study to show that the balconies facing Garvey and Del Mar Avenue, which are the higher traffic volume streets don't exceed a certain noise level. He stated if the noise of the air conditioner units is an concern of the Planning Commission, then a mitigation measure could be added that prior to the issuance of a building permit that the applicant provide an acoustical study based on the type of units, the location of the units, based on the manufacturer and the acoustical noise based on the manufacturer to show what the noise level would be to the residential units to the north. He stated the newer units are very quiet and the ones close to the parapet the 14 residents to the north should not experience noise levels that exceed the City's criteria. He referred to the other accumulative project and stated if it is the New Garvey Market Plaza project he does not remember how tall that building is but he can get the Planning Commission that information. He referred to the Geotechnical Report on page 37, of the Mitigated Negative Declaration Report, the project site is not on an Alquist - Priolo Zone, which is a seismic hazard zone that's established by the state and the project is not on a liquefaction zone. He addressed the question about delivery trucks and stated delivery trucks have designated parking areas within the structure and can enter on either Del Mar or Brighton Avenue. He added there is a mitigation measure in the document that restricts the height of the delivery trucks depending on which entrance they use. He stated if they enter on Brighton Street the height is limited to 8'6" (a small econoline van) and if the enter on Del Mar Avenue they are limited to the height is 10' maximum height (a UPS van). He stated he has information available showing a description of those types of vehicles and they do have measures that restricts the size of the trucks entering the property because you do not want a semi - trailer truck coming into the property. He stated the City Engineer talked about traffic signal phasing and the readjusting of the timing of signal lights along Del Mar and Garvey Avenue to adjust based on the type of traffic the project will generate, and that is an on -going process. He stated a question was asked on the level of service and all of the intersections currently operate at the level of service currently "A, B, or C ", and Garvey and Del Mar Avenue, which is the worst intersection area, operates at Level of Service "D" which is the minimum acceptable level to the City. He stated the project will not exceed or impact any of those levels of the seven (7) intersections which they studied beyond their current levels. Chair Eng asked how they measured that and what did you look at to come to that solution. Environmental Consultant Martin replied that the Traffic Engineer Consultant can address that question specifically, but basically it was based on current traffic counts that were taken at those seven (7) intersections. They took hand counts during the AM & PM peak hours, and through their traffic generation numbers, is how they come up with those of level of service. He stated for their traffic count they based this on the worst case scenario and the consultant referred to an internal capture rate. Commissioner Tang asked if there is a formula that they use to calculate this. Environmental Consultant Martin replied he would defer that question to the Traffic Engineer Consultant, but yes there is. Traffic Engineer, Keith Rutherford from VA Consulting, stated the method they use to estimate the traffic is the ITT Institute of Traffic Transportation and explained in detail how the formula is calculated, the techniques, and methods that are used. Chair Eng stated she observed traffic on the corner of Brighton and Garrey Avenue on a Sunday evening for about twenty (20) minutes. She quoted the amounts of right and left turns made onto Garvey and Brighton Street and asked the Traffic Engineer based on his formula how many trips this would increase by. Traffic Engineer Rutherford replied they will have additional volumes added to them and he does not believe that the AM and PM hours she observed on a Sunday were at peak hours. He stated they collect similar volumes and through movements and they are very important for their analysis. He explained in detail how it would be formulated. Commissioner Tang asked if the left -turn restrictions onto Del Mar Avenue would be indefinitely and commented that traffic in the first years of this project may increase, but in long term it may decrease. City Traffic Engineer Itagaki replied that is something that can be looked at in the future and if it's found that there is a change in the uses, fewer tenants, or if it found that there is not an issue with a left turn. She stated she would consider that unless there is an unusual change in the development or traffic conditions, that if a no -left turn is implemented it would stay a no -left turn. 15 Chair Eng stated there is four (4) Speaker's Request submitted and asked Joseph Babakitis to the podium. Resident Joseph Babakitis stated he is the property owner of 3018 and 3026 Del Mar Avenue, and expressed concern that certain items were not addressed such as fire -life safety systems such as alarms, emergency exits, exhaust ventilation fans in the parking structure and how will that make noise, where will it that be deferred to, and where will that be located. He stated he is a Chief Engineer for a high -rise and he works for the Pacific Designs Center in the adjacent building for last thirteen (13) years. He stated he just built a 4' block wall touching this property, in which he removed a tree and its roots, and expressed concern because now a row of trees will be planted next to his block wall and will probably damage his wall and block his view. He stated he has lived at this property since 1945 and getting in and out of that drive -way is a nightmare and explained why. He stated he opposes apartments because there will not be any ownership and expressed young professionals may afford to buy instead of rent, rentals have a high turnover especially with one bedroom and if it is Section 8. He asked if this is considered low- income rentals. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no, and explained this is affordable housing under State guidelines. She gave an example and stated the rent that could be charged for a one bedroom low- income would be a maximum of seven hundred and seventy -seven ($777) a month. Resident Babakitis commented that the rent was quoted at fourteen hundred ($1,400) a month. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that the applicant quoted the rent for the apartments that are non - affordable. Resident Babakitis commented that a not too many people will want to rent a one - bedroom, he used to own a bar that is now called "Spikes ", that the area was damaged in the Whittier earthquake, this development will block his view, blue light station, and expressed other various concerns he has with this development. Property owner /Resident Ancira Hijar stated she owns two properties on Brighton Street and she is not opposed to mix -use developments but feels this is a poorly place project. Her concerns are current limited day parking due to a medical clinic business, with large trucks blocking traffic while make their turns due to their length and width. She added delivery trucks such as Ashley Furniture have difficulty exiting the cul -de -sac on Brighton Street after they make their deliveries, emergency vehicles also have difficulties entering and exiting and she has had been stuck behind these vehicles numerous times. She stated currently they have the use of the alley and expressed concern on what the situation will be without the alley. She has concerns with the smell, trash, and possibly rodents in regards to restaurant uses. She expressed concern regarding the construction and where the equipment will be parked. She stated sixty (60) units will not only impact Garvey Avenue but will impact the entire City and there are four (4) main boulevards Del Mar Avenue, Valley Boulevard, Garvey Avenue, and San Gabriel Boulevard. She suggested the Auto Auction site as an alternate site, and commented she is not opposed to tax revenue, she is opposed to ill- placement. She expressed that only property owners were notified of this meeting and not all residents of Brighton Street received the notice. She stated that the current renters should be considered along with the perspective residents of this project. She stated she is concerned for the safety of this neighborhood and levels of traffic. Resident Gerardo Hijar stated that there is an apartment/duplex complex at the end of the street and they bring their dumpster to the curb for trash pickup. He stated his concerns are traffic being held up by disposal companies entering and exiting, traffic, buses blocking traffic, emergency vehicles blocking traffic. He stated this project is great but for not this location. Resident Brian Lewin, referenced to the suggestion of a gym use in this complex and stated it is a good idea as an amenity. He stated he supports the concept of condominiums instead of apartments. He recommended that consideration be taken in regards to large delivery truck such as "Sysco Trucks" deliveries arriving unannounced and commented you can prevent them from coming into the building, but you cannot prevent them from arriving and may interrupt circulation on Brighton Avenue. He stated that traffic backs up on Del Mar Avenue, signs will be disregarded, and left -turns will be made regardless. He requested that a pork chop be installed on the Del Mar Avenue exit, which will only allow right -turn exits. He expressed concern of the grease interceptor status for 10,000 sq. ft. of restaurant and if all the restaurants will be hooked up in advance to that grease interceptor. He asked that it be considered segregating the discharge from the residential sanitary and the grease interceptor. He also requested that there is not being a sum pump system for the residential because it is a bad idea and there is no such thing as flushable wipes. He stated that he hopes the 20 degree angle has been addressed because it was developed for privacy, so people cannot see into other people's backyards from a higher level. Resident Amy Quaene stated she supports this project, it will make the City beautiful, and make the City better. Resident Giang La stated the cross street from where he resides is Garvey Avenue and in the evening Garvey Avenue looks very dark and quiet. He stated that he hopes this new project will bring in new businesses, more lighting, and restaurants so that he will not have to travel to neighboring cities to dine out or shop. Chair Eng asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this item. None Chair Eng closed the Public Hearing and asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions. None Chair Eng invited the applicant to the podium to address some of the concerns that have been raised. Consultant Hastings stated he has a list of items to address. In regards to the exhaust fans for the garage they will be up on the roof and will not be pointing towards the residential areas; the concern with trees being planted against the property owner's wall, can be addressed through staff, and explained there are tree wells that will prevent roots from growing up on their walls. He stated they will work with staff to make sure tree heights will be kept at a height so signage for businesses is visible, and they are willing to work with staff in regards to condominiums instead of apartments. He stated in regards to grease traps they need to follow the Los Angeles County and Health Department codes and the number of restaurants may be less than as listed, because they submitted the amount they would like. He stated fire codes will be met and explained they will not be allowed to do anything unless they are met. He addressed the trash and rodent concern and stated that well be very well controlled because if you have rodents you will not have restaurants. He referred to the construction management plan and stated that will have to comply with what the City requires when it comes to hours of operation, parking of trucks and deliveries. He referred to peak hours and that they may not be the peak hours because of residential and he explained what peak hours (also called commute hours) mean and how they are calculated. He referred to the Q -Line and back up and someone mentioned about them stacking up and stated they make sure the ramps are deep enough so if there is a Que it is not something that will be bleeding into the street. He addressed the comment about "Sysco Trucks" and the restrictions of the height of trucks and stated once oversized trucks park on a City street and have been cited and depending on the Cities fines and constrictions, you will find they will not continue to do it. He recommended residents call the City and Code Enforcement to report incidents to help deter this concern. He stated change is not easy and they would like to make it as easy as possible and if it is in the direction of the Planning Commission to have condominiums instead of apartments they will address that. He added anything else the Planning Commission may bring forward as a condition they will consider it because they want to work with the neighborhood, be a part of the community, and bring the types of uses as part of this. Chair Eng referred to truck height restrictions and asked what other restrictions can be enforced. 17 Consultant Hastings replied there can be length restrictions, weight restrictions, and gave an example of what other cities do if a business license is required. Chair Eng referred to waste disposal pick -ups and asked if the only access is on Del Mar Avenue. Architect Lee replied there are two (2) locations Del Mar Avenue and Brighton Avenue. Chair Eng confirmed they were for waste disposal pick -up. Architect Lee replied yes and on the apartment levels there are two (2) elevators with trash chutes next to one that goes to the lower level. Chair Eng commented that for practical purposes a chute at the end of each elevator is needed. Architect Lee stated commercial waste is picked -up separately. Chair Eng sked if commercial waste is picked -up on Del Mar Avenue also. Architect Lee replied yes. Chair Eng asked how feasible is it to restrict the entrance on Brighton Street to just the residential. Consultant Hastings requested clarification. Chair Eng asked if both entrances are accessible for commercial uses. Consultant Hastings replied commercial enters from both entrances and residential enters only from Brighton Avenue. Chair Eng asked if it was feasible to restrict commercial entrances on just Del Mar Avenue. Architect Lee replied no and explained that Brighton Street is a cul -de -sac with no through traffic. Consultant Hastings explained that they were trying to get as much of the traffic entering and exiting for the commercial to be broken up instead of it being all on Del Mar Avenue. He added so this way there will be two (2) exits for entering and exiting. Architect Lee stated that they have agreed to limit the entering and exiting traffic on Del Mar Avenue for the commercial and he stated a physical obstruction (pork chop) can also be installed. Chair Eng stated it is a good idea to do this now instead of later due to current issues and cost. Consultant Hastings stated they are willing to do this. Chair Eng asked how long it will take to make this a condominium project if necessary. Consultant Hastings replied it will take some time to research what SB 1818 requires and also working with staff on what the changes might be in regards to the Tentative Tract Map. IN Community Development Director Ramirez stated if this project gets approved this evening and recommended to go to City Council, it will probably be presented at the second meeting in January 2015 and will give staff enough time to work with the applicant. Architect Lee stated they do not object to modifying the condition of approval's regarding right turn only, entering, and exiting the site. Chair Eng confirmed that concrete is being considered currently. Vice -Chair Dinh explained that is working with the City and Traffic to install physical barriers not just signs stating "No Left Turn ". Consultant Hastings stated the term is referred to as "Pork Chop" and explained it is a physical barrier that will not allow left- turns. Chair Eng asked if the traffic study includes buses. Consultant Hastings replied yes. Traffic Consultant Rutherford explained that bus traffic is looked at in terms of frequency of service, the footprint of the bus it's about a two- passenger car equivalent, and they are added in as extra passenger cars. Chair Eng stated as part of this project a new bus stop is being proposed at the northeast corner of Garvey and Del Mar Avenue. Consultant Hastings explained there is a bus stop there currently and they are going to build a shelter. Traffic Engineer Rutherford clarified his peak hour analogy of surrounding traffic. Vice -Chair Dinh asked staff if they had any history of the purpose of why the alley was placed in that location. City Engineer Fajardo replied he does not have that information. Commissioner Herrera referred to truck deliveries at the produce store on Del Mar Avenue and asked if it is allowed by the City to have delivery trucks block traffic. Traffic Consultant Itagaki stated she does not know the specifics of the site, but if they are stopping in the middle of the street unloading or loading that would be against the Municipal or Vehicle Code and recommended that the Sheriffs or Code Enforcement be contacted. Commissioner Herrera asked if any reports have been submitted in regards to trucks blocking traffic, traffic congestion, or incidents. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no, nothing that they are aware of. City Engineer Fajardo replied that the Engineering Department has not received any complaints or request for Code Enforcement to be sent out. Vice -Chair Dinh stated that she has seen delivery trucks stop and they momentarily stop traffic for a few minutes to do their deliveries, but it takes them some time to maneuver the trucks while entering or exiting the street. IR Commissioner Herrera asked if the difficulty of entering and exiting the street may be because the street or approach is not wide enough. City Engineer Fajardo stated that it is probably because of the size of the truck. Chair Eng closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission if there were any further questions for staff or comments. Commissioner Tang stated he had reservations about this project at the beginning due to the issues of housing, the over - development, the impact it would be to the local residents and to traffic and parking concerns. He added he is not entirely satisfied but he is happy that the developer is open to the idea of condominiums as well as providing those amenities to attract the type of buyers for this project. He stated because of that this project has potential and he supports it. Vice -Chair Dinh stated the intensity of this project concerned her, but sometimes it just takes one project to come into the City and there is a need for development on Garvey Avenue. She added that change is hard for the community but she appreciates that the developer is going to be accommodating to the residents. She stated that there were a lot of detailed studies that went into this project such as the traffic study, the environmental study, and this project has taken a long time. She expressed concern for the resident's testimonials but as a City it does need to develop, catch up with the development of neighboring communities, and meet the best interest of the whole community. Commissioner Lopez stated this is a nice project and he has been in this community for a long time. He added that his concerns have always been with impacts to the community while trying to grow to fast. He stated he agrees with the community and Brighton Street is a small street and it will impact the residents. He stated he opposes this project and will vote no because of impacts it will do to the community. Commissioner Herrera stated she is conflicted because she feels for the residents but some of the issues are currently present. She stated this is a nice project and the City does need the revitalization. She added something does need to be done about the traffic and circulation because it is already congested on Garvey Avenue. She stated she wants what is right for the City and is worried about the congestion and traffic. Chair Eng stated she was also taken by the intensity of this project and it will impact the residents on Brighton Street because it is a cul -de -sac. She stated this is a nice project and projects like this do work. She added that circulation of traffic needs to be addressed and whether the project is built or not, the traffic concern will exist because it is a regional issue. She stated there is a need for housing and she is glad that the applicant is open to the idea of condominiums because it will help with the goal of ownerships. She referred to City Attorney Murphy and asked for a recommendation in regards to the conditions of approval and the mitigation of terms of traffic on Del Mar Avenue. City Attorney Murphy stated if the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council is denial, then any Planning Commissioner can motion to have that to be the recommendation. He stated otherwise, one way for the Planning Commission to act, is to recommend approval but with certain changes to the conditions of approval as reflected in the record of tonight's action and certain additional studies as reflected in the record. He stated those will include; 1) the study of the ability or feasibility of turning this into condominium project instead of an apartment project, 2) the study of the HVAC system on the roof and the best place to place those to minimize noise, 3) a new condition of approval regarding access from Del Mar Avenue and limiting that access with barriers in addition to further study of the access, 4) a new condition of approval limiting the length and width of trucks or delivery vehicles on site, and 5) a further review of the environmental study of the project to make sure no other conditions of approval are necessary whether to effectuate the mitigation and the mitigation monitoring plan, or to solve any issues that were raised this evening. He stated those are the five (5) main issues he has heard this evening discussed and if the Planning Commission has anything else please fill that in, and if there is a motion made to recommend approval, 20 then it would be to recommend approval with those issues resolved, new conditions proposed, and any other discussions between the applicant and staff undertaken before this gets to the City Council. Chair Eng asked City Attorney Murphy if her request needs to be a condition of approval and she would like to know if it is possible for staff to work with the residents on Brighton Street to help mitigate some of their concerns. City Attorney Murphy recommended that a condition of approval not be implemented, but instead make that a direction from the Planning Commission to staff to work with the residents of Brighton Street before it is taken to City Council. Chair Eng stated she would like to do that and addressed resident Mr. Babakitis in the audience in regards to what the applicant has proposed. Resident Babakitis responded from the audience but it was not audible. Chair Eng asked City Attorney Murphy for direction in regards to the wording of the recommendation. City Attorney Murphy stated the direction would be to work with the residents on Brighton Street and other nearby places. He stated this applicant has gone through a two year long process that includes a change to the General Plan and a change to the zoning of their property in order to move this forward. He stated if the Planning Commission is concerned that there is any preferential treatment to one property owner over another, any property owner can come forward with a plan but the plan has to be consistent with the zoning code or the applicant can propose what this applicant has proposed, which is to change the zoning of the property to make it work. Resident Babakitis responded comments from the audience but they were not audible. Chair Eng asked the Planning Commission if they were comfortable with the five (5) proposed recommendations to City Council for this project and with the direction to staff to work with the residents of Brighton Street prior to bringing it to the City Council. Commissioner Tang stated in addition to the recommendation for staff to work with the developer on exploring the opportunities for the condominiums and added amenities for the project. City Attorney Murphy stated if that is within the discretion of this Planning Commission, then it is a fine direction to staff. Associate Planner Trinh asked if staff can request an additional condition of approval that a "Construction Management Plan" be required. Chair Eng conferred with the Planning Commission and they responded yes, and she asked for a motion Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Vice -Chair Dinh, to ADOPT Resolution No. 14 -10 with findings, which is a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance 942 approving Zone Change 12 -02 and CC Resolution 2015 -01 approving Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529 and recommending adoption of the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program with the additional conditions and additional direction as discussed by the Planning Commission this evening. 21 Vote resulted in: Yes: Dinh, Eng, and Tang No: Lopez Abstain: Herrera Absent: None City Attorney Murphy explained this is when an appeal discussion would be made, but since this is a recommendation to the City Council, there will not be an appeal. He stated anyone that received notice of this evening's hearing will receive a separate notice of the City Council meeting and is anticipated to be held in January of 2015, though with the direction of the Planning Commission this evening it may be later. He advised the audience to check their mail for that notice. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of December 1, 2014 Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to approve PC Minutes 12.1 -14 as presented. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dinh, Eng, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez announced that City Hall will be closed from noon beginning December 24, 2014 through January 1, 2015. She added City Hall will re -open on Monday, January 5, 2015. She explained that other City facilities will be open during this time and their operating hours will be available on the Cities website. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Lopez wished staff Happy Holiday's and complimented their work. Commissioner Herrera thanked Community Development Director Ramirez and wished everyone a Happy Holiday and commented that the City Hall Civic Center looks beautiful. Vice -Chair Dinh announced that she is moving next month and will longer be able to serve on the Planning Commission. She stated it has been challenging, exciting, and a privilege to be able to serve her community. She thanked City Council for giving her the opportunity and for their trust in her. She thanked staff and her fellow colleagues for their patience, understanding, and support along the way. She stated she will still be around because she has two businesses in the City of Rosemead and this will always be her first home. She expressed she will miss attending the Planning Commission meetings. Community Development Director Ramirez stated on behalf of staff she will be missed. Chair Eng thanked Vice -Chair Dinh and stated it has been a pleasure working and serving with her. She thanked her for her hard work, her dedication, and wished her the best. 22 Commissioner Tang thanked staff for all their hard work and with all the projects especially this one. He wished staff Happy Holiday's. Chair Eng thanked staff for their dedication and hard work and wished everyone a Happy Holiday. 7. ADJOURNMENT Chair Eng adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, January 5, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. Nancy Eng LJ Chair ATTT: ,� Q Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 23 PC RESOLUTION 14 -10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 12 -05, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 12 -02, ZONE CHANGE 12 -02, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 72529, AND PROPOSED ALLEY VACATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAUCOMMERCIAL MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF 15,553 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIURESTAURANT SPACE AND SIXTY (60) RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR A TOTAL BUILT AREA OF 70,162 SQUARE FEET. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 7801 -7825 GARVEY AVENUE, 3012 DEL MAR AVENUE, AND 3017 BRIGHTON STREET IN THE C -3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) AND R -2 (LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) ZONE (APN's: 5287 - 039 -001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 011). WHEREAS, on December 19, 2012, Gerard Ngo submitted entitlement applications for the construction of a new residential /commercial mixed -use development comprised of 15,553 square feet of retail /restaurant space and 60 residential units for a total built area of 70,162 square feet. The project is located at 7801 -7825 Garvey Avenue, 3012 Del Mar Avenue, and 3017 Brighton Street; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested development incentives, pursuant to Section 65915 of the California Government Code, for reduced parking in order to set aside twenty (20) percent of the proposed residential apartments to persons or households of low- income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code; and, WHEREAS, Section 65358 of the California Government Code allows the City Council, as the legislative body, to amend all or part of the City's adopted General Plan when it is deemed in the public interest; and, WHEREAS, Section 17.72.020 & 17.72.050 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) provides the purpose and criteria for a design review; and WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Section 17.72.050 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove design review applications; 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; and 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 ATTACHMENT "E" WHEREAS, Section 65300 et seq. of the California Government Code sets standards for each City to prepare, adopt, and amend a comprehensive general plan. This plan coordinates the long -term physical development goals and objectives of the City. Government Code Sections 65860, 66473.5 and 66474 require that day -to -day development decisions, such as zoning and land subdivisions should be consistent with the General Plan. WHEREAS, on May 19, 2014, an Initial Environmental Study for the proposed Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529 was completed finding that the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, in accordance with the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act, and local environmental guidelines; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended approval Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529 to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on December 4, 2014, forty (40) 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, onsite, and published in the Rosemead Reader, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time, and location of the public hearing for Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission hereby makes a finding of adequacy with the Mitigated Negative Declaration and HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as the environmental clearance for Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Design Review 12 -05 in accordance with Section 17.72.030 et seq., of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; FINDING: The proposed development is located within an established commercial district of the City. The Applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic 2 quality, which in Staff's determination will improve the aesthetics of one of the City's prominent intersections and the project site's relationship to the commercial district. The proposed project is consistent with the Goal 3, Policy 3.1 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan in that the goal and policy call for encouraging mixed -use development as a means of upgrading established uses and developing vacant parcels along arterials to provide new commercial, residential, and employment opportunities. In addition, Goal 3, Policy 3.5 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan calls for promoting lively and attractive ground -floor retail uses that will create public revenues needed to provide for City services and the City's tax base. B. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas; FINDING: To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses noise and lighting mitigation measures. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. Conditions of approval have been incorporated to eliminate adverse effects on the environment as a result of the proposed project. This development will not generate any permanent impacts to noise levels for the surrounding area. All construction work will be required to comply with the timeframe, and decibel levels indicated in the City's Noise Ordinance. Conditions of approval will specifically address factors such as noise, construction hours, screening of mechanical equipment, landscaping, lighting, and the overall maintenance of the property. C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing building or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value; FINDING: The proposed project will improve the aesthetics of the prominent corner by establishing a mixed -use development of high architectural quality. The improvements to the site, in terms of new construction, landscape, and hardscape will provide a marked improvement over the existing appearance of the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenue. D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially in those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size, or style; FINDING: The property is not part of the Civic Center Plan, precise plan or land 3 reserved for public or educational use, so there is no special need to create harmony with the general area. Notwithstanding this, the approved design will create a development that is an aesthetic upgrade over the surrounding area and that has the potential to enhance land values in the general area. This is due to the proposed new building fagade with higher quality materials, a design that blends better with the area, and greatly improved landscaping and parking lot area. E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and FINDING: The proposed development meets all of the minimum code requirements for the C -3 MUDO -D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed -Use and Design Overlay) zone and all applicable referenced code sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code, as modified by the request for concessions under SB 1818. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. FINDING: The Applicant has worked with the Planning Division in designing an aesthetically high - quality project. The front fagade has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted through the use of a distinct corner element at the southwest and southeast corners of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as the water features and potted plants along the front elevation, the use of contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer at the base of the building. The subtle details of common open spaces and pedestrian - scaled architectural elements echo the modern design aspect for this mixed -use development. SECTION 3. General Plan Consistency with State Law Determination. The Planning Commission finds that the Rosemead General Plan Amendment as proposed is consistent with the requirements of State law governing general plans. A. Land Use: The General Plan Land Use Designation of the subject site is currently Commercial and Medium Density Residential. However, with implementation of the zone change, the site would change to a Mixed -Use: High Density Residential /Commercial Land Use Designation with a maximum density of 60 dwelling units per acre and maximum floor -area ratio of 2.0:1. The project site area consists of 1.14 acres. With a total of 60 residential dwelling units and 1.61 acres of total floor area, the project is consist with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. B. Circulation: The proposed project will result in an increase in vehicle trips from the proposed residential and commercial land uses of the mixed -use project. With II the incorporation of mitigation measures, this increase will not result in significant environmental impacts upon the Level of Service of surrounding street intersections and project entry driveways, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties. The proposed project will provide adequate off - street parking, including two levels of subterranean parking and one level of surface parking, to serve the parking needs of future residents and patrons and minimize traffic - related impacts upon the neighborhood. C. Housing: The proposed project is consistent with the City of Rosemead Housing Element, which seeks to provide a variety of housing types for the various demographics of the community. The proposed development will provide 60 new residential dwelling units, including 12 designated low- income rental units. D. Resource Management: The proposed development is located in a developed urban area, and as such, will not result in any significant impact upon natural resources. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, such as building setback and landscaping, the proposed building will have a less than significant impact upon the aesthetics from adjoining properties. E. Noise: This development will not generate any significant permanent impacts to the noise levels of the surrounding area. The proposed project will result in additional pedestrian and vehicular traffic noises, but is not considered to be substantial. There will be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels above the existing levels due to the presence of heavy equipment and trade personnel during construction activities. All construction work will be required to comply with the defined timeframe and City's Noise Ordinance. All mechanical equipment will be designed to minimize noise impacts on adjoining properties. F. Public Safety: The proposed development will allow the construction of residential and commercial uses in a developed urbanized area where there are no known public safety concerns. The site is not located in a seismic safety zone, and the entire City of Rosemead is located in Flood Zone C (flood insurance is not mandatory) and is free from any flood hazard designations. The project will be designed to meet the latest Building Code and Fire Code to maximized public safety of the site. Section 4. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Tentative Tract Map 72529; 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 proposed division will not have any foreseeable, materially detrimental impacts on the surrounding area. The proposed project will enhance the aesthetics of the immediate vicinity and potentially increase the property values of the 5 neighborhood. The improvements to the landscape and hardscape of the site will enhance the overall appearance of the surrounding area. B. The proposed division will not be contrary to any official plan adopted by the City Council; or to any official policies or standards adopted by the City Planning Commission or 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. FINDING: The proposed project was not a part of any official plan at the time of filing of the application. The proposed project consisted of concurrent application filings for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, to ensure that the project is consist with the General Plan and Zoning Plan. The proposed subdivision will be consistent with the purpose of Chapter 16.08 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, Minor Subdivisions, in that it will be in compliance with the official land use zoning plan of the City and any other applicable design standards. C. Each proposed parcel conforms in area and dimension to the provisions of zoning and subdivision requirements of the City. FINDING: The proposed subdivision will conform to all applicable zoning and subdivision requirements of the City in area and dimension. The C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone development standards do not provide minimum or maximum standards for lot area or dimensions. The RCMUDO (Residential /Commercial Mixed - Use Development Overlay) zone development standards require a minimum of thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of lot area, with no lot dimension requirement. Accordingly, the proposed project site consists of 49,850 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 applicant has proposed driveways with sufficient dimensions to provide adequate access and circulation for vehicles and pedestrians. Access to the parking areas of the site will be provided on Del Mar Avenue and Brighton Street, splitting the vehicular traffic associated with the proposed project. Additionally, the proposed project includes a dedication to enlarge the public right -of -way. The alley to the north of the site, between Del Mar Avenue and Brighton Street, will be vacated. E. All easements and covenants required for the approval of the tentative map or plot plan have been duly executed and recorded. FINDING: The proposed subdivision will not require any easements or covenants for the approval of the tentative map. The site will have direct access from the public right -of -way. on SECTION 5 . The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529 for the construction of a new residential /commercial mixed -use development totaling 70,162 square feet, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto. SECTION 6 . This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on December 15, 2014, by the following vote: YES: NO: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 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 15 day of December, 2014. Nancy Eng, Chair CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on the 15 day of December, 2014, by the following vote: YES: NO: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Michelle Ramirez, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: 7 Gregory M. Murphy, Planning Commission Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP ATTACHMENT "A" (PC Resolution 14 -10) Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL January 13, 2015 1. Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529 are approved for the construction of a new residential /commercial mixed -use development totaling 70,162 square feet, in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit "C ", dated December 4, 2014. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division. 2. Approval of Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529 shall not take effect for any purpose until the Applicant has filed with the City of Rosemead a notarized affidavit stating that he /she is aware of and accepts all of the conditions of approval as set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions, within ten (10) days from the City Council approval date. 3. The onsite public hearing notice posting shall be removed by the end of the 10- day appeal period of Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529. 4. Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529 is approved for a period of one (1) year. The Applicant shall commence the proposed use or request an extension within 30- calendar days prior to expiration. The one (1) year initial approval period shall be effective from the City Council 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 Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529 have been unused, abandoned, or discontinued for a period of one (1) year it shall become null and void. 5. The City Council hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and /or approve minor modifications. 6. The following conditions must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Planning Division prior to final approval of the associated plans, building permits, occupancy permits, or any other appropriate request. 7. Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, 9 and Tentative Tract Map 72529 are granted or approved with the City and its Planning Commission and City Council retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit, including the modification of existing or imposition of new conditions of approval based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not 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 Design Review 12 -05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529. 8. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval of the Planning Commission and /or City Council concerning the project, which action is brought within the time period provided by law. 9. The Applicant shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws relative to the approved use including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff and Health Departments. 10. Building permits will not be issued in connection with any project until such time as all plan check fees, and all other applicable fees, are paid in full. 11. Occupancy will not be granted until all improvements required by this approval have been completed, inspected, and approved by the appropriate department(s), including but not limited to all improvements required to file a final tract map and the filing and recordation of that final map. 12. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least 6" tall with a minimum character width of 3/4 ", contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street. Materials, colors, location, and size of such address numbers shall be approved by the Planning Division, prior to installation. 13. All requirements of the Planning Division, Building Division, and Public Works Department shall be complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction. 14. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday to Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any federal holidays without prior approval by the City. 15. The Planning, Building, and Public Works staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to monitor progress. 10 16. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti -free state. Any new graffiti shall be removed within twenty -four (24) hours. A 24 -hour, Graffiti Hotline can be called at (626) 569 -2345 for assistance. 17. The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed, and litter free state in accordance with the Rosemead Municipal Code. All trash containers shall be stored in the appropriate trash enclosure at all times. All trash, rubbish, and garbage receptacles shall be regularly cleaned, inspected, and maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition. 18. A detailed elevation drawing shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval all trash enclosures prior to submittal of construction drawings. All trash enclosures shall be of an integral part of the building design, and incorporate complementary colors and materials. All trash enclosures shall have a solid roof cover and doors shall be opaque, self - closing and self - latching. 19. All off - street parking shall comply with the relevant section of the Rosemead Municipal Code applicable as of the date these Conditions of Approval are adopted. The parking area, including loading and handicapped spaces, shall be paved and re- painted periodically to City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. In accordance with the currently applicable section of the Rosemead Municipal Code, all designated parking stalls shall be double striped. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly manner. 20. The Applicant shall keep the electrical and mechanical equipment and /or emergency exits free of any debris, storage, furniture, etc., and maintain a minimum clearance of five (5) feet. 21. All roof top appurtenances and equipment shall adequately be screened from view to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. There shall be no mechanical equipment located on the sides of the building. Such equipment shall not exceed the height of the parapet wall. All ground level mechanical /utility equipment (including meters, back flow preservation devices, fire valves, A/C condensers, furnaces, utility cabinets and other equipment) shall be located away from public view or adequately screened by landscaping or screening walls so as not to be seen from the public right of way or other public space within the development. The Planning Division shall approve said screening prior to installation. 22. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer /Applicant shall comply with the City's storm water ordinance and storm water mitigation plan requirements with respect to the proposed project. 23. Prior to issuance of building permits, Deed Restrictions or an Affordable Housing Agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney must be recorded against the twelve (12) affordable condominium units that meet all of the requirements for affordability for low- income families and meet all other criteria outlined in Government Code Section 65915. In addition, in an effort to respond to the 11 needs of City residents before nonresidents and to provide affordable housing, the Applicant shall give existing qualified City of Rosemead residents priority in obtaining an affordable unit. 24. All open areas not covered by concrete, asphalt, or structures shall be landscaped and maintained on a regular basis. Maintenance procedures of such landscaped and common areas shall be specifically indicted in the CC &R's prior to issuance of any building permit. 25. Prior to the issuance of any sign permit, the Applicant shall submit a Master Sign Program to the Planning Division for review and approval. The sign program shall address sign materials, colors, height, width and location. It shall also address the use of temporary signage such as banners as well as appropriate window signage. 26. A final landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The new planting materials shall include a combination of colorful and drought tolerant trees, large potted plants, shrubs, and low growing flowers. The landscape and irrigation plan shall include a sprinkler system with automatic timers and moisture sensors. 27. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and /or initiation of revocation proceedings. Mitigation Measure Conditions Aesthetics 28. The City Council authorizes the applicant to work with the Planning Division on the public art plan, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 29. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project applicant shall submit a lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division that incorporates any of the following light reducing measures as applicable: • Improved physical barriers such as increased wall height • Relocate and /or change the height and /or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures. • Select lighting fixtures with more - precise optical control and /or different lighting distribution. • Add external shielding and /or internal reflectors to fixtures. • Select lower- output lamp /lamp technologies. • A combination of the above. Air Quality 30. During construction, the contractor shall apply water three times daily, or non- 12 toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas, unpaved road surfaces, and active construction areas. Geology and Soils 31. As recommended in the geotechnical engineering investigation prepared for the project and approved by the City Engineer, the project shall be designed for a peak acceleration value of 0.79g. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 32. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any structure, the project developer shall provide a building survey to determine if asbestos or lead paint are present. The asbestos and lead paint survey shall be conducted by a Cal - OSHA Certified Asbestos consultant in accordance with sampling criteria of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). If lead paint and /or asbestos containing materials are found, all lead containing paint and /or asbestos shall be removed and disposed by a licensed and certified lead paint and /or asbestos removal contractor, as applicable in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations prior to the start of activities that would disturb any ACM containing materials or lead paint. Hydrology and Water Quality 33. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project developer shall submit a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSWMP) to the City for approval. All applicable erosion control measures including Best Management Practices (BMP's), to reduce erosion and minimize water quality impacts during grading and construction shall be installed and maintained during construction to control water quality impacts. 34. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install a surface storm water collection system to collect and treat the first 3 /4 of an inch of surface water runoff from the site as approved by the City Engineer. 35. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install two underground water storage tanks totaling 3,500 gallons and a dry well system to capture on- site surface water flows. If the dry well fills up during a storm a sump pump located adjacent to the dry well will pump any overflow from the dry well into Brighton Street. 36. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install a catch basin with 13 a filter to filter the storm water prior to its discharge into the underground storage tanks. NnicP 37. Project related operational hours for the following activities are recommended to be restricted as follows: • There shall be no delivery vehicle (no trucks) deliveries between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. • Refuse collection vehicles shall restrict activity to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. • Loading of boxes, crates and building materials is restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. adjacent to a residential property line. • Construction activities are restricted by the City of Rosemead Noise Ordinance. While construction noise is not expected to exceed 85 dB at the nearest sensitive use (residences north of the site), construction noise can be minimized with the implementation of the following conditions: • All motorized construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. • Equipment and materials shall be staged in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction - related noise sources and the noise - sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. • Haul truck and other construction - related trucks traveling to and from the project site shall be restricted to the same hours specified for the operation of construction equipment. • To the extent feasible, construction haul routes shall not pass directly by sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. 38. An acoustical study shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit to show that all balconies facing Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenue have a transparent glass or plastic shield to create outdoor space that achieves the 65 dB CNEL or less. Public Services 39. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall pay any required student impact fee to the Garvey Unified School District. 40. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall pay any required park fee to the City of Rosemead. 14 Transportation/Traffic 41. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install a new bus stop and shelter on Garvey Avenue at a location determined by the City and 21 bicycle stalls, with 10 bicycle stalls on the first subterranean level (B -1) and 11 bicycle stalls on the lower parking level (B -2). 42. Within six months after 75% of the retail /commercial space is occupied, the project developer shall provide weekday PM peak hour left turn traffic volumes on Del Mar Avenue to the City's Traffic Consultant to confirm that project left -turns do not cause congestion with the existing southbound left -turns at Garvey Avenue. If determined by the City's Traffic Consultant that project left -turns onto Del Mar Avenue during the PM peak hour cause congestion, left -turns at the Del Mar Avenue driveway shall be restricted. 43. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall design the two project driveways in compliance with City driveway standards for site access. 44. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering and exiting the site from Brighton Street shall have a maximum height of 8' -6 ". Delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering the site from Del Mar Avenue shall have a maximum height of 10'. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering the site from Del Mar Avenue shall be restricted to the first level — no internal access to level B -1. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) that are 8' -6" or less can access the site from either Del Mar Avenue or Brighton Avenue and access internally both the first level and level B -1. 45. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) shall park in the designated Loading areas located within the commercial parking areas. Utilities and Service Systems 46. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install all State mandated low -flow water fixtures. Engineering Conditions of Approval (;FNFRAI 47. 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. 15 48. A final tract 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. 49. Initiate process of Public Right -of -Way Vacation for the Alley northerly of Garvey Avenue between Del Mar Avenue and Brighton Avenue pursuant Municipal Code, California Streets and Highways Code and California Subdivision Map Act. 50. A preliminary subdivision guarantee is required showing all fee interest holders and encumbrances. An updated title report shall be provided before the final parcel map is released for filing with the County Recorder. 51. The final tract map shall be based on a field survey, and monuments shall be set to permanently mark parcel map boundaries, street center lines and lot boundaries to the satisfaction of the City 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. 52. Final tract 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. 53. Comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 54. 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. 55. 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. 56. Prior to performing any grading, obtain a permit from the Engineering Division. Submit grading and drainage plans pre the City's grading guidelines and the latest edition of the Los Angeles County Building Code. The plans shall be stamped and signed by a California State Registered Civil Engineer. 57. Prior to the recordation of the final map, grading and drainage plans must be approved to provide for contributory drainage from adjoining properties as `2 approved by the City Engineer, including dedication of the necessary easements. 58. 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. 59. 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. 60. Prepare and submit hydrology and hydraulic calculations for sizing of all proposed drainage devices. The analysis shall also determine if changes in the post development versus pre development conditions have occurred. The analysis shall be stamped by a California State Registered Civil Engineer and prepared per the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Method. 61. All grading projects require an Erosion Control Plan as part of the grading plans. Grading permit will not be issued until and Erosion Control Plan is approved by the Engineering Department. 62. The project is greater than one acre; therefore, a Storm Water Pollution Plan is required. A Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. When submitting the SWPPP for the City's review, please include the NOI and the Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number. 63. Adjust, relocate, and /or eliminate lot lines, lots, streets, easements or other physical improvements to comply with ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the date the City determined the application to be completed all to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 64. Show clearly all existing lot lines and proposed lot line on the plans. 65. Provide a complete boundary and topographic survey. 66. Show any easement on the plans if applicable. [RO)AIK 67. 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. 68. All work proposed within the public right -of -way shall require permits from the Public Works Department. 17 69. Remove and replace existing curb and gutter from northerly property line along Brighton Street to northerly property line along Del Mar Avenue. 70. Remove and replace sidewalk from northerly property line along Brighton Street to northerly property line along Del Mar Avenue. 71. Remove and construct driveway approaches as indicated on the plans. 72. Construct five feet parkway. Install parkway trees as indicated on the plans. All street trees shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Urban Forester. Street trees shall be planted in a manner that provides a minimum clearance of eight (8) feet from any existing or proposed sewer laterals to be used to serve the project. The size of the trees shall be minimum 48 inches box. 73. Traffic Signal Modification at the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenue as indicated by traffic impact analysis and Public Works Department. 74. Show dimensions of existing and proposed right -of -way along Brighton Avenue, Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue. 75. A $2,000.00 fee will be required per each storm drain adjacent to the property per retrofit pursuant Los Angeles River Trash TMDL requirements. SEWER 76. Approval of this land division is contingent upon providing a separate house sewer lateral to serve each lot of the land division. 77. Prepare and submit a sewer calculations analysis for sizing of proposed laterals including capacity conditions of existing sewer trunk line. The analysis shall be stamped by a California State Registered Civil Engineer and prepared per the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Guidelines. 78. If the new sewer flow alters the capacity conditions of the existing sewer main along Garvey Avenue, a sewer main improvement will be required. 79. All existing laterals to be abandoned shall be capped at the public right of way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Building Official of the City of Rosemead. Utilities 80. All power, telephone and cable television shall be underground. 81. Any utilities that are in conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's expense. f:3 82. Provide a street lighting plan. Water 83. Prior to the filing of the final map, there shall also be filed with the City Engineer, a statement from the water purveyor indicating compliance with the Fire Chief's fire flow requirements. 84. Water hydrant, water meter box and utilities box shall be located 8 feet away from parkway trees and 3 feet away from driveway approach. Conditions Added by the Planning Commission on December 15, 2014 85. Physical barriers shall be installed to limit access on Del Mar Avenue into the project site. 86. Prior to the issuance of Building permits, the Developer shall develop a comprehensive Construction Management Plan, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, and Public Works Department. The Construction Management Plan shall address noise, vibrations, traffic control, parking, debris removal, staging, dust control, sanitary facilities, and other potential construction impacts, as well as other details involving the means and methods of completing the project, including the construction equipment route. The City has the authority to require modifications and amendments to the Construction Management Plan as deemed necessary throughout the course of the project and until the final inspection. 19 SIMON LEE & ASSOCIATES ARCH I T E C T S website: www.slarch.com November 7, 2013 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILS CITY OF ROSEMEAD c/o Michelle G. Ramirez 140 W. VALLEY BLVD., SUITE 21 5 SAN GABRIEL, CA 91776 TEL: (6261 571 -8000 FAX: (626) 571 -8005 e -mail: sla@slarch.com Community Development Director Tel: (626) 569 -2158 Email: mramirez @cityofrosemead.org Re: "NEW GARVEY DEL MAR PLAZA" — A Commercial & Residential Mixed -Use Project Location: 7801 Garvey Ave. Rosemead, CA 91770 Per California State Law (SB 1818- 2008), a Density Bonus for mixed -use projects may be achieved by providing a percentage of affordable housing units within the residential portion of the project. A density bonus of 35% increase and no more than two incentives or concessions may be granted for a project that includes at least 20% for persons and families of low- income in a residential development. Mr. Gerard Yang, property owner of "New Garvey Del Mar Plaza" is proposing 20% low- income housing for 35% density bonus to qualify for a total of 60 -unit residential apartments with two allowable concessions. Per your review and approval, the following two (2) concessions are proposed: 1. Building Height & Story: Per RMC Section 17.74.050(C)(3)(c), High Density Commercial/Residential mixed -use building (forty (40) to sixty (60) du/ac; four (4) stories) shall have a maximum height of fifty -five (55) feet. Project proposed: Building measured from Del Mar Ave. is 50' -0 "1 4 -Story, but building measured from Brighton St. is 60' -0 "/ 5 -Story due to the existing elevation change on Garvey Ave 10' -0" drop from Del Mar Ave to Brighton St. ATTACHMENT "F" 2. Variable Height: Per RMC Section 17.74.050(C)(1)(f), All residential/commercial mixed -use developments shall have a variable height limitation when abutting R -1 and R -2 zones. The second floor and above shall be stepped back from the rear property line as follows: establishing a height at six (6) feet above finished grade of the adjacent residential property line with a 20- degree incline plane projected to establish the height limitation of the residential/commercial mixed -use development. The proposed section B -B on sheet A -4.1 shows the north residential units and central garden is encroaching into the 20- degree incline plane even though the main building is 50' -0" away from the rear property line. Also, Parking Requirements: Per RMC Chapter 17.74, two parking spaces shall be provided for every dwelling unit and one guest space shall be provided for each two units in a multiple - family dwelling project. Per the State Density Bonus program SB 1818 (Government Code Section 65915), we are allowed to reduce parking for the entire project base on the new residential parking standards detailed as follows: - Zero to one bedroom unit — one onsite parking space - Two to three bedrooms unit — two onsite parking space - Four to more bedrooms unit — two and a -half parking spaces These numbers are inclusive of guest parking and handicapped parking for the residential portion of the project. Sincerely, Simon Lee, AIA Simon Lee & Associates, Architects For Mr. Gerard Yang/ Owner Hawaii Properties 120 E. Valley Blvd., San Gabriel, CA 91776 2 MAYOR: WILLIAM ALARCON MAYOR PRO TEM: MARGARET CLARK COUNCIL MEMBERS: SANDRA ARAIENTA POLLY LOW STEVEN LY Dear Residents and Property Owners: City of gZqs emead 8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD P.O BOX 399 ROSEMFAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 TELEPI [ONE (626) 5 69-2 100 FAX (626) 307 -9218 As you are aware, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 15, 2014, to consider the Garvey Del Mar Mixed Use Project. The project consists of a request to develop a new residential /commercial mixed -use development. The project consists of the demolition of all existing structures to construct a five -story, mixed -use development with retail /restaurant space on the basement/first and second floors and 60 residential units on the third through fifth floors. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and two stories of subterranean basement parking. The City is proposing to participate by vacating the existing public alley that bisects the site. Access to the proposed project will be provided via the rear of the structure with one entrance on Del Mar Avenue and two entrances on Brighton Street. The project also includes a density bonus application under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, which amended the state bonus law to allow density bonuses up to 35 %. The property is located at the northeast corner of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue in the C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone and R -2 (Light Multiple Residential) zone. At the meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to work with residents and property owners within a 300 foot radius from the project site to ensure that all questions and concerns are discussed. For this reason, we are reaching out to you and informing you that we are available to answer any questions or concerns that you may have. Please feel free to contact Lily Trinh, Associate Planner at (626) 569 -2142, Itrinh(d,)cityofrosemead.orq or at the Planning Division Counter at any time during business hours. Rosemead City Hall is open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday. City Hall is closed on Fridays. Please note that City Hall will be closed for the holidays from December 24, 2014 (12:00 p.m.) to January 1, 2015. City Hall will resume on January 5, 2015. The City intends on presenting this item to the City Council on January 13, 2015. It would be greatly appreciated if all comments and concerns are presented to staff by Thursday, January 9, 2015. Si re Lily nh Associate Planner Cc: Case Files, Jeff Allred (City Manager), Michelle Ramirez (Community Development Director) ATTACHMENT "G" MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION GARVEY /DEL MAR PLAZA General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02 Tentative Tract Map 72529, Design Review 12 -05 - T 111 ---, Lead Agency: City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 (626)- 569 -2142 Project Proponent: Gerard Ngo 120 E. Valley Boulevard San Gabriel, California 91776 (626) 307 -0062 Environmental Consultant: Phil Martin & Associates 3002 Dow Avenue, Suite 122 Tustin, California 92780 (714) 454 -1800 May 19, 2014 ATTACHMENT "H" City of Rosemead Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey — Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review 12 -05 TABLE of CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. ............................... 1 1.1 Purpose ............................................................................... ............................... 1 1.2 Location ............................................................................... ............................... 1 1.3 Project Description ............................................................... ............................... 1 1.4 Intended Use of This Document ........................................... ............................... 7 1.5 Environmental Setting .......................................................... ............................... 7 1.6 Cumulative Projects ........................................................... ............................... 11 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .................................................. ............................... 13 3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ................... ............................... 16 3.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................... ............................... 16 3.2 Agricultural Resources ....................................................... ............................... 23 3.3 Air Quality .......................................................................... ............................... 24 3.4 Biological Resources .......................................................... ............................... 34 3.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................. ............................... 36 3.6 Geology and Soils .............................................................. ............................... 37 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................... ............................... 39 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................. ............................... 42 3.9 Land Use ............................................................................ ............................... 46 3.10 Mineral Resources ............................................................. ............................... 52 3.11 Noise .................................................................................... .............................53 3.12 Population and Housing ..................................................... ............................... 62 3.13 Public Services .................................................................. ............................... 63 3.14 Recreation ............................................................................ .............................64 3.15 Transportation /Traffic ......................................................... ............................... 65 3.16 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................. ............................... 77 3.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................... ............................... 79 4.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................. ............................... 81 Appendices Appendix A — Photometric Study Appendix B — Air Quality /Greenhouse Gas Analysis Appendix C — Geotechnical Report Appendix D — Phase 1 /II Environmental Site Assessments Appendix E — Noise Report Appendix F — Traffic Report Page 1 City of Rosemead Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey - Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review 12 -05 LIST of FIGURES Figure Page 1 . Regional Location Map .................................................................... ............................... 2 2 . Local Vicinity Map ............................................................................ ............................... 3 3 . Aerial Photo ..................................................................................... ............................... 4 4. Tentative Tract Map 72529 .............................................................. ............................... 5 5 . Building Elevations .......................................................................... ............................... 6 6 . Landscape Plan ............................................................................... ............................... 8 7 . On Site Photographs ....................................................................... ............................... 9 8. Surrounding Land Uses ................................................................. ............................... 10 9. Aerial Photo - Cumulative Projects ................................................ ............................... 12 10. South Elevation Rendering ............................................................ ............................... 18 11. North Elevation Rendering ............................................................. ............................... 19 12 . Photometric Study ......................................................................... ............................... 22 13 . Land Use Plan ............................................................................... ............................... 48 14 . Zoning Map .................................................................................... ............................... 49 15. Noise Measurement Locations ...................................................... ............................... 55 16. Construction Equipment Noise Levels ........................................... ............................... 61 17. Project Trip Distribution ................................................................. ............................... 67 18. Project AM Peak Hour Turning Movement and Roadway Link Volumes ....................... 70 19. Project PM Peak Hour Turning Movement and Roadway Link Volumes ....................... 71 20. Baseline 2015 With Project Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes and Volume to Capacity 78 20. Ratios............................................................................................ ............................... 74 LIST of TABLES Table Page 1. South Coast Air Basin Emission Forecasts (Emissions (tons /day) . ............................... 25 2. Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2008 -2012) ................................ ............................... 26 3. Daily Emission Thresholds ............................................................. ............................... 27 4. Construction Activity Equipment Fleet ............................................ ............................... 28 5. Construction Activity Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds /day) .................... 28 6. Daily Operational Impacts .............................................................. ............................... 29 7. Maximum Daily Disturbed Acreage Per Equipment Type ............... ............................... 30 8. LST and Project Emissions (pounds /day) ...................................... ............................... 31 9. Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO e)) ................................ ............................... 32 10. Operational Emissions ................................................................... ............................... 33 11. Rosemead Noise Ordinance Limits ................................................ ............................... 54 12. Measured Noise Levels (dBA) ....................................................... ............................... 54 13. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis (dBA CNEL at 50 feet from Centerline ) ........................... 56 14. Project Traffic Noise Level Increases (dBA CNEL at 50 feet from Centerline) .............. 56 15. Vibration Levels from Project Construction Activities ..................... ............................... 59 16. Project Trip Generation .................................................................. ............................... 68 17. 2013 Intersection Levels of Service Without Project ...................... ............................... 69 18. 2015 Intersection Levels of Service Without Project ...................... ............................... 72 19. Estimate Project Water Consumption ............................................ ............................... 78 20. Estimated Project Wastewater Generation .................................... ............................... 78 Page 1 City of Rosemead Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey — Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review 12 -05 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE The City of Rosemead ( "Lead Agency ") has prepared this Mitigated Negative Declaration for the purpose of identifying and evaluating the potential impacts that could occur with a proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) 12 -02, Zone Change (ZC) 12 -02, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 72529, and Design Review (DR) 12 -05 for the construction of a mixed use project that includes 60 residential units, including 12 low income units, 15,553 square feet of retail /restaurant use, and 211 parking spaces, including compact and handicap, in a five - story building with two levels of subterranean parking. It is the intent of this environmental document to identify the potential environmental impacts that can be expected to occur with the development of the proposed project, including the demolition of the existing buildings and site improvements, and provide feasible mitigation measures, when required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. A general plan amendment, zone change (Zone Change), and Tentative are required for the project as proposed. 1.2 LOCATION The project site totals approximately 49,850 square feet (1.14 acres) and is located in the City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California as shown in Figure 1, Regional Map. The project site consists of six parcels and is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenue and west of Brighton Street as shown in Figure 2 — Local Vicinity Map. An aerial photograph of the site is shown in Figure 3 — Aerial Photo. The project site is currently designated in the General Plan as Commercial and Medium Density Residential and on the zoning map it is designated C -3 (Medium Commercial) and R -2 (Light Multiple Residential). The applicant is requesting to change the zoning and land use designation to Mixed Use. The General Plan land use designations adjacent to the site include Commercial and Medium Density Residential to the north, Commercial to the south and west, and Commercial and Medium Density Residential to the east. The zoning is C -3 (Medium Commercial), with the exception of the single - family residence at the northeast corner of the site that is zoned R -2 (Light Multiple Residential). 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of the demolition of all existing structures to construct a five - story, mixed use development with 15,553 square feet of retail /restaurant space on the basement/first and second floors and 60 residential units on the third through fifth floors, comprising 54,609 square feet, for a total built area of 70,162 square feet. Of the 60 units, the project proposes 12 low- income rental units. An outdoor seating area is proposed in the central area of the ground level on the north side of the building. New landscaping will be provided within the building setbacks around the perimeter of the site and throughout the outdoor seating area. The project is requesting two concessions to allow the development as proposed. Due to the slope of the property, a concession is requested to allow a building height of 60 feet at Brighton Street, exceeding the allowable building height of 50 feet. A second concession is requested to allow the north side of the building to extend into a 20 degree angle that extends onto the site from the north property line because the project abuts existing residences north of the site. The proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 72529 is shown in Figure 4. Building elevations of the proposed building are shown in Figure 5. A Page 1 = Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. GARVEY DEL MAR PLAZA Mouniams 'a C,e @ Canada bank i5mm Park S­ w, Glendale Pasadena Arcadia 'O, Dua-n agle Rock - ock Azusa Glendora So' Swt Marino South vekagc f6_6k" Pasadena Northeast Temple City Ange 0 Alhambra 110 Baldwin Oak Park Rosemead Park Covina 06 "" I Monterey El Monte ,, West Covina Los Angeles"On' at South El at%"" Monte V.h.d. A—, o Angeles G&tster Park Rose Montebello— Site 11 so�lh so. 0 3catid -1,, L Puente , a Jose H ills nr} Walnut p ;Omrnefq Hacienda eo South �i Huntington Pico Rivet Heights 4 Ange S park Bell Whittier Rowland Florence- Gtaham Hei Bell Gardens South Gate South ants Fe Whittier estnvnt Downey 'ngs nwood La Habra Willowticook La Mirada Brea Norway Compton ♦ ♦ It J* Source: Phil Martin ea Associates, Inc., Google Maps 2013 N Figure I 1) Regional Map = Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. GARVEY DEL MAR PLAZA lendon '04ay c; VV 61e.W'Q11 Way 0 W Saxon Ave oo -6 > 0 rs 0 F Saxon Ave > *71—li k r.(7,ri, St Anson St Columbia : ;t rn Hellman Ave Hellman Ave Hellman Ave Hershey Ave = — r Hershey St ev > Z City of Angels Z Medical Dorothy St cr ' J Center- Ingleside :21 > z > 0 rz ' Frierson Ave et Emerson PI Garvey Park Emerson P1 Los Angeles C7 > > Buddhist Union Whitmore St L- 4 A(hilmore St 00 0 'Boca Dharma Rosemead > CL Park St < > Seal Temple M < Garvey Del Mar zapo, > < > Mixed Use Project Par < Garvey Ave <> Garvey Ave cm C3 % abel Ave z z -C Egley Ave > < y. Newmark Ave o < 0 '.'ewma(k Ave t1b ro Newmark Ave Fern Ave Fern Ave Fern GARVEY Ave < :3 Z 0 Garvalia Ave > CL C 0 n) > ry a W > 0 no < W ear PI 3 < Highcliff St 0 < It r- M ir eo Melrose Ave is ves Ave Graves Ave 0 Mooney Dr O A Ve 06 4d X Ave A t Dr -C Keim St 0 41, -211 ID r Ln " t - 0 19� to t-oren Rush ,k to A - If 4,?� z Abe - Toil Or rn CD ,40wning P, ' SOUTH SAN C � Dr GABRIEl. is Tegner Dr PC Alpha St Source: Google Maps, 2013 Figure 2 N Local Vicinity Map m Phil Martin& Associates, Inc. GARVEY DEL MAR PLAZA Source: Google Earth 2013 Figure 3 1) Aerial Photo =Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. � i k F .A l IN ' LEGEND F.N. 0 6%1x2 I/7 EXISTING EXISTING CONTOUR TR EXISTING BUILDING — X — EXISTING WOOD FENCE — X —X— EXISTING CFAN LINK FENCE —n —Q — EXISTING WALL PROPERTY LINE SIG, EDGE OF PAVEMENT — WROUGH IRON FENCE FD ON IN PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE TW TOP OF WALL TW sr TOP OF WALL SOUTH FACE H PP POWER POLE (317.85)PCC EXISTING ELEVATION rL CENTERLNE EC EDGE OF GUTTER PCC PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE TO TOP of CURB TO TOP d GRATE FS FPN ED SURFACE FF FINISHED FLOOR R FLOW LINE LWN LAWN ORT. DIRT CP CONTROL PONT EW EDGE OF WALK 9W BACK OF WALK FM FIRE HYDRANT WM WATER METER ON GAS METER AC ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PD PULL BOX SCO SEWER CLEANOIIT RD CB ROOF OUR CATCH BASIN F.N. 0 6%1x2 I/7 EXISTING Source: Pro Design Engineers N Figure 4 ® Tentative Tract Map No. 72529 TR 6G E SIG, BOX FD ON IN JOINT ON 0. Source: Pro Design Engineers N Figure 4 ® Tentative Tract Map No. 72529 = Phil Martin& Associates, Inc. GARVEY DEL MAR PLAZA �' ± ` _..'.. lI �]i7 s Isj�r? 31 e; _- i e 0 19 + 6 r n u! s a a, i, t a o s • Ma r"II 11 -'.TT ( - 7 11,11M .,; . i , ._ _ �,�.•, nLi i {�,. ��,, �. — � r•-,t � q _ ' , � - -- _ � _ 4 ..�f�,�sR{� .., '. : • y A� T'1 " =,• . �-- . �_:� te_ '., _ ) y • i i V WEST ELEVATION (VIEW FROMDELMARAVE) arEOwp snNSx xMEOUtt SOUTH ELEVATION (VIEW FROM GARVE YAVE) Air m -.: • :: t '�� � i 'I t, � � ; � .fir - � - r- r;. �.* � .� � •� ..._ - .1� -_. - Y�.,_ � , � - � - ice � - rt : EAST ELEVATION (VIEWFRWBR�G HT ONST) NORTH ELEVATION Source: Simon Lee &Assoc. Architects Figure 5 Building Elevations City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review conceptual landscape plan showing the types of landscape materials proposed for the site is shown in Figure 6. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and two stories of subterranean basement parking. The project will incorporate an existing alley that extends east -west through the middle of the site from Brighton Street on the east to Del Mar Avenue on the west. Access to the proposed project will be provided via the rear of the structure with one entrance each on Del Mar Avenue and Brighton Street. The project also includes a density bonus application under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, which amended the state bonus law to allow density bonuses up to 35% 1.4 INTENDED USE OF THIS DOCUMENT This document is intended to be used by the City of Rosemead as the Lead Agency to evaluate the project's environmental impacts and to develop appropriate mitigation measures to reduce those impacts, if any, to less than a significant level, according to the regulations set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines (Public Resources Code §21000 — 21177, and California Code of Regulations §1500 — 15387). 1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of Rosemead is a suburb within the Greater Los Angeles area located 10 miles east of the City of Los Angeles. It is bounded on the north by the City of Temple City, on the west by the City of San Gabriel and the County of Los Angeles, on the south by the City of Montebello, and the City of El Monte and South El Monte on the east. The City of Rosemead is 5.5 square miles in size with a residential population of 53,764 people. The project is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue. There are single - family detached homes to the north, commercial uses to the west, commercial uses to the south, south of Garvey Avenue, and commercial and single - family detached residents to the east, east of Brighton Street. Photographs of the project site and the surrounding land uses are shown in Figures 7 and 8, respectively. As shown, the site is located in an area that is developed and urbanized. The land uses surrounding the site include the following: North General Plan — Commercial and Medium Density Residential Zoning — C -3 (Medium Commercial) and R -2 (Light Multiple Residential) Land Use — Residential South General Plan - Commercial Zoning - C -3 (Medium Commercial) Land Use - Commercial East General Plan - Commercial Zoning - C -3 (Medium Commercial) and R -2 (Light Multiple Residential) Land Use - Commercial and Residential West General Plan - Commercial Zoning - C -3 (Medium Commercial) Land Use - Commercial Page 7 =Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. GARVEY DEL MAR PLAZA o._.�� .. O p 0 ___ ___ ___ ____________ O O WALIIfENCE CIETMIL�• tiA I I C' "II I � 1 til F I PLANT LEGEND TREES 1RISIMIA LMARM - LI1iLE LCK xMTIE ¢R• Fm ® STMCT 11Q SPCCIE Ax0 f� IG C3TT DI DDRJ[AD `� TERImKMFNTt PAMIf CMIO.WWM - CMRIIU CIIF/DtY LNREL C 1 fEC flU& PCE t J F -- iYfC, S SC AM D PTiN � / x IRDIGTEf CSDREFPDIIDVG TREE IRMER w EzlfnXC TREE SHRUBS -ACCENT PLANTING ' � noemFl rrAAf xATTS aAU - xfv aALAxD nAA s DALlL11 O nuww Tf TWwRV aDEOr - l ICMMD FLAX s GMSLI o D P f rmwa to1Ax >m Rur - REV i[AUfa lL,nl 8 � I aAUU nw�w sLUr - wuw FLU fw.E O s strvu aGDMAF - )RID or rAwDIFE p RMIRyCPTit DrIG - xufsTx DfMRY s uuw e xYl L DpDMCTA - xnosxA s DAlta VINES MACTADYCIM VlGUIS -EATI - YELLPI iR11PCT VRc 5 WLLW 0.Axi AT 6' CC. RCR CITY PEplIPfIEXT a CMV VML GROUND COVER 1111 I'FMITIII' IICbLLmI DVAP! T— ® TRM;XC➢LRSRCMIM ,Mf IXIIKI STAR JAEIIIxC fR➢M 1 GAL. AT 1— TRDVLIILAR 9�KIXG GCICfAI GRDAYMRKR xpiF PPRVip[ J' —[P pC SraCO[f0 DAR. Al i01 DPCSfIxG !VI ALL Yl/Ili[R ARCAS �6 POTTERY PLANTINGS / f O AWK ATTCMMTA 3 - S GL. UMDER ­7 ­1 DAL PIpS1MTE R➢SCRMtY SLLf f b a� 7 g O FWWUnhLCA '191RT J - S f✓L TR4x TD CASfJA DtR w PDT © NMRTS SCL TSTAM - S GAL INRA Pl/INI VIlN i[AM ALD➢lPNil E Op —1. TEM. RARRRV DUEOI 3 - S DAL UYR —T VITx 1 GAL TTAP JAiI®[ SpR SPAQR '; P © PrmMEDRpI P'xMAp/ 3 - !DAL LaDCR 0.ANi VITM DT. IVY ¢RAI'mM ®WD PUTA g GEALPAL PDTTERT xp1L f1RTERY L1YLE MID IIfMYACTVRC TD DC pCTCRNINEO EXISTING TREE LEGEND T IK[ 16 DDIMIRN. MMIC - CDRUx MNC SlATVS lRI.N( D1A LDCATI TREE fl LL1lR PAPVB'RIA - CXI fill —1. IA•' DGL CN-STE TRFE TREE D2 - ADD - - — A AVDCADD REMAIN 6• DN .1 ITE TRFF iRE[ D3 VRCDG 1Mtf A-1 PL1MR1 F DIA OI -SITE TWCC TREE IX —El lY NElfimf R ATMI. WA of -UTC E RS TRISTNRA L9A'FRTA - D4ISDAN DRf REMIx r DIA ­­ T 1.1 1REE R6 TRITTMRA ­T. P - DDISYM Fmt 1-11 6• DU fTRCEI 1R[C CTR K Rf LAC[m __G4RYEYA I!E � Source: Pro Design Engineers /Simon Lee &Assoc. Architects Figure 6 Landscape Plan W Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. 6i 1. Looking north across the west end of the site from Garvey Avenue. GARVEY DEL MAR PLAZA 2. Looking east from Del Mar Avenue at the alley through the site. 3. Looking at the residence in the northeast corner of the site, to be demolished. Source: Phil Martin &Assoc. 4. Looking from Garvey Avenue at the existing uses in the southeast area of the site. Figure 7 On -Site Photos =Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. GARVEY DEL MAR PLAZA 6. Looking at the shopping center south of the site. is 8. Looking at the residences north and northeast of the site. Figure 8 Off -Site Photos 5. Looking at the existing uses west of the site, west of Del Mar Avenue. 7. Looking at the commercial uses east of the site. Source: Phil Martin &Assoc. City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review 1.6 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS The City of Rosemead identified two projects that, along with the proposed project, could have cumulative impacts. The two projects include: A. Garvey Market Place — The project proposes to develop a 3.43 acre site at 7419- 7459 Garvey Avenue as a shopping center with three buildings totaling 48,000 square feet. The site is currently developed with a travel agency office that will be demolished. B. Garvey 168 Plaza - The project proposes to develop a 0.698 acre (30,397 square feet) site at 8479 Garvey Avenue with two buildings totaling 36,100 square feet with 24,725 square feet of residential condominiums and 11,375 square feet of commercial use. An aerial photograph showing the location of the two cumulative projects is provided in Figure 9. There are no additional cumulative projects that along with the proposed project would have potential cumulative impacts. Page 11 =Phil Martin &Associates, Inc. GARVEY DEL MAR PLAZA Source: Google Earth 2013 Figure 9 Cumulative Projects Aerial Photo City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review 2.0 Environmental Checklist Environmental Factors That Could Result in a Potentially Significant Impact The environmental factors listed below are not checked because the proposed project would not result in a "potentially significant impact' as indicated by the preceding checklist and supported by substantial evidence provided in this document. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities /Services Systems ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils ❑ HydrologyNVater Quality ❑ Land Use /Planning ❑ Noise ❑ Population /Housing ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Report is required. ❑ 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 measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signed Date Page 13 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13-02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) CEQA requires a brief explanation 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, and 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 measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross - referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. Page 14 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Page 15 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review 3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 3.1 AESTHETICS a) No Impact. The project site and the surrounding properties are not designated as a scenic vista by the City of Rosemead General Plan. The most predominant scenic vista open to the Rosemead community in general is the San Gabriel Valley mountain range, which is approximately 8 miles north of Rosemead. The project will not block or interrupt any direct views of the San Gabriel Mountains by existing residents south of the site. No existing residences adjacent to or north of the site will have to look across the site to view the San Gabriel Mountains. The project will not have any significant scenic vista impacts. b) No Impact. The pro�ect site is not located adjacent to or near a state - designated, or eligible scenic highway. The project will not affect or impact any existing scenic resources, historic buildings, etc., within a state scenic highway. c) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project site is developed with five commercial buildings and a one -story single - family residence. One building is vacant and the four remaining buildings are occupied with commercial uses. An occupied single - family residence is located at the northeast corner of the property and will be demolished along with the other on -site buildings. A paved alley separates the paved parking lot at the northwest corner of the site and the single - family detached residence at the northeast corner of the property from the commercial uses south of the alley and north of Garvey Avenue. The alley will be removed and incorporated into the project. The building setbacks will be landscaped. The project landscaping will provide some aesthetic buffering of the site for motorists and pedestrians on Del Mar Avenue, Garvey Avenue and Brighton Street. The landscaping will improve the aesthetics of the site for the residents north and northeast of the site compared to the existing landscaping. State of California Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, hftp://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenichighways/ Page 16 Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 3.1 Aesthetics Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ vista? __ ...... ................ ............... ....................... _ ........................ _.._ ...... _____--------- --- - --- — ..... .............. _.— ..._._.._........_. —_. b) ...... .................... ...................................................................... Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ ❑ outcroppings, and historic building within a state . scenic highway? .... .. .. ...... .. .. ......- _. __......__ ....._........-................................._...................... ...........................---- ----------- - - - - -- – -- ...... __ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its ❑ ® ❑ ❑ .......... ............................ surroundings? _ ...-- ..... ..._ ......................_.........._...._..-- . .. -- .... ........................... — ..............._.. .._... ... _ ................ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ nighttime views in the area? 3.1 AESTHETICS a) No Impact. The project site and the surrounding properties are not designated as a scenic vista by the City of Rosemead General Plan. The most predominant scenic vista open to the Rosemead community in general is the San Gabriel Valley mountain range, which is approximately 8 miles north of Rosemead. The project will not block or interrupt any direct views of the San Gabriel Mountains by existing residents south of the site. No existing residences adjacent to or north of the site will have to look across the site to view the San Gabriel Mountains. The project will not have any significant scenic vista impacts. b) No Impact. The pro�ect site is not located adjacent to or near a state - designated, or eligible scenic highway. The project will not affect or impact any existing scenic resources, historic buildings, etc., within a state scenic highway. c) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project site is developed with five commercial buildings and a one -story single - family residence. One building is vacant and the four remaining buildings are occupied with commercial uses. An occupied single - family residence is located at the northeast corner of the property and will be demolished along with the other on -site buildings. A paved alley separates the paved parking lot at the northwest corner of the site and the single - family detached residence at the northeast corner of the property from the commercial uses south of the alley and north of Garvey Avenue. The alley will be removed and incorporated into the project. The building setbacks will be landscaped. The project landscaping will provide some aesthetic buffering of the site for motorists and pedestrians on Del Mar Avenue, Garvey Avenue and Brighton Street. The landscaping will improve the aesthetics of the site for the residents north and northeast of the site compared to the existing landscaping. State of California Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, hftp://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenichighways/ Page 16 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13-02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review A 10 foot wide landscape setback is proposed along the entire length of the north project boundary. This 10 foot landscape setback will provide some aesthetic buffer of the project for the existing residences adjacent to and north of the project. The north ten -foot landscape setback, along with the courtyard proposed for the first floor on the north side of the building, will provide a 50 foot distance from the north property line to the front of the north side of the proposed building. Thus, there will be a 50 foot separation between the closest residence north of the site and the actual residential units and project residents. Figure 10 is an artistic rendering of the south building elevation as seen from the shopping center south of Garvey Avenue. As shown, the project will be visible to the land uses south of the site. The project will be visible to the residents and businesses north and northeast of the project. Figure 11 is an artistic rendering of the north building elevation as seen northwest of the site. The project proposes to maintain four existing trees along the north project boundary and two along the east project boundary. Four existing street trees along the south project boundary, adjacent to Garvey Avenue, will be removed along with three trees on the residential lot at the northeast corner of the property. None of the trees to be removed are oak trees. In their place, the project proposes to plant 13 new street trees, including three along the west boundary adjacent to Del Mar Avenue, eight along the southern boundary adjacent to Garvey Avenue, and two along the east project boundary adjacent to Brighton Street. In addition to planting 13 new trees, the project proposes to plant vines, shrubs and other landscape materials within the 10 foot landscape setback along the north project boundary to buffer the project from the residents adjacent to and north of the project. Additional landscaping consisting of vines, trees will be planted along the west, south, and east project boundary to improve the aesthetics of the project from the adjacent streets. The proposed project landscaping will improve the aesthetics of the property compared to the existing condition. The project will improve the existing aesthetics of the site. Most of the buildings on the site are single- story. However, several buildings are two stories in height similar to other two story buildings in the project area. The project will increase the height of the existing one and two -story buildings to a four story building. Due to the existing slope of the site, the height of the proposed building will be 50 feet above the ground at the west elevation and 65 feet tall at the east elevation. The project will be the tallest building in the immediate project vicinity. The proposed building will be more visible to area residents and businesses due to its height. As stated previously, the new building is four stories in height compared to the one and two -story buildings on the site. The residents north and east of the site will have more direct and unobstructed views of the property due to the increased height of the proposed building. The project will also be more visible to existing residents further from the site than the existing buildings. While the project will be more visible the project is not anticipated to significantly degrade the existing visual characteristics of either the site or the surrounding areas. The project will change and reduce the privacy of the residents north and east of the project due to the height of the proposed building. The proposed building will allow residents on the second, third and fourth floors to have greater views of the residential area north and east of the site compared to the existing condition. Views by the project residents to the north and Page 17 =Phil Martin& Associates, Inc. GARVEY DEL MAR PLAZA North Elevation Rendering Source: Artistic Engineering Figure 10 =Phil Martin &Associates, Inc. GARVEY DEL MAR PLAZA South Elevation Rendering Source: Artistic Engineering Figure 11 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13-02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review east could reduce the existing privacy of residents closest to the site. Similarly, residents north and east of the site will have direct views of the residential units on the north side of the project. Per Rosemead Municipal Code 17.74.505.A.1, the project is required to provide a minimum twelve foot setback from the adjacent curb face to the building. Within this twelve foot setback is a required five foot wide amenity zone. The amenity zone shall include street trees, landscaping, public art, street lighting, street furniture and other pedestrian- oriented amenities. Required street trees have a maximum distance of 30 feet or less, on center. Street trees are proposed along all three sides of the project adjacent to streets. The City will require that street trees are provided to comply with RMC 17.74.50.A.1. Per Rosemead Municipal Code 17.74.050.A.4.a, the corner of the proposed building at Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue must provide special treatments to enhance the pedestrian experience, and create visual interest and focal points at the entryways, such as, but not limited to, building cut -offs and corner entrances with additional architectural detail, decorative landscaping, hardscape, planters, canopy, overhang or other architectural covering over the building entry. In addition, the building shall have a five -foot angled corner setback measured from both intersecting property lines. As shown previously in Figure 4, the building provides the required building cut -offs and angled corner setbacks. During site plan review, the City will ensure the building provides the proper angled corners and cut -offs in compliance with RMC 17.74.050.A.4.a. The approval of the requested Residential /Commercial Mixed Use Development Overlay Zone (RCMUDO) will require the project to integrate on -site public art work into the project. At this time, the applicant is not proposing any on -site public art work. The following measure is recommended to ensure that public art work is incorporated into the project. Mitigation Measure No. 1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain an approved public art plan by the City Council. The existing structures on the site are older buildings and not consistent in their design and architecture. The buildings show signs of delayed maintenance and repair compared to other buildings in the area. There is a vacant parcel of land at the southwest corner of the site that is enclosed with chain -link fencing. A small paved parking lot at the northwest corner of the site provides parking for on -site business and also provides temporary parking for area residents. Compared to the existing development, the proposed project would improve the aesthetics of the site with a new building that is current in its design and architecture. The elimination of the vacant parcel enclosed with chain link fencing and the replacement of the small paved parking lot with the proposed improvements, including a new building, with landscaping and other proposed site improvements will significantly improve the existing aesthetics of the site. Project compliance with all applicable development standards in RMC 17.74.050 will reduce project aesthetic impacts for adjacent residents, businesses, pedestrians, and motorists on Del Mar Avenue, Garvey Avenue, and Brighton Streets to less- than - significant. d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project will generate new sources of light and glare compared to the existing conditions due to the increase in the amount of development proposed for the site. Due to the increase in development proposed for the site compared to the existing development, the project will increase light and glare. 2 Rosemead Municipal Code 17.74.060(A). Page 20 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review Light In compliance with RMC 17.74.050.A.12, a photometric stud Y3 was prepared. The photometric study was based on the proposed types and electronic technologies of the outdoor lighting fixtures, including light pole heights, to illuminate the site. The results of the photometric study are shown in Figure 12. Due to the slope of the site and the 18- foot -tall pole- mounted parking fixtures (specified by the architect with "roadway" and "forward throw" lighting distributions, respectively), the project would generate incidental backward - directed light and impact the residences north of the property. The photometric analysis shows the row of 18- foot -tall light poles along the north side of the site contributed to measurable light beyond the north property line. The photometric analysis shows the project lighting will spill onto the properties north of the site greater than 0.2 foot candles. The photometric analysis shows that off -site project light intensities by the project will range from a low of 0.0 foot candles adjacent to and north of the block wall along the north property line to a high of 0.8 foot candles. The lighting industry recognizes a maintenance horizontal illuminance of 0.2 foot - candles. For comparison purposes, a medium to bright moon light is approximately 0.3 foot candles. Based on the photometric study the project lighting plan, as currently proposed, will generate light hotspots both on and off the site with accompanying glare resulting in a combination of floodlight effects that could impact project guests, adjacent residents, pedestrians and other off -site land uses. In an effort to reduce potential off -site light impacts to the residents north of the site, an alternate lighting configuration was modeled, which included: (1) converting the 18- foot -tall light poles to a forward -throw distribution; and (2) equipping the light poles with a manufacturer option house -side shields to further reduce backlight. The results are shown in the photometric analysis at the top of Figure 12. As shown, the light intensities with the alternative lighting configuration will be 0.1 foot - candles. The following measure is recommended to reduce on- and off -site lighting impact to 0.1 foot candles and less- than - significant. Mitigation Measure No. 2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project applicant shall submit a lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division that incorporates any of the following light reducing measures as applicable: • Improved physical barriers such as increased wall height • Relocate and /or change the height and /or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures. • Select lighting fixtures with more - precise optical control and /or different lighting distribution. • Add external shielding and /or internal reflectors to fixtures. • Select lower- output lamp /lamp technologies • A combination of the above. 3 Outdoor Lighting Study — Garvey Del Mar Plaza Mixed Use Development, OMB Electrical, letter dated October 15, 2013. See Appendix A. Page 21 =Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. GARVEY DEL MAR PLAZA -FAMLY RESIDENCE EJO- oF NE PROPERTY LIWE 0.0400.00.o40O.t O.1 1g6AS4.JD ' .1«001x00.1 QI 0.141 O.10.10.10.1O.lO.IO.I 0.1 a19.1a.t 0.101 D.1 At419.19'.TU��'E41 O.I O. 10.19.10.10.1 0.10.19.1 x141110.141 0.10.10.1 Q00�1 o. o o. oa. oo. oo. Da. oo. D9 .od6b:�.'Ddoo.o9.09.00.oaoo.oa oaoo. oa. 00. 00. 00. 00 .00.09.00.ao.DO.00.00.00.o9.oa. L o Zl o l o l o L a IJ OO. oo. oo. oa .o400.00.oaoo.00.00.00.oaoaoa.l o.l Q.I al a a a2b2a 4 '03020. 2'0 d'0. M2a2o2'0 2b .30.3030202040.]02O202o.2o.2G. 30202'0.] o3'02' o. fo2b20E. I'. 2 .J01121]D]OI1.2...2a2121.2'a1a2 alb - I '0 61 1 1 1' 1,8 i2].lO.las'a6'OE4i 1.l > 211 ] 13 a9 0.>'0.81.1 ....T, YJ'IJI3L'0.6ai 16 RA-E8- 1 -¢ '" • ^ a!� -1.2 i.5 v "1.6 •0 •a _ I' i-� v ❑ E I TIE ll nxlua P OLE 4"TED ALTERNATE CALCULATION - CONVERT L POLES B TO B7 _ALTp (FORWARD THROW WITH HOUSE SIDE SHIELD) �\ J FEET SPACING BET.EEN CALL TIOAI PANTS - 9NGU -FN2LY RESIDENCE E.S9AID NORM aF THE PROPERTY LWE J rt IRa1 WNa� 16 n TAU 11n! ROpI _ C6nNl ¢V WO FT I9:I1 RA LL IT W. I - - PRJIfRIY LIE) & P IA ARTL EAST ELEVATION - VIEW FROM BRIGHTON STREET .1 Q Q V D I I F I 1 1 1 � IE 1 ' I 000.0QOO.Oa00.00. QOO .0000.0x00.00.oaoo.OxOQOxOQ00. 00.00.00. oaoaoo.0o.oaoo.00.oaoaoaoaoaaal 0.00.00.0a0a00.0A .00 I �.Og040gOQ10 / yO.00.Oa0a00.1 al O.l at 0.1610.10.00.00.1 O.l qt al ql O.00.Oa00.00.0QOq q1 41 aDO� 1 1 .10.1x 10.10.10.1 O.1 qI Al Al Al 110.11,11211212 OOa0A00.1A1at lO.l ql al «2x20.1 a1 a2a20Sal 1,1121 1212 a0a0a"Guov.i;laal x0a0010.I0.0xO0.0aoO.oaogl al ql 0.10.1O.1g gINR glal Imm, 0�1g10.1g1O.1 Al0.10.1 '� t� lO.1 x10.10.1 x.10.10.1 111111112121: 100.00.10.1610.SQ1 . 3gJ121262a20 .i0.2Q3110JO.a1.a0.50.10.6Aa aaJA]O.aQa16A6a6A60.60.10.10. 6x6/ 61)0.10.10.60.1110.50.]O.aO.10A66 Np1d PRDPB1ry lllE 600ATION Di I fT Mxil WALL) _ _ ..... _ a1 0.00.0 .00. a0 Ob. O.00.DO.D0.00.00.0 00.01.00.00.00.04 OQ00.00.00.00.0 .0. O.OQ00 00.00.0x.00.0 .0. 00 1.0 20.x010.1 8 O aYaiaio a o�aeo.ioe > o 1 A TA 1 S 1' 1.11611'111.S'1.9'IatS'I1 11x 31.2.1.3'121.6i.Jix131.111 i.61.1Id 1.3131.1'10.4 1r1A'ly4 ai.J xPi53 -2_LID- 6 }55 -Cw- E.I. I la i.1'zi26 L 261.9 1 21d 6 20 a L0161.11.]n 22 1 6 20 2 01 9 I 12191216 61.6' 2 J o� oa 1] ob 'B dE 11E 'B' - -TED I I I .4 ATED LCHT If KI AT d I1.1 1 1.95.1'1.9 lo' -1 . 1 1-1 r� !1 H. WALL AT NORM EDGE ATO eul W AA LT D LGNI !I %LURE LiGHi f1NNRE (rn1Gµ a .J I I GRADE (IOOTCANDLES), t11N[�E. ,. I I i 1 1, OJ 11. .. u � YJ+TSJ- FT -Lro- 6 }SS- Mw -UE- -NSS.b O! 152 !LOOK OU1000R RMKNiP.-G. DEL MAR PLAZA 2 FLOOR ANAL ND « � • MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT GARD N (A9oK) -� - -- �I �t J rt IRa1 WNa� 16 n TAU 11n! ROpI _ C6nNl ¢V WO FT I9:I1 RA LL IT W. I - - PRJIfRIY LIE) & P IA ARTL EAST ELEVATION - VIEW FROM BRIGHTON STREET .1 Q Q V D I I F I 1 1 1 � IE 1 ' I II � 1 f Yf' - A 1 y� 1 aers�69A... 1 I1V 1 o o ¢ o n q D a o \ 1 wwaA i i I 1 1 1 ---- --- - - - - - -1 t--------------------------- GARVEY AVE C A SITE PLAN - CALCULATED LIGHT LEVELS �J s ... �nF - -a 4 a 4 y s ) O � � 2 It Z m 3 O V O O Source: OMB Electrical Engineers, Inc. N Figure 12 ® Photometric Study LIGHTING FIXTURE SCHEDULE SVMDOL TYPE MANUF. /MODELA DESCRIPTION IFS FILE LLF 8 O 1.g IS} PATRIOT lD'2- D -6} 55 -CW-UE (>]W I.E0) 1-1.G LOT .-I . .-M PqI- .WAITED AT 18 R ABOVE GRACE 1YPE 2 DISTRIBUION xPi53 -2_LID- 6 }55 -Cw- E.I. ap B) L4 PATRIOT/S.ALL >m15}fT- IEC -B} 58 -CW-UE (73. LED) PARRWG LOT UGNT FIXTURE POLE- MOUNTED AT 18 R ASOA GRADE FgiwARO NROw psTRIBUnoAI %Im- R -LED- _g }56 -CW- UL.• ow W AA LT 1.51 PATRIOT /SHALE %P it ET- ID BJ SS- NW- UE -M$] SAI AR TO -E'81' (FORWARD T AOW) ADD ... 4DE SNIELD YJ+TSJ- FT -Lro- 6 }SS- Mw -UE- -NSS.b D � II � 1 f Yf' - A 1 y� 1 aers�69A... 1 I1V 1 o o ¢ o n q D a o \ 1 wwaA i i I 1 1 1 ---- --- - - - - - -1 t--------------------------- GARVEY AVE C A SITE PLAN - CALCULATED LIGHT LEVELS �J s ... �nF - -a 4 a 4 y s ) O � � 2 It Z m 3 O V O O Source: OMB Electrical Engineers, Inc. N Figure 12 ® Photometric Study City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review Glare from the windows and metal surfaces of the proposed building could impact adjacent land uses that are glare- sensitive, especially residences north and northeast of the site. A proposed 3 -6 foot block wall along the north project boundary will block and eliminate ground level glare impacts to the residents adjacent to and north of the site. Glare from windows and metal building materials of the upper levels of the building could extend to the residents north and northeast of the site. Although anticipated to be minimal, some glare from the ground level of the building could extend to the motorists and pedestrians on Del Mar Avenue, Garvey Avenue, and Brighton Street. For the most part, all large windows on all four floors that could generate glare and impact residents north and northeast of the project are recessed into the building. Being recessed, the glare from the building windows will be minimal. Overall, project generated glare to area residents, pedestrians, and motorists will be less- than - significant. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.2 Agricultural Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland ❑ ❑ ❑ Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - .............. ...._. .............ag.ricultu.ral.._ use ? . .......................... . b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑ use, or a Williamson Act contract? ............................ .................................... . ... .......................... ............................................................... ............................. ..........._ ...... . — ----- --._._ ........ -- ................ — ..._.....-- .- .--.............. ------- .._.............. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or ❑ ❑ ❑ nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES a) No Impact. The project site is developed with existing buildings, except for a small area in the southwest corner of the site that is vacant. There are no agricultural uses on the site or within the vicinity of the site. The California State Department of Conservation was contacted to determine the California State Important Farmlands Map designation for the site. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) considers the City of Rosemead an urban area. Therefore, none of the soils have been mapped and the NRCS has no plans to map the soil in the future. Therefore, the project site has no farmland designation. Because there are no agricultural uses on or in close proximity to the site, the project will not impact existing farmland. Page 23 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13-02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review b) No Impact. The project site is not zoned for agricultural use and the project applicant is not requesting a zone change to allow agriculture use. Because the site and the surrounding properties are developed, located in an urbanized area, and not used for agriculture, none of the properties are in a Williamson Act contract. The project will not have a conflict or impact any agricultural use or land that is in a Williamson Act contract. c) No Impact. None of the proposed project activities could result in or encourage the conversion of agricultural uses to non - agricultural uses since there are no agricultural uses either on or adjacent to the site. 3.3 AIR QUALITY An air quality and greenhouse assessment was prepared by Giroux & Associates. A copy of the air quality and greenhouse gas assessment is included as Appendix B. a) No Impact. The City of Rosemead is in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. Air quality in the South Coast Air Basin is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with air -sheds with "serious" or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised and approved over the past decade. The most current regional attainment emissions forecast for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter are shown in Table 1. Substantial reductions in emissions of ROG, NOx and CO are forecast to continue throughout the next several decades. Unless new particulate control programs are implemented, PM -10 and PM -2.5 are forecast to slightly increase. Page 24 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.3 Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ❑ ❑ the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air ❑ ❑ ® ❑ quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? . ............................. - -- - — - d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ pollutant concentrations? .. ....... _ ..... _.._.. ...... .... _.........._ ...... e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial number of people? 3.3 AIR QUALITY An air quality and greenhouse assessment was prepared by Giroux & Associates. A copy of the air quality and greenhouse gas assessment is included as Appendix B. a) No Impact. The City of Rosemead is in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. Air quality in the South Coast Air Basin is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with air -sheds with "serious" or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised and approved over the past decade. The most current regional attainment emissions forecast for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter are shown in Table 1. Substantial reductions in emissions of ROG, NOx and CO are forecast to continue throughout the next several decades. Unless new particulate control programs are implemented, PM -10 and PM -2.5 are forecast to slightly increase. Page 24 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13-02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review Table 1 South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts (Emissions Tons /Day) Pollutant 2008 2010 2015 2020 NOx 917 836 667 561 ROG 632 596 545 525 CO 3,344 3,039 2,556 2,281 PM -10 308 314 328 340 PM -2.5 110 110 111 113 a 2008 Base Year. 'With current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts. Source: California Air Resources Board, California Emissions Projection Analysis Model, 2009 The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) adopted an updated clean air "blueprint" in August 2003. The 2003 AQMP was approved by EPA in 2004. The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) outlined the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health -based standards for ozone by 2010 and for particulates (PM -10) by 2006. The 2007 AQMP was adopted on June 1, 2007, after extensive public review. The 2007 AQMP recognizes the interaction between photochemical processes that create both ozone and the smallest airborne particulates (PM -2.5). The 2007 AQMP is therefore a coordinated plan for both pollutants. Development, such as the proposed mixed -use project, do not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing "general" development. Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts and programs relative to population, housing, employment and land use is the primary yardstick by which the impact significance of planned growth is determined. If a given project incorporates any available transportation control measures that can be implemented on a project- specific basis, and if the scope and phasing of a project are consistent with adopted forecasts as shown in the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), then the regional air quality impact of project growth would not be significant because of planning inconsistency. The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth- accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less- than - significant just because the proposed development is consistent with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed project has therefore been analyzed on a project- specific basis. The project will not significantly affect regional air quality plans because the project will not generate new or additional vehicle trips that could generate increased quantities of emissions and impact the AQMP. The project will not generate any emissions that will exceed AQMD adopted thresholds. As a result, the project will not impact the implementation of the AQMP. Page 25 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review b) Less Than Significant Impact. The air emissions that will be generated by the project are associated with the demolition of the existing on -site improvements, project construction and the operation of the project upon completion of construction. Because the project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, the SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is charged with controlling motor vehicle emissions. Long -term air quality monitoring is carried out by SCAQMD at various monitoring stations. There are no nearby stations that monitor the full spectrum of pollutants. However, ozone, carbon monoxide, PM -2.5 and nitrogen oxides are monitored at the Pico Rivera facility, while 10- micron diameter particulate matter (PM -10) is measured at the Azusa air monitoring station. Table 2 summarizes the last five years of monitoring data from a composite of these data resources. Table 2 Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2008 -2012) Pollutant/Standard 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Ozone 1 -Hour > 0.09 ppm (S) 7 8 1 1 5 8 -Hour > 0.07 ppm (S) 12 6 1 1 6 8- Hour > 0.075 ppm (F) 5 3 1 0 0 Max. 1 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.11 Max. 8 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.08 Carbon Monoxide 1 -Hour > 20. ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 0 1 -Hour> 9. ppm (S, F) 0 0 0 0 0 Max 1 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 2.9 2.5 2.3 2.7 xx Max 8 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 2.1 2.1 1.9 1 2.4 2.2 Nitrogen Dioxide 1 -Hour > 0.18 ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.08 Inhalable Particulates (PM -10) 24 -Hour > 50 pg /m (S) 12/49* 7/52 5/55 8/61 6/61 24 -Hour > 150 pg/m (F) 0/49 0/52 0/55 0/61 0/61 Max. 24-Hr. (pg/m) 96 72 68 63 78 Ultra -Fine Particulates (PM -2.5) 24 -Hour > 35 pg /m (F) 4/114 2/118 0/117 1/114 1/119 Max. 24 -Hr. Conc. (pg /m) 47.2 71.0 34.9 41.2 45.3 0 - data not available, S =State Standard, F= Federal Standard * Number of days standards were exceeded and maximum levels during violations. Entries shown as ratios = samples exceeding standard /samples taken) Source: South Coast AQMD - Pico Rivera Air Monitoring Station for Ozone, CO, NOx and PM -2.5 Azusa Monitoring Station for PM -10 data: www.arb.ca.gov /adam/ Because of the chemical complexity of primary versus secondary pollutants, the SCAQMD has designated significant emissions levels as surrogates for evaluating regional air quality impact significance independent of chemical transformation processes. Projects with daily emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds shown in Table 3 are recommended by the SCAQMD to be considered significant under CEQA guidelines. Page 26 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13-02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review Table 3 Daily Emission Thresholds Pollutant Construction Operations ROG 75 55 NOx 100 55 CO 550 550 PM -10 150 150 PM -2.5 55 55 Sox 150 150 Lead 3 3 Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev. Construction Emissions Dust is typically the primary pollutant of concern during grading activities. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called "fugitive emissions." Emission rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). Average daily PM -10 emissions during site grading and other disturbance average about 10 pounds per acre. This estimate presumes the use of reasonably available control measures ( RACMs). The SCAQMD requires the use of best available control measures (BACMs) for fugitive dust from construction activities. With the use of BACMs, fugitive dust emissions can be reduced to 1 -2 pounds per day per disturbed acre. Current research in particulate- exposure health suggests that the most adverse effects derive from ultra -small diameter particulate matter comprised of chemically reactive pollutants such as sulfates, nitrates or organic material. A national clean air standard for particulate matter of 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter (called "PM -2.5 ") was adopted in 1997. A limited amount of construction activity particulate matter is in the PM -2.5 range. PM -2.5 emissions are estimated to comprise 10 -20 percent of PM -10. In addition to fine particles that remain suspended in the atmosphere semi - indefinitely, construction activities generate many larger particles with shorter atmospheric residence times. This dust is comprised mainly of large diameter inert silicates that are chemically non - reactive and are further readily filtered out by human breathing passages. These fugitive dust particles are therefore more of a potential soiling nuisance as they settle out on parked cars, outdoor furniture or landscape foliage rather than causing any adverse health hazard. The CalEEMod was developed by SCAQMD to provide a model to calculate construction emissions and operational emissions for a residential or commercial project. CaIEEMod calculates both the daily maximum and annual average emissions for criteria pollutants as well as total or annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The CalEEMod 2013.2.2 computer model was used to calculate emissions from the default construction equipment fleet and schedule anticipated by CalEEMod as shown in Table 4. Page 27 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review Table 4 Construction Activity Equipment Fleet Phase Name and Duration Equipment Demolition (20 days) 1 Concrete Saw 3 Excavators 2 Dozers Grading (8 days) 1 Grader 1 Excavator 1 Dozer 3 Loader /Backhoes Construction (230 days) 1 Crane 3 Forklifts 1 Generator Set 1 Welder 3 Loader /Backhoes Paving (18 days) 2 Mixers 2 Paving Equipment 1 Paver 2 Rollers Utilizing the equipment fleet in Table 4, the following estimated worst case daily construction emissions are listed in Table 5. Table 5 Construction Activity Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds /day) Maximal Construction Emissions ROG NOx CO SO 2 PM -10 PM -2.5 2014 Unmitigated 4.7 50.4 38.0 0.0 9.1 5.6 Mitigated 4.7 50.4 38.0 0.0 5.1 3.5 2015 Unmitigated 22.7 32.7 27.1 0.0 12.3 7.9 Mitigated 22.7 32.7 27.1 0.0 3.2 2.3 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 As shown in Table 5, the peak daily construction activity emissions are estimated to be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds without the need for mitigation. The only model -based mitigation measure applied to the project was to water all exposed dirt at least three times per day during construction as required per SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), to minimize the generation of fugitive dust. The incorporation of the following measure will reduce project construction emission impacts to less- than - significant. Page 28 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review Mitigation Measure No. 3 During construction, the contractor shall apply water three times daily, or non -toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas, unpaved road surfaces, and active construction areas. Operational Emissions The operational emissions for the proposed uses were calculated using CalEEMod2013.2.2 for a project build -out year of 2015. The operational emissions for the project are shown in Table 6. Table 6 Daily Operational Impacts Source: CaIEEMod Output in Appendix In addition to motor vehicles, general development causes smaller amounts of "area source" air pollution to be generated from on -site energy consumption (primarily landscaping) and from off -site electrical generation (lighting). These sources represent a minimal percentage of the total project NOx and CO burdens, and a few percent other pollutants. The inclusion of these emissions adds negligibly to the total significant project - related emissions. As shown in Table 6, the project will not exceed any SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds. As a result, the project operational emission impacts will be less -than- significant. Microscale Impact Analysis Exhaust fumes from vehicular traffic are the primary source of CO. CO is a localized gas that dissipates very quickly under normal meteorological conditions. There is a direct relationship between traffic /circulation congestion and CO (carbon monoxide) impacts. Therefore, CO concentrations decrease substantially as distance from the source (intersection) increases. The highest CO concentrations are typically found in areas directly adjacent to congested roadway intersections. These areas of vehicle congestion have historically had the potential to create pockets of elevated levels of CO which are called "hot spots." However, with the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the project vicinity have steadily declined. Micro -scale air quality impacts have traditionally been analyzed in environmental documents where the region was a non - attainment area for carbon monoxide. However, the SCAQMD Page 29 Operational Emissions (lbs. /day) Source ROG NOx CO S0 2 PM -10 PM -2.5 CO2 Area 3.6 0.1 5.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 1,159.6 Energy 0.1 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 1,009.7 Mobile 7.9 16.1 70.1 0.0 8.9 2.5 11,857.5 Total 11.6 17.0 75.8 0.1 9.1 2.7 14,026.8 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 - Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No NA Source: CaIEEMod Output in Appendix In addition to motor vehicles, general development causes smaller amounts of "area source" air pollution to be generated from on -site energy consumption (primarily landscaping) and from off -site electrical generation (lighting). These sources represent a minimal percentage of the total project NOx and CO burdens, and a few percent other pollutants. The inclusion of these emissions adds negligibly to the total significant project - related emissions. As shown in Table 6, the project will not exceed any SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds. As a result, the project operational emission impacts will be less -than- significant. Microscale Impact Analysis Exhaust fumes from vehicular traffic are the primary source of CO. CO is a localized gas that dissipates very quickly under normal meteorological conditions. There is a direct relationship between traffic /circulation congestion and CO (carbon monoxide) impacts. Therefore, CO concentrations decrease substantially as distance from the source (intersection) increases. The highest CO concentrations are typically found in areas directly adjacent to congested roadway intersections. These areas of vehicle congestion have historically had the potential to create pockets of elevated levels of CO which are called "hot spots." However, with the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the project vicinity have steadily declined. Micro -scale air quality impacts have traditionally been analyzed in environmental documents where the region was a non - attainment area for carbon monoxide. However, the SCAQMD Page 29 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review has demonstrated in the CO attainment redesignation request to EPA that there are no "hot spots" anywhere in Southern California, even at intersections with much higher volumes, much worst congestion, and much higher background CO levels than the project area. A project is considered to have significant CO impacts if project - related mobile- source emissions exceed the California one -hour and eight -hour CO standards, which are: 1 -hour = 20 ppm 8 -hour = 9 ppm The existing peak one -hour local CO background level in 2011 in the project area vicinity was 2.7 ppm. The maximum ambient 8 -hour CO concentration in 2012 was 2.2 ppm. The project will have less- than - significant CO impacts. LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS The SCAQMD has developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local level in addition to the more regional emissions -based thresholds of significance. These analysis elements are called Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs were developed in response to Governing Board's Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative 1 -4 and the LST methodology was provisionally adopted in October 2003 and formally approved by SCAQMD's Mobile Source Committee in February 2005. For the project, the primary source of possible LST impact would be during demolition and construction. LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM -10 and PM -2.5). LSTs represent the maximum emissions that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The SCAQMD has issued guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs. LST pollutant screening level concentration data is currently published for 1, 2 and 5 acre disturbance sites for varying distances. CaIEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment used at the site. Table 7 shows the maximum daily disturbed - acreage for comparison to LSTs. Table 7 Maximum Daily Disturbed Acreage per Equipment Type Equipment T e Acres/8-hr-da Crawler Tractor 0.5 Graders 0.5 Rubber Tired Dozers 0.5 Scrapers 1 Page 30 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review Based on the equipment listed in Table 7 for the project and the CaIEEMod default, the equipment fleet will disturb one acre daily during peak construction grading activity as shown below: (1 dozer x 0.5 + 1 grader x 0.5 = 1.0 acre disturbed). The applicable thresholds and project construction emissions are shown in Table 8. The LST emissions thresholds were compared to the maximum daily construction activities. As shown in Table 8, all on -site project emissions are below the LST for demolition and construction. The project will have less- than - significant LST emissions. Table 8 LST and Project Emissions (pounds /day) LST 1 acres/ 25 meters S. San Gabriel Valley CO NOx PM -10 PM -2.5 Max On -Site Emissions * 673 83 5 4 Demolition Unmitigated 50 36 3 2 Mitigated 50 36 3 2 Gradin 27 41 9 6 W it Unmitigated i ated 27 1 41 1 5 1 3 Construction Unmitigated 19 31 2 2 Mitigated 19 31 2 2 Paving Unmitigated 13 20 1 1 Mitigated 13 1 20 1 1 CalEEMod Output in Appendix *excludes construction commuting, vendor deliveries and possible emissions associated with haul trucking. Greenhouse Gas Emissions "Greenhouse gases" (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as "global warming." Greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation in some parts of the infrared spectrum. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of planning and regulation, Section 15364.5 of the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on -road motor vehicles, off - highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one -fourth of total emissions. AB 32 is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that California has adopted. A unique aspect of AB 32, beyond its broad and wide - ranging mandatory Page 31 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review provisions and dramatic GHG reductions are the short time frames which it must be implemented. Statewide, the framework to develop implementing regulations for AB 32 is under way. Maximum GHG reductions are expected to derive from increased vehicle fuel efficiency, from greater use of renewable energy and from increased structural energy efficiency. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significance Thresholds In response to the requirements of SB97, the State Resources Agency developed guidelines for the treatment of GHG emissions under CEQA. These new guidelines became state laws as part of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in March, 2010. The CEQA Appendix G guidelines were modified to include GHG as a required analysis element. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it: Generates GHG emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or Conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions. Section 15064.4 of the Code specifies how significance of GHG emissions is to be evaluated. The process is broken into quantification of project - related GHG emissions, making a determination of significance, and specification of any appropriate mitigation if impacts are found to be potentially significant. At each of these steps, the new GHG guidelines afford the lead agency with substantial flexibility. Emissions identification may be quantitative, qualitative or based on performance standards. CEQA guidelines allow the lead agency to "select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate ". The most common practice for transportation /combustion GHG emissions quantification is to use a computer model such as CaIEEMod. The selection of a threshold of significance must take into consideration the level of GHG emissions that would be cumulatively considerable. In September 2010, the SCAQMD Working Group recommended a threshold of 3,000 MTCO for mixed use projects. This 3,000 MT /year recommendation has been used as a guideline for this analysis. Construction Activity GHG Emissions The build -out timetable for this project is estimated by CaIEEMod to be slightly less than two years. During project construction, the CaIEEMod2013.2.2 computer model predicts that the construction activities will generate the annual CO emissions shown in Table 9. Table 9 Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO 2 (e)) *CaIEEMod Output provided in appendix Page 32 CO Year 2014 491.1 Year 2015 30.2 Overall Total 521.4 Amortized 17.4 *CaIEEMod Output provided in appendix Page 32 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13-02, Zone Change 13-02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review The SCAQMD GHG emissions policy for construction activities is to amortize construction emissions over a 30 -year lifetime. As shown, the estimated GHG emissions from project construction activities are 17.4 MTCO per year, which is less than the threshold of 3,000 MTCO Therefore, the project GHG impacts are less- than - significant. Operational GHG Emissions The total operational and annualized construction emissions were calculated and are shown in Table 10. The total annual project GHG emissions are calculated to be 2,255.7 metric tons CO which is less than the significance threshold of 3,000 MT. The project operational GHG emissions would be less- than - significant. Table 10 Operational Emissions Consumption Source MT CO2 (e) tons/ ear Area Sources 30.1 Energy Utilization 415.0 Mobile Source 1,683.3 Solid Waste Generation 73.1 Water Consumption 46.7 Annualized Construction 17.4 Total 2,255.7 Significance Threshold 3,000 Consistency with GHG Plans, Programs and Policies The City of Rosemead has not developed or adopted a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan for the purpose to reduce GHGs. Therefore, the applicable GHG planning document for the project is AB -32. As shown above, the project will not have a significant increase in construction or operational GHG emissions. As a result, the project will generate GHG emissions below the recommended SCAQMD 3,000 ton threshold. Thus, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation to reduce GHG emissions. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.3 "b)" above, the air emissions generated by the project during demolition, construction and the life of the project will not exceed any State air emission thresholds. SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of cumulative construction or operational emissions, nor provides separate methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess cumulative construction or operational impacts. Rather, SCAQMD recommends a project's contribution to cumulative impacts should be assessed using the same significance criteria as those for the project's specific impacts. Since none of the project's daily construction or operational air emissions will exceed the thresholds recommended by SCAQMD, the project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Air quality impacts are analyzed relative to those persons with the greatest sensitivity to air pollution exposure. Such persons are called "sensitive receptors ". Sensitive population groups include young children, the elderly and the acutely and chronically ill (especially those with cardio- respiratory disease). Page 33 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review Residential areas are considered to be sensitive to air pollution exposure because they may be occupied for extended periods, and residents may be outdoors when exposure is highest. Existing off -site residences abutting the site are considered pollution- sensitive to any project related emissions. The residences north and northeast of the project are considered sensitive receptors to air emissions. Although air emissions will be generated during project construction, as presented in the air quality assessment, the project emissions will not exceed adopted air emission thresholds. The project will not exceed air emission thresholds as discussed in section 3.3 "b)" above, and as a result, will not expose sensitive receptors to any substantial pollutant concentrations. e) Less Than Significant Impact. During construction the residents adjacent to the construction activity may detect some odors from the operation of the on -site motorized construction equipment. There will be less than five pieces of construction equipment operating on the site at any time so the odors generated will be minimal and are not anticipated to significantly impact area residents. Once construction is completed all odors from the operation of construction equipment will cease. The California Building Code (CBC) will require the installation of mechanical equipment to reduce odors of any restaurants that operate within the building. The installation of all CBC required mechanical equipment for all restaurants will reduce odors as required by the CBC. The project is not anticipated to have any odors that would significantly impact area residents or pedestrians in the area. Odors by the project will be less- than - significant. Page 34 Environmental Issues Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.4 Biological Resources Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local ❑ ❑ ❑ or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ... _.. ........... ........... . ............................... _............. ...... ._..- .... __.._ ..... _ ........ _.._........_..._......... - - -- - ..._.. -- ................. ........... b) ... .. .... ...................................... .......... ............................................................... Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional ❑ ❑ ❑ plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi .............._._.............._.. ... _ ............. _._.._.._............ _ .... — -.._._......._._...---- ..- ........ ....- ..... ........ -- ----- - - - - -- ----...__. .__....._.....- ._.............. ..................................................... c) ............................... Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal ❑ ❑ ❑ pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ...... ......... _ ....... ---- ...................... _ ....................... _- .......... ...... _._ .............. -- - - ...................... . ...................._.._...................... . . d) ..... ... .................. ................................... _.._ ......... _ ... _ ...... __ ......... ............. ................................................. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native ❑ ❑ ❑ resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? Page 34 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13-02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No 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 Conservation Plan, or other ❑ ❑ ❑ approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) No Impact. The site is disturbed and developed with a paved parking lot, a single - family residence, commercial buildings and other site improvements. A small vacant lot is located at the southwest corner of the site due to the demolition of a previous building at that location. There is no native habitat on the site to support native wildlife. The existing vegetation includes introduced urban landscaping, street trees and non - native grasses. The existing urban landscape materials are not classified or considered to be rare or endangered plant species. In addition, there are no wetlands on or adjacent to the site. Any wildlife that may exist on the site would be non - native wildlife associated with urban development, such as domestic dogs and cats, rabbits, opossum, raccoons, mockingbirds, etc. There are no plants or wildlife on the site that are designated or will qualify as a sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The project will not impact any biological resources, including plants or animals. b) No Impact. The project site and the surrounding area are developed with residential and commercial uses. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities on the site or surrounding properties. The project will not impact riparian or sensitive habitat. c) No Impact. There are no wetlands either on the site or surrounding properties. The project will not impact wetlands. d) No Impact. The project is developed with commercial buildings, a single - family residence, a paved alley, and other site improvements. The surrounding properties are developed with residential and commercial land uses. There is no native vegetation or bodies of water on or surrounding the site. Therefore, neither the project site nor adjacent properties support the movement of migratory fish or wildlife or support a nursery for wildlife. The project will not impact or interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. e) No Impact. Four street trees along Garvey Avenue will be removed during project demolition. In their place, 8 new street trees will be planted along Garvey Avenue. There are no oak trees on the site. Therefore, no oak trees will require protection or replacement in compliance with the Rosemead Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The project will not have any oak tree impacts. Page 35 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review f) No Impact. The City of Rosemead is not located within any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The project will not impact any habitat or natural community conservation plan. 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES a) No Impact. The existing buildings are not classified as or a candidate for designation as a historical resource by either the City of Rosemead or the State. The demolition of the existing buildings, including commercial and the single - family residence, would not have any historical resource impacts. b) No Impact. There are no known archaeological resources on or adjacent to the site that could be impacted by the project. If archaeological resources are discovered during grading, construction, or utility trenching, all construction activity shall cease and the resources evaluated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, which addresses impacts to unique archaeological resources. c) No Impact. Based on the Rosemead General Plan, there are no known paleontological resources in Rosemead. If paleontological resources are discovered during grading or construction, all grading and construction activity shall cease and the resources evaluated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The project would not have paleontological resource impacts. d) No Impact. Neither the site nor the surrounding area are or have been used as a cemetery. Thus, there are no known human remains on the site that will be disturbed by the project. The project will not impact human remains. Page 36 Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 3.5 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.... § ............... _ - - -- c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ❑ ❑ ..... . ....... .... .... .......... geolo.0!c.. feature?.................... ...... .......... ----- .... __. -....... . d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES a) No Impact. The existing buildings are not classified as or a candidate for designation as a historical resource by either the City of Rosemead or the State. The demolition of the existing buildings, including commercial and the single - family residence, would not have any historical resource impacts. b) No Impact. There are no known archaeological resources on or adjacent to the site that could be impacted by the project. If archaeological resources are discovered during grading, construction, or utility trenching, all construction activity shall cease and the resources evaluated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, which addresses impacts to unique archaeological resources. c) No Impact. Based on the Rosemead General Plan, there are no known paleontological resources in Rosemead. If paleontological resources are discovered during grading or construction, all grading and construction activity shall cease and the resources evaluated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The project would not have paleontological resource impacts. d) No Impact. Neither the site nor the surrounding area are or have been used as a cemetery. Thus, there are no known human remains on the site that will be disturbed by the project. The project will not impact human remains. Page 36 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13-02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS A geotechnical engineering investigation was prepared by Geotechnical Engineering Investigation. A copy of the geotechnical investigation is included in Appendix C. a i -iii) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Rosemead is in a seismically active region. All known or suspected strike -slip faults in this area trend northwesterly. The primary local fault, designated the Alhambra Wash and /or the East Montebello fault, is southeast of the site and includes an inferred northwesterly extension that passes within 2,000 feet east of the project site. Southeast of the project, this fault is designated an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and lies approximately 2,800 feet southeast of the site (Figure 5 -4 of 4 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Pacific Geotech, Inc. September 27, 2013, Page 37 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.6 Geology and Soils Would the project. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ................. ..............._......... .................................................... ........_...................... ----- �...... ......--- .... ......_....... ii) Strong seismic ground shaking. - - -- - ............ _...__..._ ............................................ ............................ ...... . iii) Seismic - related ground failure, . ❑ . . ❑ . - ._........... -- - - ® - -- .......... ❑ liquefaction? — . ... - .... - -- - - -- ............ -- - - -- -.._. _including iv) Landslides? El El ❑ ---._ .... ........................... b) ............................ .................._.....__....__..................................... -.- ..... ................................ ................- Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss ❑ ❑ ❑ - ................ of topsoil? .. - . - ... _ ....... - ... ................ - - - -- ---- ............... -- .... ...................... ............... _ ....... - - - - -- -- c ) 9 Be located on a geolo 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, liquefacti - on or collapse? __— — - - - -_ - .......... .._ ............... d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code ❑ ❑ ❑ (1994), creating substantial risks to life or _ -- ....... property? ...................................... ............................... — e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems ❑ ❑ ❑ where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS A geotechnical engineering investigation was prepared by Geotechnical Engineering Investigation. A copy of the geotechnical investigation is included in Appendix C. a i -iii) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Rosemead is in a seismically active region. All known or suspected strike -slip faults in this area trend northwesterly. The primary local fault, designated the Alhambra Wash and /or the East Montebello fault, is southeast of the site and includes an inferred northwesterly extension that passes within 2,000 feet east of the project site. Southeast of the project, this fault is designated an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and lies approximately 2,800 feet southeast of the site (Figure 5 -4 of 4 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Pacific Geotech, Inc. September 27, 2013, Page 37 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review Rosemead General Plan). The entire City of Rosemead is underlain by the Santa Fe Springs segment of the Puente Hills blind thrust fault. A northwesterly trending zone encompasses a series of Fault Hazard Management Zones (FHMZ) near the southeastern boundary of Rosemead. The FHMZ are 200 -foot wide zones and considered potentially active and require special investigations only for "important" facilities as defined in the City of Rosemead General Plan. The FHMZ are so designated due to lack of sufficient, significant evidence to indicate activity on these potential fault traces. The project is located within the eastern edge of the longest designated FHMZ. There is a low potential for surface faults to cross the site directly or very near the site as the faults within the FHMZ are considered potentially active, though no direct evidence of surface rupture or other features indicating the fault is active has been observed. The hazard to the project site of undergoing ground rupture from displacement on a surface fault is low to moderate even though the subject site could be underlain by a surface trace of a potentially active fault. Seismic Shaking The site lies adjacent to or overlies the Alhambra Wash and /or the East Montebello fault and the Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. New data indicate the earthquakes on these faults range in possible magnitudes from 6.4 to 7.1. The amount of seismic shaking in g's occurring to the site from earthquakes on these faults is primarily dependent on the distance of the origination of the earthquake from the site. Figure 5 -2 of the Rosemead General Plan indicates that the plane of the Puente Hills Blind Thrust lies at a depth of approximately 13 kilometers (km) below the ground surface. A 7.1M earthquake on the Puente Hills Blind Thrust fault would create the highest ground acceleration of all of the other faults in the area with an expected peak acceleration value at the site from such an earthquake approximately 0.798 and should be used in all site design criteria. Mitigation Measure No. 4 As recommended in the geotechnical engineering investigation prepared for the project and approved by the City Engineer, the project shall be designed for a peak acceleration value of 0.79g. Liquefaction Based on Figure 5 -5 of the City of Rosemead General Plan, the site is not located within an area susceptible to earthquake- induced liquefaction. The historically high groundwater under the subject site is more than 50 feet deep below ground surface. The project is not located in a liquefaction zone based on the State Seismic Hazard Zone map (El Monte). While a large portion of Rosemead is in an area where historic occurrences of liquefaction have occurred, the project site is not in the known liquefaction area. The project will not be significantly impacted by liquefaction. a iv) No Impact. The site is has a gentle slope from west to east and is not prone to slope instability hazards, such as landslides. The development surrounding the site is relatively 5 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Pacific Geotech, Inc. September 27, 2013, page 4. 6 Ibid, page 5. Page 38 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13-02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review flat and will not impact the site by a landslide on surrounding properties. The project will not be impacted by a landslide or impact any adjacent properties due to an on -site landslide. b) No Impact. The City will require the project developer to install and provide all appropriate erosion control measures prior to the start of any on -site demolition or construction and maintain the erosion control measures throughout project construction. The incorporation of all applicable standard erosion control measures such as the use of sand bags around the project perimeter and other measures deemed appropriate by the City will reduce and minimize soil erosion. The project will not have any significant soil erosion impacts. c) No Impact. The site is developed with commercial buildings and a single - family detached residence and does not show any evidence of unstable soil conditions. The project proposes a new four story building with underground parking and other site improvements. Based on the geotechnical report, the grading and construction activities required to develop the project as proposed are not anticipated to cause any unstable soil conditions either on or off the site based on the geotechnical report. The project will not have any significant unstable soil impacts. d) No Impact. The Rosemead General Plan does not identify any expansive soils on the site or the project area. The subsurface soils at the basement garage floor level consist generally of fine to coarse, silty to slightly silty to clean sand. The sandy materials will have no expansion potential' The project will not be impacted by expansive soils. e) No Impact. The site is currently served by the public sewer system. The City will require the project to connect to and continue to be served by the public sewer system. The project will not impact any soils resulting from alternative disposal systems. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine ❑ ❑ ❑ transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ..__ ............... _ .... - .......... ...................... ......... .......... ............... .............................................................. ....... ..................... .. .... ........................ ............................ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions ❑ ❑ ❑ involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? ......................... ................................... _ ... ..................... ..................... _ ........ _ .................................................. __._ ........ _.._..— .__....- - ...... _ ...... _. — ....................................... ............................................ . ......................... ............. ................................... ... .. ........................ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, ❑ ❑ ❑ substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an e xisting o r proposed school? 7 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Pacific Geotech, Inc. September 27, 2013, page 8. Page 39 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review g) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public ❑ ❑ ❑ airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working . . in the pr oject area? . . ........ ........................................................... ...... ............... ......... . .... .... ...................... ....... .......................... _ ...... . ... .... _ ................................................ _..__ ...... ............. h) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety ❑ ❑ ❑ hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A Phase 1 and Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) were prepared for the site by Smith -Emery GeoServices (SEG). An updated Phase 1 10 ESA was recently prepared because the original Phase I ESA is more than one year old." The three reports are included in Appendix D. a) No Impact. The existing uses on the site do not use or generate any hazardous materials and significantly impact the public or the environment. Similarly, the project does not propose to use or generate any hazardous materials that would impact the public or the 8 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 7801 GeoServices, June 6, 2007. 9 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 7801 GeoServices, August 9, 2007. 10 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 7801 GeoServices, February 20, 2014. " ASTM Practice E 1527 -05. and 7825 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead California, Smith -Emery and 7825 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead California, Smith -Emery and 7825 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead California, Smith -Emery Page 40 Environmental Issues Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact d) Be located within one- quarter mile of a facility that might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or handle ❑ ❑ ® ❑ hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substanc or waste? __ ...... -- - -- -- -- - e) ._..__._._.... - -- -.. Be located on a site of a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site unless wastes have been removed from the former disposal site; or 2) that could release a hazardous substance as identified by the State ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Department of Health Services in a current list adopted pursuant to Section 25356 for removal or remedial action pursuant to Chapter 6.8 of Division 20 of the Health and _— _...... Safety C ._ .................................. . .... .. ...... .. ........................... - ..................................... .............................. _........................... ... --- .............. ..... _ ......... -- -.................. f) Be located on land that is, or can be made, sufficiently free of hazardous materials so ❑ ❑ ❑ as to be suitable for development and use as a school? g) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public ❑ ❑ ❑ airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working . . in the pr oject area? . . ........ ........................................................... ...... ............... ......... . .... .... ...................... ....... .......................... _ ...... . ... .... _ ................................................ _..__ ...... ............. h) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety ❑ ❑ ❑ hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A Phase 1 and Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) were prepared for the site by Smith -Emery GeoServices (SEG). An updated Phase 1 10 ESA was recently prepared because the original Phase I ESA is more than one year old." The three reports are included in Appendix D. a) No Impact. The existing uses on the site do not use or generate any hazardous materials and significantly impact the public or the environment. Similarly, the project does not propose to use or generate any hazardous materials that would impact the public or the 8 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 7801 GeoServices, June 6, 2007. 9 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 7801 GeoServices, August 9, 2007. 10 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 7801 GeoServices, February 20, 2014. " ASTM Practice E 1527 -05. and 7825 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead California, Smith -Emery and 7825 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead California, Smith -Emery and 7825 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead California, Smith -Emery Page 40 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13-02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review environment. The project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. b) No Impact. As stated in 3.7 "a)" above, the proposed project will not create a significant hazard from a release of hazardous materials into the environment. c) No Impact. Garvey Intermediate School is approximately 700 feet southwest of the project. The project does not propose any uses that would emit or handle any hazardous or acutely hazardous materials or substances and impact Garvey Intermediate School. d) Less Than Significant Impact. In the past, the site was occupied with an automotive repair /car wash, residential, and commercial uses including a dry cleaners, bar /restaurant, book store, and a used car lot. The dry cleaners and automotive repair uses generally include the use of various types of hazardous materials such as percholoroethylene, petroleum hydrocarbons and could cause a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC). Due to a potential for a REC based on the Phase I ESA, a subsequent Phase II ESA was conducted. The Phase 11 ESA included that soil vapor samples, soil samples and field observations. The soil vapor survey included 13 soil vapor probes that were advanced into the soil in the historical area of the former dry cleaning operations and the auto report/car wash operations. Five soil samples were taken in the areas of the soil vapor probe advances. Based on the analytical results of the soil vapor survey and soil samples the subsurface soils at the project site have not been significantly impacted by halogenated solvents, aromatic hydrocarbons, extractable hydrocarbons, or 17 other metals that were tested. As a result, no further environmental site assessment is necessary at this time. 12 The updated Phase I ESA reviewed the potential for hazardous materials to exist on the site. The updated Phase I ESA states, "Based on a 2007 SEG soil vapor survey and soil sampling report, the subsurface soils at the subject site have not been significantly impacted; hence, the former automotive repair /dry cleaning operations in our opinion are considered to be Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions. SEG does not recommend any further site investigation at this time. Based on the age of the onsite structures, SEG recommends complete asbestos and lead based surveys prior to any significant renovations and /or demolition activities that would potentially disturb the existing building materials. " There are nine historical auto stations and one historical dry cleaner located within a quarter mile radius from the subject site. The remaining listed sites are considered to have a low potential for negative impact at the subject site. These sites are likely to be considered a de minimus condition, (under ASTM Standard E1527), as they "generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate government agencies" with regard to the subject site. 14 The project will not be impacted by any known hazardous materials within one quarter mile of the site. e) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. As discussed in 3.7 "d" above, the project site is not located on a former or current hazardous waste site. Based on the Phase 1 /11 ESA's and 12 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 7801 and 7825 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead California, Smith -Emery GeoServices, August 9, 2007, page 9. " Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 7801 and 7825 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead California, Smith -Emery GeoServices, February 20, 2014, page 32. 14 Ibid, page 25. Page 41 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13-02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review the updated Phase I ESA, the property does not contain any hazardous materials and has not been used as a hazardous waste site in the past. According to a Preliminary Title Report prepared by Ticor Title Company of California dated June 9, 2006, no environmental liens and /or activity and use limitations were found for the site. Furthermore, there are no liens listed in the United Sates Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)'s Federal Superfund Liens List, and no known recorded land -use environmental deed restrictions pertaining to the subject site listed in the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) liens database. Due to the age of some of the buildings, there is the potential for asbestos and lead based paint to exist. The following measure is recommended to mitigate the potential for the presence of asbestos and /or lead based paint to less than significant. Mitigation Measure No. 5 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any structure, the project developer shall provide a building survey to determine if asbestos or lead paint are present. The asbestos and lead paint survey shall be conducted by a Cal -OSHA Certified Asbestos consultant in accordance with sampling criteria of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). If lead paint and /or asbestos containing materials are found, all lead containing paint and /or asbestos shall be removed and disposed by a licensed and certified lead paint and /or asbestos removal contractor, as applicable in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations prior to the start of activities that would disturb any ACM containing materials or lead paint. f) No Impact. The site is sufficiently free of hazardous materials. From a hazards standpoint, the site could be used as a school. There are no existing hazards or anticipated hazards associated with the proposed project that would prevent the site from being used as a school or the project, as proposed. g) No Impact. The closest airport to the project is El Monte Airport, which is approximately 4 miles to the northeast. The project will not impact airport operations at El Monte Airport or result in any safety hazards for people living at and visiting the proposed Buddhist Temple. h) No Impact. There are no private airports within two miles of the project. The project will not impact or be impacted by operations at any private airport. Page 42 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ waste discharge requirements? Page 42 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13-02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project could generate silt and other debris due to surface water runoff during demolition and construction, especially if demolition and construction occur during the winter months (November — April) when rainfall typically occurs. The quality of storm water runoff from the site is regulated under the National Page 43 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 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 gran ............ ................. ......................................... ...................................... ... _............... ............. - c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? ..........._....._..---- .._.. -- --.._..._..---- ................... ------ ......... - - .._....- - - ......... - - -- ...............................................___..................................................................................................................................................... d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? ............ _ ... --- ..... - ............ -- - .... — - ..._.... -- .... -- --- ._.— ......... -- -- e) .................................... --- .... —.----..._._ ............... __ .... _ ............. _- Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? .......... _ ................................... . ......... ..-..._..._...-...----- .... --- .... _ ................................................ __......._._._._ ....................... - — ...... _.._._ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ ® ❑ quality? .......................... g) —. -- - -. ._ .............. ---- ...... _ Place housing within a 100 -year flood -- __- ___....._ ........ _ — - hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood ❑ ❑ ❑ Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate ....................................................... Map or other flood hazard delineation map? . . ............ ................................................. ..... ........................................ ......................................._ ._...................._ . ...... ...................... _ ..... . ---- .......__ ....... ........... - - - .... - .... - ----- - -- h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect ❑ ❑ ❑ flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving ❑ ❑ ❑ flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ........................................................... ..........................................__....................................... - Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? - - - - - -- - - -._._ ......................... ❑ ❑ ❑ 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project could generate silt and other debris due to surface water runoff during demolition and construction, especially if demolition and construction occur during the winter months (November — April) when rainfall typically occurs. The quality of storm water runoff from the site is regulated under the National Page 43 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES). The NPDES storm water permit provides a mechanism for monitoring the discharge of pollutants and establishing appropriate controls to minimize the entrance of such pollutants into storm water runoff. As a co- permitee to the County of Los Angeles ( NPDES No. CAS614001), the City requires all development projects in its jurisdiction to comply with the NPDES requirements for construction and operations as appropriate. Therefore, the project developer will be required to install and maintain all applicable soil erosion control measures, including Best Management Practices (BMP's), to reduce erosion and minimize water quality impacts during grading and construction. The developer will be required to submit a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) to the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit to ensure that all applicable erosion control measures are installed and maintained during construction to control water quality impacts. To control surface water pollution, the project will be required, by law, to install a surface storm water collection system to collect and treat the first % of an inch of surface water runoff from the site prior to off -site discharge. To comply with the law, the project proposes a dry well system to capture and discharge surface water runoff. In the northeast corner of the lower parking level, two underground water storage tanks totaling 3,500 gallons are proposed to collect most of the surface water runoff. Water in the storage tanks will be directed to a dry well located adjacent to the water storage tanks. The proposed dry well is 30 inches in diameter and approximately 39 feet deep. If the dry well fills up during a storm a sump pump located adjacent to the dry well will pump any overflow from the dry well into Brighton Street. In addition to the on -site water storage tanks, a catch basin with a filter is proposed to filter the storm water prior to its discharge into the underground storage tanks. The catch basin and filter along with the incorporation of the required BMPs will allow the project to meet and comply with all applicable water quality and water discharge requirements. The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce water quality impacts to less- than - significant. Mitigation Measure No. 6 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project developer shall submit a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) to the City for approval. All applicable erosion control measures including Best Management Practices (BMP's), to reduce erosion and minimize water quality impacts during grading and construction shall be installed and maintained during construction to control water quality impacts. Mitigation Measure No. 7 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install a surface storm water collection system to collect and treat the first % of an inch of surface water runoff from the site as approved by the City Engineer. Mitigation Measure No. 8 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install two underground water storage tanks totaling 3,500 gallons and a dry well system to capture on -site surface water flows. If the dry well fills up during a storm a Page 44 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review sump pump located adjacent to the dry well will pump any overflow from the dry well into Brighton Street. Mitigation Measure No. 9 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install a catch basin with a filter to filter the storm water prior to its discharge into the underground storage tanks. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes landscaping around the perimeter of the. The perimeter landscaping will be available for and allow some on -site water percolation. The project also proposes a dry well that will allow low -flow surface water to be discharged on -site. The dry well will allow runoff from the site that is normally discharged into the local storm drain system to be directed to the ground beneath the site and recharge the local groundwater. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, but rather allow most project runoff to percolate into the local groundwater. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The existing storm water drainage pattern of the site is generally east to Brighton Street with some surface water flows south to Garvey Avenue. As discussed in 3.8 "a)" above, while small quantities of surface water runoff from sidewalks and driveways will continue to be directed towards Brighton Street and Garvey Avenue, the majority of the runoff will be collected and discharged into a dry well located in the northeast corner of the lower parking level for on -site percolation. The project will not alter the existing drainage pattern on the site or cause erosion or siltation of a stream or river because the dry well system will reduce the amount of existing runoff from the site that will be directed to the local storm drain system and eventually discharged to the ocean. Therefore, the project will have a less- than - significant impact to erosion or siltation either on or off the site. d) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.8 "c)" above, some drainage from the sidewalks and project driveways will continue to flow east and south to the existing curb and gutter system in Brighton Street and Garvey Avenue, respectively. The project is estimated to generate approximately 436 cubic feet of runoff more than the existing condition due to an increase in impermeable surfaces. The project will discharge most of the surface water runoff into an on -site dry well, reducing the amount of runoff that would be discharged to the local storm drain system. The proposed dry well would reduce the amount of surface water runoff that is currently generated from the site. By discharging most of the surface water runoff on -site, the potential flooding impact by the project would be less- than - significant. e) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.8 "d)" above, the incremental increase in surface water by the project will not exceed the capacity of existing and proposed storm water drainage system for the project. The existing local storm drain system in Brighton Street and Garvey Avenue along with the regional downstream storm drain facilities that serve this area of Rosemead have capacity to handle the surface water generated by the project. The discharge of most of the project runoff into the on -site dry well will reduce the amount of surface currently discharged from the site. The storm drain capacity impacts of the project will be less- than - significant. f) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.8 "a)" above, the quality of storm water runoff from the project is regulated under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The project will be required by law to collect and treat the first % of an inch of storm water runoff to remove debris and other pollutants. The project proposes a Page 45 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review storm water collection system to collect and filter the project runoff and discharge the runoff into an on -site dry well system that will allow runoff to percolate into the soil. Most of the project runoff will be filtered and discharged into the on -site dry well. During periods of high rainfall, storm water that overflows the dry well will be pumped to the local storm drain system in Brighton Street. The project impact to surface water quality will be less -than- significant. g) No Impact. The project site is not in a flood hazard zone. The City of Rosemead is designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to be in Zone "C ", which is outside the 100 -year flood plain. The project will not place any housing in a flood hazard area. h) No Impact. As noted in 3.8 "g)" above, the project is not located in a 100 -year flood zone. The proposed project is not subject to flooding and will not have an impact by redirecting or impeding flood flows. i) No Impact. There are no levees or dams upstream of the project that will flood the site in the event of a levee or dam failure. j) No Impact. There are no water bodies either on or adjacent to the project site that will impact the site due to a seiche. The site is approximately twenty miles east of the Pacific Ocean and will not be impacted by a tsunami. The site and the surrounding areas are flat and will not be exposed to a mudslide. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 3.9 Land Use and Planning Would the project: a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ community? .............................. .............._... ........................ _._..._............ ... .......................... _..- ------- _— _—. ...._.__..... ..... .............. ............................ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? .............................................................. .............................. ....... ............................................................ ..................... ................................. --- ............. — ..__..._ .._ ... _........................ - .............__....__................ ......._..__....--- .._.._...... c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community's ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan? 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING a) No Impact. Examples of "dividing a community" include new roads, rail lines, transmission corridors, or a major development project encompassing numerous city blocks that creates a physical barrier between established neighborhoods or business districts. 15 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 601410001 C, Revised July 6, 1998. Page 46 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review The project proposes to construct a mixed use project with retail on the first floor and 60 residential units on the second through fourth floors. The project will not divide the established surrounding community. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Rosemead General Plan designates the site Commercial and the residence at the northeast corner as Medium Density Residential (0 -12 du /ac.) as shown in Figure 13, Land Use Map. The zoning for the site is C -3 Medium Commercial, except the single - family residence at the northeast corner of the site that is zoned R -2 Light Multiple Residential as shown in Figure 14, Zoning Map. The project will require a General Plan Amendment to change the existing land use designations of the site to Mixed Use: Residential /Commercial (60 du /ac; 4 stories). The project will also require a zone change to C -3 Medium Commercial and add a Residential /Commercial Mixed -Use Development Overlay ( RCMUDO) and Design Overlay to allow the development of the project as proposed. General Plan Amendment The Mixed Use: Residential /Commercial (60 du /ac; 4 stories) land use designation allows a maximum development of 68 units. 16 . The land use designation allows a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.0:1 and up to 87,120 square feet of commercial use. The project proposes 60 residential units, including 12 low income units, for a total of 54,609 square feet and 15,553 square feet of retail use on the first floor. The project proposes a total of 70,162 square feet of development with a FAR of 1.41, which is less than the maximum 2.0:1 FAR allowed for the site. The project is consistent with the requested Mixed Use: Residential /Commercial (60 du /ac; 4 stories) land use designation. Zoning The project is requesting a zone change for the residential lot at the northeast corner of the site from R -2 Light Multiple Residential to C -3 to be consistent with the C -3 zoning for the balance of the site. In addition, the project applicant is requesting a zone change to add a Residential /Commercial Mixed -Use Development Overlay and Design Overlay to the site to allow the development of the project as proposed. The applicability of the Residential /Commercial Mixed -Use Development Overlay and the Design Overlay to the project is discussed below. Residential /Commercial Mixed -Use Development Overlay The purpose of the RCMUDO is to provide opportunities for well- designed development projects that combine residential with nonresidential uses, including office, retail, business services, personal services, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities designated with the mixed -use land use designations in the City of Rosemead General Plan, and consistent with the policy direction in the General Plan. 17 16 Based on a 1.14 acre site and 40-60 du /acre, a maximum of 68 units can be developed on the site. " RMC 17.74.010 A Page 47 =Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. a,,lc L lad al r NA kR U AS O Mm n Fry R L C R C A i l O N A L Pe .Fry GARVEY DEL MAR PLAZA = a PARK Blvd Legend L— Dalsir Rre,W10103 d,"W AOsed Vas,Rea.lal1UMCC "WCY 130 dWaC. 35100"1 ORw.elUQu[Aw"ral 41BOVm WnBity H651dM6N (1>12 Ountl . W><a0 UN H9y�OgnWIK;OrtYnMGM (60 WNC: 510Mi1 _ mw fwtev . MOh 1)-my RmtcnM (0.10 "W.) . SAN'd Ilxr 1rwh1at1u1T:tlrtrrrrrial . r4rn S(wrr. -Cw+lmerool 1Igh InW"Cexn —1 C—.Wy HON lll—V CalU .I A— 0 M.�Ii IW.ly f:�..riM Aiw.l B M.yt l•�iw f,.- . -wa.l Source: Rosemead General Plan " Figure 13 Land Use Map =Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. GARVEY DEL MAR PLAZA -• ' I R -1 Single Fames Residential 1 \ I R-2 Light Mllltryte Residential � I I ft -3 Metl.um Muaiyie Resxteneal , J _ .I \� y • \' I ' 'C-1 Neigh"hood Comnerga \ • :C-3 Medium Ccmmercial - - ' _ •, t ` ` +/ .IC -4 Regwnal Cxnmeraal I _ '• \ -• . CBD Centel Business District I T •.,,� - / .... _ P AulomoWla Parking ` T •\' - t ; ' f+.� -.) .. .I P-0 Professional Ofice I ~ r I - M -1 light Manufactunng ,•\ O-S Oven Space I -•` �_ \1\'��� �. t ,, U ,y9 1 P•D Planned Development t�v mom I OVflfif)f6 I IRC-MUDO ResidenuatfCormn l Mixed Use Deveiopment Overlay • _ - � 1 �N'ID Design Overlay \Q '10" 1 r _. _.. �.....J �- - 11 -1 _....., ...... .. _ Milli r Source: Rosemead General Plan N Figure 14 Zoning Map ,: Ie ft Ca'/ d RQee w '—ft eery efron to marxa�n WA dneCute accvate nbnMt M wwont "-a mp ivlentn" Of " knd City of Rosemead maea .a._g Noe . MM a faavrr ".i. ahY ".i In ro a«e+x au Cdy al R--1 M naaa . i airy ray m er uaaw .f the aata Users of exs "M" Mon the Cel of Rosenrd h-4. n a mama and aoroixb araay fre.n e+e ue -NW &ML acy df tee Oab Adopwd by CAI 04tw a No. 891 an May 11. 20110 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review The intent of the RCMUDO is to accomplish the following objectives: Create a viable, walkable urban environment that encourages pedestrian activity and reduces dependence on the automobile, through a streetscape that is connected, attractive, safe and engaging. 2. Provide complementary residential and commercial uses within walking distance of each other. 3. Develop an overall urban design framework to ensure that the quality, appearance and effects of buildings, improvements and uses are compatible with the City design criteria and goals. 4. Create quality residential /commercial mixed -use development that maintains value through buildings with architectural qualities that create attractive street scenes and enhance the public realm. 5. Provide a variety of open space, including private, recreation areas and public open space and parks. 6. Revitalize commercial corridors with residential /commercial mixed -use developments that attract and encourage market - driven private investment. 7. Encourage parking solutions that are incentives for creative planning and sustainable neighborhood design. The RCMUDO is an overlay zone, which may be applied to existing zoning districts as designated in the General Plan. The RCMUDO Zone district provides the option of developing under the base zone district, or developing a residential /commercial mixed -use development under the overlay zone. In this case, the RCMUDO Zone would be applied to the C -3 zone and the site is proposed for development consistent with the RCMUDO Zone. Residential /commercial mixed -use development shall combine and integrate residential uses with commercial, institutional, and office uses utilizing a strong pedestrian orientation. The mix of uses may be combined in a vertical residential /commercial mixed -use building or combined in separate buildings located on one property and /or under unified control. The mix of uses percentage shall be as designated in the General Plan. The types of uses allowed with the RCMUDO include a variety of commercial uses, including retail stores and businesses as allowed by RMC 17.74.040. The retail and business uses proposed for the project have not specifically been identified at this time. However, all future approved business for the site would have to comply with the businesses permitted by RMC 17.74.040. Consistent with RMC 17.74.040F.4, the proposed 60 residential units are located on the three floors above the proposed commercial use. The project, as proposed, meets and complies with all of the applicable RCMUDO development standards, with the exception of the types of commercial uses allowed for the site. As noted above, all allowed commercial uses must meet the permitted uses in RMC 17.74.040. " RMC 17.74.020. Page 50 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review Design Overlay The purpose of the design overlay zone is to assure orderly development and that buildings, structures, signs and landscaping will be harmonious within a specified area; to prevent the development of structures or uses which are not of acceptable exterior design or appearance or are of inferior quality or likely to have a depreciating or negative effect on the local environment or surrounding area by reasons of use, design, appearance or other criteria affecting value. The Design Overlay requires the precise plan for the project be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. The design review of the precise development plan includes architecture and design, number of stories, height, fences, landscape, color, signage, proposed uses, mechanical equipment screening, etc. The review and approval of the precise development plan in compliance with the design requirements of RMC Chapter 17.72 would ensure the project meets the City's design requirements for development in the Design Overlay Zone. Density Bonus The project proposes 12 low and moderate income units as part of the 60 residential units proposed for the site, which allows the project applicant a 35% density bonus. The proposed 12 low income residential units represent 20% of the 60 proposed units. Project Concessions The 35% density bonus allows the project applicant up to two development concessions, if necessary. Due to several site constraints, the project applicant is requesting two concessions from the RCMUDO development standards. 1. The RCMUDO zone allows a building height of 55 feet or 4 stories. Due to the existing slope, the proposed building will be 60 feet high and 5 stories at Brighton Street. The applicant is requesting a concession from the maximum allowable building height due to the existing slope. 2. The RCMUDO zone requires the second floor and above shall be stepped back from the rear property line as follows: establish a height at six feet above finished grade of the adjacent residential property line, a 20- degree incline plane is projected that establishes the height limitation of the residential /commercial mixed -use development . The project encroaches within the 20- degree incline plane. The applicant is requesting a concession from the 20- degree incline plane requirement. The project meets the development standards for the RCMUDO zone, with the exception of the two requested concessions. The development of the project as proposed, including the allowance of the two development concessions, would not result in any significant land use impacts. The compliance of the project with all other required development standards would ensure the project meets all requirements for development in the RCMUDO zone. " RMC 17.72.020. 20 RMC 17.72.040 B. 21 RMC 17.74.050 C.1.f. Page 51 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review The land use impacts of the requested General Plan Amendment and Zone Changes would be less- than - significant. c) No Impact. The City does not have any areas with adopted habitat or natural community conservation plans. The project will not impact any natural communities or conservation plans since none exist on or adjacent to the project. Envir Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 3.10 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 3.10 MINERAL RESOURCES a) No Impact. The State Mining and Geology Board classify land in California on the availability of mineral resources. There are four Mineral Resources Zone (MRZ) designations for the classification of sand, gravel, and crushed rock resources. According to the State Mining and Geology Board the project site is within the MRZ -4 classification As Rosemead is completely urbanized and the State has not identified any significant recoverable mineral resources, no mineral extraction activities are permitted within the City limits. There are no mining activities either on the site or the properties surrounding and adjacent to the site. The project will not have a significant impact to mineral resources of value to the region or residents of the state. b) No Impact. Based on information in 3.10 "a)" above, there are no locally important mineral resources in Rosemead, which includes the project site. The project will not impact any locally important mineral resource. 22 Update of Mineral Land Classification of Portland Cement Concrete Aggregate in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties — Part II, Los Angeles County. Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1994. 23 MRZ -4 — There is insufficient data to assign any other MRZ designation. Page 52 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review 3.11 NOISE A noise report was prepared by Giroux & Associates. The noise report is included in Appendix E. a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located in an urbanized area and adjacent to Del Mar Avenue, which is a Minor Arterial and proposed to be a Major Arterial by the Circulation Element of the Rosemead General Plan. The project is also adjacent to Garvey Avenue on the south, which is a Major Arterial, and Brighton Street on the east, a local roadway. The existing noise levels on the site are due to the on -site activities, traffic on Del Mar Avenue, Garvey Avenue, and Brighton Street, and daily activities of residents and commercial uses in the vicinity of the site. For noise generated on one property affecting an adjacent use, the City of Rosemead limits the amount of noise crossing the boundary between the two uses. For regulated on -site sources of noise generation, the Rosemead noise ordinance prescribes limits that are considered an acceptable exposure for residential uses in proximity to regulated noise sources. The L50 24 Noise Impact Analysis, Garvey Del Mar Plaza, Giroux & Associates, November 6, 2013. Page 53 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.11 Noise Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ noise ordinance, or applicable standards of . .............................. other agencies? ...... .................................................................................................................. ............ ..................................... ................ ................... _ ... ........- ...................................... __.._. _.............................. - - - - - -- - - - - - -- b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground ❑ ❑ ® ❑ borne 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? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ..... .................. f) _ ........ _ ............. ...................................... ................................................................... ................................ ...... ...... .... ........... ... --- For a project within the vicinity of a private ....................... -- — -- .._....._.. — - -- -- ..._ —._.. — ...._._...... airstrip, would the project expose people ❑ ❑ ❑ residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 3.11 NOISE A noise report was prepared by Giroux & Associates. The noise report is included in Appendix E. a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located in an urbanized area and adjacent to Del Mar Avenue, which is a Minor Arterial and proposed to be a Major Arterial by the Circulation Element of the Rosemead General Plan. The project is also adjacent to Garvey Avenue on the south, which is a Major Arterial, and Brighton Street on the east, a local roadway. The existing noise levels on the site are due to the on -site activities, traffic on Del Mar Avenue, Garvey Avenue, and Brighton Street, and daily activities of residents and commercial uses in the vicinity of the site. For noise generated on one property affecting an adjacent use, the City of Rosemead limits the amount of noise crossing the boundary between the two uses. For regulated on -site sources of noise generation, the Rosemead noise ordinance prescribes limits that are considered an acceptable exposure for residential uses in proximity to regulated noise sources. The L50 24 Noise Impact Analysis, Garvey Del Mar Plaza, Giroux & Associates, November 6, 2013. Page 53 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13-02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review metric used in the Rosemead noise ordinance is the level exceeded 50% of the measurement period of thirty minutes in an hour. One -half of all readings may exceed this average standard with larger excursions from the average allowed for progressively shorter periods. The larger the deviation, the shorter the allowed duration up to a never -to- exceed 20 dB increase above the 50 percentile standard. Nighttime noise levels limits are reduced by 5 dB to reflect the increased sensitivity to noise occurring during that time period. The City L 50 noise standard is 60 dB during the day (7 a.m. — 10 p.m.), and 45 dB at night (10 p.m. — 7 a.m.). For commercial uses the L 50 standard is 65 dB during the day (7 a.m. — 10 p.m.), and 60 dB at night (10 p.m. — 7 a.m.). These noise standards for residential and commercial uses are shown in Table 11. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds a noise standard, the standards shall be increased to reflect the ambient (existing) noise level. The noise that will be generated by the project will be similar to the noise levels generated by development in the project vicinity and throughout Rosemead. The sources of noise anticipated by the project include the movement of motor vehicles to and from the site, daily activities associated with residential development, similar commercial development, landscape maintenance, deliveries, etc. Table 11 Rosemead Noise Ordinance Limits (Exterior Noise Level not to be Exceeded) Source: Municipal Code Section 8.36.060 Short term on -site noise measurements were taken October 31, 2013 to determine the existing baseline noise levels on the site and the project area. The existing baseline noise levels were used to calculate the future noise levels by the project to the surrounding community. The locations of the noise measurements are shown in Figure 15. The measured noise levels at the three locations are shown in Table 12. Table 12 Measured Noise Levels (dBA) Site No. Residential Use Commercial Use Maximum Allowable Duration of Exceedance 7 AM to 10 PM (Daytime) 10 PM to 7 AM (Nighttime) 7 AM to 10 PM (Daytime) 10 PM to 7 AM (Nighttime) 30 minutes /Hour L50 60 dB 45 dB 65 dB 60 dB 15 minutes /Hour 1-25 65 dB 50 dB 70 dB 65 dB 5 minutes /Hour L8 70 dB 55 dB 75 dB 70 dB 1 minute /Hour L1 75 dB 60 dB 80 dB 75 dB Never Lmax 80 dB 65 dB 85 dB 80 dB Source: Municipal Code Section 8.36.060 Short term on -site noise measurements were taken October 31, 2013 to determine the existing baseline noise levels on the site and the project area. The existing baseline noise levels were used to calculate the future noise levels by the project to the surrounding community. The locations of the noise measurements are shown in Figure 15. The measured noise levels at the three locations are shown in Table 12. Table 12 Measured Noise Levels (dBA) Site No. Leq Lmax Lmin L10 L33 L50 L90 1 66 80 54 70 66 64 60 2 68 78 52 68 64 63 58 3 61 77 48 63 55 54 52 Page 54 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review The existing CNELs range from 68 -70 dB on the nosiest areas of the site near Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenue and approximately 63 dB CNEL east of Brighton Street. The City of Rosemead considers CNELS of up to 70 dB to be conditionally acceptable for residential use with the requirement of a noise analysis. Noise levels of up to 75 dB CNEL are considered to be conditionally acceptable for commercial use. However, as noted previously, unless commercial projects include noise - sensitive uses such as outdoor dining, exterior noise exposure is generally not considered a commercial facility siting constraint. Meter location 1 is representative of noise levels along the Del Mar Avenue frontage. At approximately 50 feet from the Del Mar Avenue centerline, existing noise levels are expected to be approximately 68 dB CNEL. Meter 2 was located on the corner of Garvey and Del Mar Avenues. Measured noise levels at Meter 2 are indicative of the worst case existing on -site noise levels. The observed noise levels at Meter 2 are approximately 70 dB CNEL. Figure 15 Noise Measurement Locations Page 55 Meter 1: 50 feet east of Del Mar Avenue, 150 feet north of Garvey Avenue Meter 2: 75 feet east of Del Mar Avenue, 80 feet north of Garvey Avenue Meter 3: Alley at Brighton Street City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13-02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review Off -Site Project - Related Vehicular Noise Impacts The long -term vehicle noise impacts of the project were determined using the California specific vehicle noise curves (CALVENO) in the federal roadway noise model (FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA -RD -77 -108). Table 13 summarizes the calculated 24 -hour CNEL level at 50 feet from the roadway centerline along six roadway segments. Table 14 shows the change in the noise levels due to the project. As shown in Table 14, the opening year noise levels of the project do not significantly increase. The largest project related noise level increase is +0.1 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline of the adjacent roadways. Under ambient conditions, people generally do not clearly perceive noise level changes until there is a 3 dB difference. A threshold of 3 dB is commonly used to define "substantial increase." An increase of +3 dBA CNEL in traffic noise would be considered a significant impact. The calculated noise level increase by the project is +0.1 dB CNEL and less than the +3 dB significance threshold. Thus, the project traffic noise level increases are less - than- significant. Table 13 Traffic Noise Impact Analysis (dBA CNEL at 50 feet from centerline) Segment 2013 No Project 2013 With Project 2015 No Project 2015 With Project Del Mar/ N of Emerson 71.9 72.0 72.0 72.1 Emerson-Garvey 71.5 71.6 71.6 71.7 Garvey-Del Mar 70.1 70.2 70.2 70.3 S of Del Mar 69.9 70.1 70.1 1 70.2 Garvey/ W of Del Mar 72.1 72.1 72.2 72.2 E of Del Mar 72.1 72.2 72.2 72.3 Table 14 Project Traffic Noise Level Increases (dBA CNEL at 50 feet from centerline) Segment 2013 Project Only 2015 Project Only Cumulative* Del Mar/ N of Emerson 0.1 0.1 0.2 Emerson-Garvey 0.1 0.1 0.2 Garvey-Del Mar 0.1 0.1 0.2 S of Del Mar 0.1 0.1 0.2 Garvey/ W of Del Mar 0.0 0.0 0.1 E of Del Mar 0.1 0.1 0.2 *The difference between "2015 with project' and "existing" traffic noise levels The cumulative analysis compares "future with project" to "existing" conditions. The largest cumulative impact is +0.2 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline of the adjacent roadways. This noise level increase is less than the +3.0 dB threshold. Therefore, the project and cumulative noise impacts are less- than - significant. On -Site Project- Related Vehicular Noise Impacts At 50 feet from centerline of the roads adjacent to the site, the future traffic noise levels are calculated to be 72 dB CNEL along Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenues. The residential Page 56 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review component of the project is approximately 100 feet from the roadway centerlines with traffic noise levels calculated to be as high as 68 dB CNEL. Although the City of Rosemead guidelines allows exterior noise levels of up to 70 dB CNEL, a noise level of 65 dB is the level at which ambient noise begins to interfere with one's ability to carry on a normal conversation without raising one's voice. A noise exposure of 65 dB CNEL is typically the exterior noise land use compatibility guideline for new residential dwellings in California. Many of the proposed residential units have balconies facing the adjacent roadways. Therefore, it is recommended that all balconies facing Garvey Avenue or Del Mar Avenue be equipped with a 5 -foot transparent glass or plastic shield enclosure that would permit view while mitigating noise from the adjacent roadways. An enclosure would provide at least -5 dB of noise attenuation and reduce noise on any balcony with a direct view of Garvey Avenue or Del Mar Avenue to below 65 dB CNEL. The interior residential noise standard is 45 dB CNEL. For typical wood - framed construction with stucco and gypsum board wall assemblies, the exterior to interior noise level reduction is as follows: Partly open windows — 12 dB Closed single -paned windows — 20 dB Closed dual -paned windows — 30 dB The use of dual -paned windows is required by the California Building Code (CBC) for energy conservation in new residential construction. The maximum 45 dB interior noise standards will be met by the project with a large margin of safety as long as residents have the option to close their windows. Where window closure is needed to shut out noise, supplemental ventilation is required by the (CBC) with some specified gradation of fresh air. Central air conditioning or a fresh air inlet on a whole house fan would meet this requirement. Because commercial uses are not occupied on a 24 -hour basis, the exterior noise exposure standard for less sensitive land uses is less stringent. Unless commercial projects include noise - sensitive uses such as outdoor dining, noise exposure is generally not considered a commercial facility siting constraint for typical project area noise. At this time the project does not proposed any outdoor dining space. The noise impacts to the retail uses proposed for the ground level will be less- than - significant. Site Operational Noise The daily operations of the project will generate a variety of noises from a several sources. In areas where commercial and residential uses share a common property line, it is often not the overall magnitude of the noise that leads to noise impacts, but rather some unique aspect of the noise event that causes a noise impact. Early morning deliveries and back -up alarms are several sources that can create noise impacts in a mixed use environment. Also, late evening commercial activities, such as restaurant clean -up operations when trash is dumped, water is sprayed under pressure to remove waste, etc. can generate noise and impact adjacent residents. Refuse collection vehicles could be restricted to daytime hours to reduce potential commercial noise activities to adjacent residential and other noise sensitive areas. All residential uses require sufficient distance separation from commercial buildings to prevent HVAC mechanical equipment on building roofs from being a nuisance. If not Page 57 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review possible, the HVAC equipment will need to be shielded. A typical HVAC equipment noise level is 50 dB at 10 feet from the source. The City's daytime noise standard is 60 dB L 50 and the nighttime residential ordinance standard is 45 dB L The 45 dB L 50 standard is met approximately 30 feet from a single mechanical equipment source. Multiple mechanical units may have a larger noise impact "envelope." The operation of multiple HVAC or other mechanical equipment units, therefore, must be screened from a direct line -of -sight to any off -site residences. The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce noise impacts to less -than- significant. Mitigation Measure No. 10 Project related operational hours for the following activities are recommended to be restricted as follows: • There shall be no delivery vehicle (no trucks) deliveries between the hours of 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. • Refuse collection vehicles shall restrict activity to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. • Loading of boxes, crates and building materials is restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. adjacent to a residential property line. • Construction activities are restricted by the City of Rosemead Noise Ordinance. While construction noise is not expected to exceed 85 dB at the nearest sensitive use (residences north of the site), construction noise can be minimized with the implementation of the following conditions: • All motorized construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. • Equipment and materials shall be staged in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction - related noise sources and the noise - sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. • Haul truck and other construction - related trucks traveling to and from the project site shall be restricted to the same hours specified for the operation of construction equipment. • To the extent feasible, construction haul routes shall not pass directly by sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. Mitigation Measure No. 11 An acoustical study shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit to show that all balconies facing Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenue have a transparent glass or plastic shield to create outdoor space that achieves the 65 dB CNEL or less. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Vibration is a trembling, quivering, or oscillating motion of the earth. Like noise, vibration is transmitted in waves, but in this case through the earth or solid objects rather than the air. Unlike noise, vibration is typically at a frequency that is felt rather than heard. Vibration can be either natural (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, or landslides) or man -made (e.g., explosions, the action of heavy machinery, or heavy vehicles such as trains). Page 58 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review Construction activities generate ground -borne vibration when heavy equipment travels over unpaved surfaces or when it is engaged in soil movement. The effects of ground -borne vibration include discernable movement of building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. Within the "soft" sedimentary surfaces of much of Southern California, ground vibration is quickly damped. Because vibration is typically not an issue, very few jurisdictions have adopted vibration significance thresholds. Vibration thresholds have been adopted for major public works construction projects, but these relate mostly to structural protection (cracking foundations or stucco) rather than to human annoyance. As with noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Amplitude may be characterized in three ways, including displacement, velocity, and acceleration. Particle displacement is a measure of the distance that a vibrated particle travels from its original position and, for the purposes of soil displacement, is typically measured in inches or millimeters. Particle velocity is the rate of speed at which soil particles move in inches per second or millimeters per second. Particle acceleration is the rate of change in velocity with respect to time and is measured in inches per second or millimeters per second. Typically, particle velocity (measured in inches or millimeters per second) and /or acceleration (measured in gravities) are used to describe vibration. Vibration is most commonly expressed in terms of the root mean square (RMS) velocity of a vibrating object. RMS velocities are expressed in units of vibration decibels. The range of vibration decibels (VdB) is as follows: 65 VdB - threshold of human perception 72 VdB - annoyance due to frequent events 80 VdB - annoyance due to infrequent events 100 VdB - minor cosmetic damage To determine the potential vibration impacts of project construction activities, estimates of vibration levels induced by the construction equipment at various distances are presented in Table 15. Table 15 Vibration Levels from Project Construction Activities (FTA Transit Noise & Vibration Assessment, Chapter 12, Construction, 1995) The on -site construction equipment that will create the maximum potential vibration is a large bulldozer. The stated vibration source level in the FTA Handbook for such equipment is 87 VdB at 25 feet from the source. At 50 feet the vibration level dissipates to 81 VdB. Vibration levels from heavy equipment could be 75 VdB, which is less than the 80 VdB annoyance threshold. Furthermore, vibration levels will not exceed the building damage threshold and will be perceived as being "barely perceptible ". Vibration calculations assumed existing residences would be located approximately 25 feet from the vibration - generating sources on the project site. The project does not propose any activities that will Page 59 Approximate Vibration Levels (VdB)* Equipment 25 feet 50 feet 100 feet 200 feet Large Bulldozer 87 81 75 69 Loaded Truck 86 80 74 68 Jackhammer 79 73 67 61 Small Bulldozer 58 52 46 40 (FTA Transit Noise & Vibration Assessment, Chapter 12, Construction, 1995) The on -site construction equipment that will create the maximum potential vibration is a large bulldozer. The stated vibration source level in the FTA Handbook for such equipment is 87 VdB at 25 feet from the source. At 50 feet the vibration level dissipates to 81 VdB. Vibration levels from heavy equipment could be 75 VdB, which is less than the 80 VdB annoyance threshold. Furthermore, vibration levels will not exceed the building damage threshold and will be perceived as being "barely perceptible ". Vibration calculations assumed existing residences would be located approximately 25 feet from the vibration - generating sources on the project site. The project does not propose any activities that will Page 59 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review produce or generate significant ground borne impacts and significantly impact adjacent residents or commercial tenants. The project will have less- than - significant vibration impacts. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.11 "a)" above, project generated noise must comply with the City of Rosemead Noise Ordinance in terms of the allowable noise levels crossing the boundary between the two uses, including noise from the movement of vehicles on private property. The specific noise limits that are considered an acceptable exposure for residential uses in proximity to regulated noise sources were shown in Table 12. As shown in Table 14 earlier, the project generated noise levels are not projected to increase significantly and impact area residents or businesses. Thus, the project will not significantly change or increase the existing levels of noise that exist on the site. The project will not have a substantial permanent increase in the existing (ambient) noise levels on or adjacent to the site. There will be noise generated within the subterranean parking structure. The noise that is typically associated with a parking structure include car starts, car doors shutting, people talking, car alarms, car horns, tire squeal, and cars entering and leaving the structure. Based on the estimated noise levels, the project is not anticipated to generate noise within the parking structure that will significantly impact residents north of the project. The noise generated by the project is not anticipated to substantially increase the ambient noise level either on the site or the immediate vicinity of the site and significantly impact area residents. The potential noise impacts of the project will be less- than - significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate short-term noise during project demolition of the existing site improvements and grading and construction of the project, including site improvements. Figure 16 shows the typical range of construction equipment noise during various construction phases. The earth- moving sources are seen to be the noisiest with equipment noise ranging up to about 95 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source. Existing buildings and other noise barriers to interrupt line -of -sight conditions, the potential "noise envelope" around individual construction sites is reduced. The Noise Ordinance also restricts hours of construction to hours of lesser noise sensitivity with heavy equipment to not operate from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. during the week and on Saturdays, and to not exceed 85 dB at any residential property line (8.36.030.A.3). Construction is not permitted on Sunday or a federal holiday. Construction noise impacts can be mitigated to less- than - significant by compliance with RMC 8.36.030 A.3 that restricts construction from 7 AM to 8 PM Monday through Saturday and no construction on Sunday or a federal holiday. e) No Impact. The closest airport is El Monte Airport, which is approximately 4 miles northeast of the site. Operations at the El Monte Airport will not expose project residents, employees or customers to excessive noise levels. The project will not be impacted by or impact operations at the El Monte Airport f) No Impact. See response to 3.11 "e" above. Page 60 =Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. GARVEY DEL MAR PLAZA A- Weighted Sound Level (d BA) At 50 Feet Equipment 60 70 80 90 100 110 Compactor Fbl ler Front fader Backhoe ,. Tractor Grader Scraper Paver Truck Concrete Mixer .r............ l imp Concrete Pump,,,,;,,,, Crane (Movable) Crane (Derrick) Pump Generator Compressor Pneumatic Wrench Jackhammer Fbck Drill Pile Drivers (Peak Levels) Vibrator Saw LMEND 60 70 80 90 100 110 Noise Level Sources: "Handbook of Noise Control," Ibnge� / by Cyril Harris, 1979 "Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment" by Federal Transit Administration, 1995 Typical Noise Level Source: Phil Martin &Associates, Inc. N ( �D Figure 16 Construction Noise Levels City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review 3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes to replace the existing commercial buildings and the single - family detached residence on the site with a mixed use building consisting of retail space and 60 residential units. Based on the type of units proposed, it is anticipated, at this time, that many of the future project residents are existing Rosemead residents and relocating to the project will not increase the city's population. For those future project residents that live outside Rosemead and move to the site, the city's population will subsequently increase. However, at this time, it is not anticipated that a significant number of the project residents currently live outside Rosemead and when they move to the site will significantly increase the population of the city. As a result, the project is not anticipated to substantially increase or induce a population growth in Rosemead. The project will have a less- than - significant impact to the population of Rosemead. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will require one existing single - family detached residence in the northeast area of the site to be demolished. While the demolition of the residence will displace a family, there is suitable replacement housing in Rosemead for the family that will be displaced. The displacement of a family will not require the construction of replacement housing. The proposed project, once constructed, could provide suitable housing for the family that would be displaced by the project. The project will not displace any existing housing that necessitates the construction of replacement housing. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in 3.12 "(b)" above, there is suitable housing in Rosemead for the family that will be displaced without the need to construct suitable replacement housing. The housing proposed by the project could provide replacement housing for the displaced family. The project would have less- than - significant impacts to the displaced family. Page 62 Environmental I ssue s Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 3.12 Population and Housing Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., ❑ ❑ ® ❑ through extension of roads or other _...._ ­­­-.1.1 infrastructure)? ......... ............................. _ ... - - -- - — ...._..._.. - . . .. --- .... . ....... ....._....__.._...__....... —... - .......... - ............... -- -- - -- b Displace substantial numbers of existin g P housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ........... ......-- .......... replacement housing elsewhere? ................ _................ ... ... - ...... _ .... _ ..... _ ....... __._ .............................................. _........_.- ................... _ ... __ .... _ ... _ ......... ...................... _ ...... ....... _ .... .... .. .............. _ ............. - - -- ............. --- . ............... -- -..... c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ replacement housing elsewh 3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes to replace the existing commercial buildings and the single - family detached residence on the site with a mixed use building consisting of retail space and 60 residential units. Based on the type of units proposed, it is anticipated, at this time, that many of the future project residents are existing Rosemead residents and relocating to the project will not increase the city's population. For those future project residents that live outside Rosemead and move to the site, the city's population will subsequently increase. However, at this time, it is not anticipated that a significant number of the project residents currently live outside Rosemead and when they move to the site will significantly increase the population of the city. As a result, the project is not anticipated to substantially increase or induce a population growth in Rosemead. The project will have a less- than - significant impact to the population of Rosemead. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will require one existing single - family detached residence in the northeast area of the site to be demolished. While the demolition of the residence will displace a family, there is suitable replacement housing in Rosemead for the family that will be displaced. The displacement of a family will not require the construction of replacement housing. The proposed project, once constructed, could provide suitable housing for the family that would be displaced by the project. The project will not displace any existing housing that necessitates the construction of replacement housing. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in 3.12 "(b)" above, there is suitable housing in Rosemead for the family that will be displaced without the need to construct suitable replacement housing. The housing proposed by the project could provide replacement housing for the displaced family. The project would have less- than - significant impacts to the displaced family. Page 62 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.13 Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fi re Protection? ❑ ❑ ® - - - - -- — ....... —.. _._.. — El _. -- -- b) Police Protection? El El El ........... .. __._. _......._.._................... ----. ._...._......_.............. - -- — c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ .._.... _........._..._...._...._...._. ............... _.- ....._ - - -... - -- - _.... ....._. ......................_...._..— . . _.. .... .._. ..... _..__._._ ........................ ....... .._..._ d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ -- ......... ........_.. - -- - - -- ----........_._ ..................................... ......................._.....__ ._... e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES a) Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection services are provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Replacing the existing older buildings on the site with a new building that meets all applicable California Building Codes (CBC) could reduce the need for fire protection services by the Los Angeles County Fire Department in the future. As a result, the project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the Los Angeles County Fire Department. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Police protection services are provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department. The Temple Sheriff's Station located at 8838 Las Tunas Drive serves the project site with an average emergency response time for an on -site emergency of 4.4 minutes. Compared to the existing condition, the project is anticipated to increase calls for police protection due to more people and increased activity compared to existing conditions. The incorporation of security measures, such as surveillance cameras, proper lighting, and secure doors and windows will minimize the increase in service calls to the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department. The project will have less- than - significant impacts to the Sheriff Department with incorporation of the following mitigation measure. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is in the Garvey School District. The development of 60 residential units will generate students to schools in the District. The District does not have a student generation rate for the types of residential units proposed. Typically, multi- family residences generate fewer students than single - family detached residences. The District has stated they have capacity for the students that would be generated by the project .26 The District does not differentiate between single - family detached units and multi - family units in terms of student generation. The District collects a development fee for residential and commercial development. The student impact fee is used by schools to provided additional classrooms to accommodate the students generated by residential and commercial /industrial development projects. The project developer will be required to pay the State mandated student impact fee to the 25 Captain Christopher Nee, County of Los Angeles Sheriff Department Headquarters, letter dated October 15, 2013. 26 Robert McEntire, Garvey School District, letter dated October 18, 2013. Page 63 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review District before building permits are issued for construction. The following mitigation measure is recommended to mitigate the impact of the students generated by the project to the Garvey Unified School District to less- than - significant. Mitigation Measure No. 12 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall pay any required student impact fee to the Garvey Unified School District. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes approximately 9,510 square feet of open space. The proposed open space includes a common Central Garden proposed for the north side of the first floor. The Central Garden includes outdoor seating space and a central fountain for use by the residents. At this time, it is anticipated that the existing Rosemead residents that move to the project will not significantly increase their use of City park and recreational facilities. For those residents that move to the site from outside Rosemead, there could be an increase in the use of City park and recreational facilities. It is anticipated that most of the project residents will not use City park and recreational facilities to a level that will significantly impact the existing facilities. The project developer will be required to pay the city- required park fee per RMC 12.44.020. The park fee will be used by the City to provide new park and recreational facilities or upgrade existing facilities for use by the residents. The following mitigation measure is recommended to mitigate project impacts to City park and recreational facilities to less -than- significant. Mitigation Measure No. 13 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall pay any required park fee to the City of Rosemead. e) No Impact. There are no activities associated with the project that will require or need public facilities or result in an impact to public facilities. Environmental Issues 3.14 Recreation Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impa a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ............. ............ ... _................... - ............................................... .. P ................................................._ ......................... ..........................I.._ _.._.._. ....... __.._.__.... -- ... _..._... _..._._.......... ....... _. ..... __ ............ -------....... b Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which ❑ ❑ ❑ might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Page 64 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review 3.14 RECREATION a) No Impact. The residents of the project could increase the use of and impact existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities in Rosemead or other community in the area. The project residents could increase the use of area parks and include Garvey Park, a community park that is approximately a quarter mile northeast of the site and Zapopan Park, a neighborhood park that is approximately three - quarters of a mile to the east. Other parks in Rosemead that would be available to project residents include Rosemead Park and as well as other neighborhood and mini parks. Rosemead also has the 3.5 acre Jess Gonzales Sports Complex park for its residents. Rosemead residents can also use the Whittier Narrows Recreation Area which is a 1,000 regional park and located southeast of Rosemead and provides a mixture of recreational opportunities including a golf course, fishing, shooting ranges, picnic areas, etc. As discussed in Section 3.13 "d)" above, the project does not propose any public park or recreational facilities and payment of the required park fee will be used by the City to provide recreational facilities for use by the residents. The project is not anticipated to have any recreational impacts with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure No. 12. b) No Impact. As discussed in 3.14 "a)" above, the project does not propose to construct any recreational facilities. Therefore, the project will not construct new or expand existing recreational facilities that could have a physical effect on the environment. The project will not have any recreational facility construction impacts. Page 65 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.15 Transportation /Traffic Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at .... intersections)? - -- -- .................... — b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the county congestion management agency ........ for designated roads or highways? ....... .--- .._..- ........ _ ...... ._ .............. -..... .. . ..... ... ......... c) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative ❑ ❑ ® ❑ transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? -1.1 .............................. ................... ..__........_...-... ... _._.... ................. _.._... - - _ ............................ .....---- .... ----- d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) -- - — .................. .......................... e) _................................... ___ ....._................ ............. ........................... .... ..................... . Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ Page 65 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ 3.15 TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC A traffic report was prepared by VA Consulting to determine the potential traffic impacts of the project. The traffic report is included in Appendix F. a) Less Than Significant Impact. The traffic study estimates the project will generate approximately 1,973 average daily vehicle trips as shown in Table 16. The project is estimated to generate 116 AM peak hour trips and 106 PM peak hour trips. The project is proposed to be constructed in a single phase and completed by 2015. Baseline 2015 traffic volumes, the estimated opening year of the project, were developed by factoring existing 2013 volumes by an ambient growth rate of 2% and then adding traffic from future cumulative development projects in the area. As a mixed -use development, some internal trip capture can be expected such as tenants patronizing the proposed commercial uses. The credit of the internal trips would reduce the number of external trips occurring on the surrounding roadway network. During peak hours, the project internal capture rate is estimated to be 9.2% for the AM peak hour and 17.4% for the PM peak hour. However, for the worst case condition, no internal trip capture was considered. Although the project site is served by public transit and proposes on -site bike stalls and is within walking distance of other residential development in the immediate area, the traffic study assumed that all external trips arrive by motor vehicle. As a result, the estimated project trip generation reflects a worst -case condition. The traffic report studied 7 area intersections. The following intersections are included in the traffic study area: • Del Mar Avenue and Hellman Avenue (signalized) • Del Mar Avenue and Emerson Place (signalized) • Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue (signalized) • Garvey Avenue and Jackson Avenue (signalized) • Del Mar Avenue and Highcliff Street (signalized) • Garvey Avenue and Brighton Street (2 -way stop control) • Garvey Avenue and Kelburn Avenue (signalized) Trip Distribution and Assignment Figure 17 shows the distribution and assignment of the estimated traffic by the project. As shown, 20% of the project traffic is assigned to /from both the east and west via the 1 -10 Freeway with 15% each assigned to the north, south, east and west along Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue. Page 66 = Phil Martin &Associates, Inc. GARVEY DEL MAR PLAZA Source: VA Consulting, Inc. N Figure 17 Project Trip Distribution 1 -10 I -10 157 EAST WEST 2 0 7 n _ - HELLMAN AVE City of Ros mead � EMERSON PL 2 PROJECT w Z SIT Z 157 157 H _ � m �► GARVEY AVE 4 3 6 — I m > > Q w Of Of m a a z 0 U w z N Q w z Q 5 z x m HIGHCLIFF ST J Y 157 rrre Source: VA Consulting, Inc. N Figure 17 Project Trip Distribution City of Rosemead Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey — Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review 12 -05 Table 16 Project Trip Generation Page 68 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Split Split Land Use Unit ITE Land Code Quantity Rate Rate In Out Rate In Out 1. Multi - Family Residential DU 220 60 6.65 0.51 20% 80% 0.62 65% 35% 2. Commercial - Retail SF 820 4,780 42.70 0.96 62% 38% 3.71 48% 52% 3. Restaurant (High- Turnover Sit -Down) SF 932 10,773 127.15 10.81 55% 45% 9.85 60% 40% Project Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume Volume Land Use Quantity ADT Total In Out Total In Out 1. Multi - Family Residential 60 399 31 6 25 37 24 13 2. Commercial - Retail 4,780 204 5 3 2 18 9 9 3. Restaurant (High- Turnover Sit -Down) 10,773 1,370 116 64 52 106 64 42 Total 1,973 73 79 97 64 Page 68 City of Rosemead Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey - Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review 12 -05 Project Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement and Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes Based on the estimated trip generation and project trip distribution, the project traffic volumes are shown in Figures 18 and 19 for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. To evaluate level of service at the 7 study area intersections with Existing 2013 and Baseline 2015 with project conditions, The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method was used to evaluate the existing and future levels of service. The target level of service to be maintained throughout the project study area has been established by the City of Rosemead as Level of Service D. As shown in Table 17, all 7 study area intersections operate at LOS D or better with the 2015 traffic volumes. And 5 of the 7 study area intersections, with the exception of Del Mar Avenue /Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenue /Hellman Avenue intersections, operate at LOS B or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. Table 17 2015 Intersection Levels of Service - Without Project Intersection Existing (2013) 2015 Baseline AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Del Mar Avenue /Hellman Avenue 0.80 C 0.70 B 0.81 D 0.71 C 2. Del Mar Avenue /Emerson Place 0.61 B 0.60 A 0.62 B 0.60 A 3. Del Mar Avenue /Garvey Avenue 0.84 D 0.81 D 0.87 D 0.84 D 4. Jackson Avenue /Garvey Avenue 0.62 B 0.60 A 0.63 B 0.62 B 5. Del Mar Avenue /Highcliff Street 0.34 A 0.36 A 0.34 A 0.37 A 6. Brighton Street/Garvey Avenue 0.49 A 0.50 A 0.50 A 0.52 A 7. Kelburn Avenue /Garvey Avenue 1 0.54 A 0.56 A 0.55 A 0.58 A The 2015 baseline conditions without the project for the existing circulation network a growth factor of 2% was applied to the 2013 volumes and cumulative traffic from other known development projects that passes through the study area intersections has been added to the forecasts. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 18. An annual traffic growth factor of 2% was applied to the 2013 traffic volumes as a baseline for the opening year of the project, which is 2015. Table 18 shows the 2015 baseline peak hour volumes of the 7 study area intersections with the project will continue to meet the City's standard and operate at Level of Service D or better. Six of the intersections will have no LOS change during either the AM or PM peak hour with the project. Five of the intersections are calculated to continue to operate at either LOS A or B during the peak hours with the project with the exception of Del Mar Avenue /Garvey and Del Mar Avenue /Hellman Avenue, which will continue to operate at LOS D during both peak hours and the AM peak hour, respectively. Page 69 =Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. GARVEY DEL MAR PLAZA City of Rosemead "10 -�- HELLMAN A EMERSON PL Q 23 GARVEY AVE 1 53 0 N 2 N z 0 53 M See See Below Below 23 53 x 8 11--� 4 3 6 w 23 a Z C) W > Y Q U Q � 0 l HIGHCLIFF ST 23 1 5 8 N 9 I • �7 RESIDE \ r 13 DWY 17 1 COMME GARVEY -N- A ' Del Mar Avenue Brighton Street Hrs Project Access Project Access 0 00 N 30 53 r')r )N 30 m 9 8 8 Q U A Z i N LJ Q z z) w Y 0 N _ ..J 31 A ® L16 z -war 9 23 ` 28 —�- )1 LEGEND 53 • — WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TWO —WAY LINK VOLUME SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION STOP— CONTROLLED INTERSECTION STOP SIGN Source: Garvey Del Mar Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis, VA Consulting, Inc. 2014 Figure 18 AM Peak Hour Trips =Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. GARVEY DEL MAR PLAZA City of Rosemead "10 HELLMAN AVE • �7 RESIDENTIAL \ 1 r13 DWY 13 1 �I• N 18 1 + 56 GARVEY + -N- I• � ' Del Mar Avenue 'r 0 Project Access rrrs J Project Access CV 2 N z N C L.— EMERSON PL o _.J — w 56 C.D ® 23 Q' m See 30 46 2 -WAY f 10 3: Below 7 —ow. _ w Z See Below Z 25 25 55 55 25 4 3 6 7 GARVEY AVE a 25 N,N,r, L M m t 33 Cn > - x-7 5 + Elf o 8 -x Q o:: Q °o - 7 22 -� 15 — 11 —� (� n ° l HIGHCLIFF ST 25 1 5 > a Z o M M Y L2 10 • �7 RESIDENTIAL \ �— r13 DWY 13 1 �I• N 18 1 COMMERCIAL GARVEY DWY 31 1 -N- I• � ' Del Mar Avenue 'r Brighton Street Project Access rrrs J Project Access LEGEND 56 0 — WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TWO —WAY LINK VOLUME 8 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION sT STOP— CONTROLLED INTERSECTION STOP SIGN Source: Garvey Del Mar Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis, VA Consulting, Inc. 2014 Figure 19 PM Peak Hour Trips City of Rosemead Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey - Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review 12 -05 Table 18 2015 Intersection Levels of Service - With Project Intersection Existing (2013) Existing (2013) plus Project 2015 Baseline 2015 Baseline plus Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU I LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Del Mar Avenue /Hellman Avenue 0.80 C 0.70 B 0.80 C 0.71 C 0.81 D 0.71 C 0.82 D 0.72 C 2. Del Mar Avenue /Emerson Place 0.61 B 0.60 A 0.62 B 0.61 B 0.62 B 0.60 A 0.63 B 0.61 B 3. Del Mar Avenue /Garvey Avenue 0.84 D 0.81 D 0.88 D 0.85 D 0.87 D 0.84 D 0.89 D 0.88 D 4. Jackson Avenue /Garvey Avenue 0.62 B 0.60 A 0.63 B 0.60 A 0.63 B 0.62 B 0.64 B 0.63 B 5. Del Mar Avenue /Highcliff Street 0.34 A 0.36 A 0.34 A 0.37 A 0.34 A 0.37 A 0.35 A 0.37 A 6. Brighton Street/Garvey Avenue 0.49 A 0.50 A 0.54 A 0.52 A 0.50 A 0.52 A 0.55 A 0.54 A 7. Kelburn Avenue /Garvey Avenue 0.54 A 0.56 A 0.55 A 0.57 A 0.55 A 0.58 A 0.55 A 0.59 A Page 72 City of Rosemead Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey — Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review 12 -05 2015 Project Traffic Figure 20 shows that the roadways serving the project are estimated to operate below their design capacity based on 24 -hour volumes for year 2015 with the project, except for Del Mar Avenue south of Garvey Avenue. While the assumed capacity for this roadway segment is considered low, Table 6 confirms the Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS during peak hours based on the ICU analysis. Therefore, project traffic is not anticipated to have any operational deficiencies to any area roadways. Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis A traffic signal warrant analysis based on peak hour volumes was performed for the non - signalized study area intersection of Garvey Avenue at Brighton Street and the project driveways for year 2015 with project condition. The traffic signal warrants were not satisfied for all conditions and no new traffic signals are required by the project. The project traffic will not cause any of the studied intersections to exceed an unacceptable level of service or exceed their existing level of service. All area roadways will continue to operate within their design capacity. The project traffic will have less- than - significant traffic impacts. b) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.15 "a)" above, the project is estimated to generate 1,973 daily vehicle trips. Seven area intersections were studied to determine if the project would impact any intersections. The traffic report utilized 2015 as the traffic analysis baseline based on the date the project will be completed. The 2015 baseline traffic volumes were developed by factoring the existing 2013 traffic volumes with an ambient growth rate of 2% and add traffic from two cumulative development projects. The 2% growth rate reflects increased traffic volumes with normal growth and the proposed Garvey 168 Plaza and Garvey Market Plaza projects, which are located to along Garvey Avenue at Willard Street and near New Avenue. The 2015 cumulative traffic volumes were used to determine the potential project traffic impact to the area transportation system. The 2015 traffic volumes shown previously in Figures 17 and 18 take into the account the 2% estimated growth in area traffic and traffic from the two identified cumulative projects. As discussed in Section 3.15 "a" above, the project will not have any significant cumulative traffic impacts. All area intersections will continue to operate at City acceptable levels of service with the project and the cumulative projects. The project will not cause any roadways or intersections to exceed, either individually or cumulatively, their current level of service. As a result, the project will have less -than- significant cumulative traffic impacts to any area intersections that will serve the project. c) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no bus turnouts on Del Mar Avenue, Garvey Avenue or Brighton Street. The project will not remove or eliminate any existing public or private bicycle racks. The project proposes to construct a new bus shelter with benches on Garvey Avenue near Del Mar Avenue adjacent to the project. The proposed bus shelter will serve the project as well as the existing surrounding development and encourage residents, retail employees, and customers to use public transportation to travel to and from the project. The project proposes 21 bicycle stalls as required by the RCMUDO zone overlay. The bicycle stalls are located on both of the subterranean parking levels with 10 bicycle Page 73 = Phil Martin &Associates, Inc. GARVEY DEL MAR PLAZA Source: VA Consulting, Inc. Figure 20 Baseline 2015 With Project Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes and Volume to Capacity Ratios City of Rosemead 10 HELLMAN AVE 26,651 (0.89) EMERSON PL 24,361 2 a ( 0.81) 27,335 F F5 27971 Z (0.68) m (0.70) GARVEY AVE 4 3 6 � 17,616 4 (101) m Y U < C7 g J (n W O Z 17,146 HIGHCLIFF ST 5 (0.98) a z m J W Y LEGEND 27,335 _ WEEKDAY 24 HOUR TWO -WAY LINK VOLUME N- (0.68) - VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (V /C) A Source: VA Consulting, Inc. Figure 20 Baseline 2015 With Project Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes and Volume to Capacity Ratios City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review stalls on the first subterranean level (B -1) and 11 bicycle stalls on the lower parking level (B- 2). The project will have a positive impact by constructing a new bus stop and shelter to encourage the use of alternative transportation by project residents, on -site employees, and customers and providing 21 bicycle stalls for use by the project residents and on -site commercial uses. The following measure is recommended to reduce potential public transportation (bus stop) impacts to less- than - significant. Mitigation Measure No. 14 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install a new bus stop and shelter on Garvey Avenue at a location determined by the City and 21 bicycle stalls, with 10 bicycle stalls on the first subterranean level (B- 1) and 11 bicycle stalls on the lower parking level (B -2). The project will not have any significant conflicts or impacts with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation, but rather a positive impact by constructing a new bus shelter and bench on Garvey Avenue and the 21 bicycle stalls. d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project will be served by the existing adjacent streets and intersections without any changes or modifications. The project does not propose to change or modify any curves or other existing features to the adjacent streets that would create a traffic hazard. The project proposes three levels of subterranean parking. Access to the subterranean parking for the retail /commercial uses is provided by driveways at Del Mar Avenue and Brighton Street. The driveway at Del Mar Avenue provides ingress /egress to the ground and second level (B -1) of parking. Access to level B -1 from the ground level is provided by an internal ramp. There are two separate driveways to the subterranean parking from Brighton Street. The southern Brighton Street driveway provides parking for the retail /commercial uses while the north driveway provides direct access to parking for the residential units. The Brighton Street driveway provides direct access to parking level B -2 with access to the ground floor parking by way of the internal ramp. The north driveway provides direct access to parking level B -2 for the project residents. There is no internal access to the other levels of parking from parking level B -2. The proximity of the project driveway at Del Mar Avenue to the Del Mar Avenue at Garvey Avenue intersection was studied to ensure that project traffic existing southbound from the site will not impact the existing southbound left -turn pocket. The southbound left -turn storage length on Del Mar Avenue at Garvey Avenue is 200 feet in length and the existing left -turn queuing may exceed this length during PM peak hour conditions. Future conditions with the proposed project traffic, left -turn volumes are anticipated to increase and the existing southbound left -turn pocket storage length may be exceed during both the AM and PM peak hours. The left -turn project traffic volumes at this driveway are forecast to be low, 10 vehicles in and 13 vehicles out during the PM (highest) peak hour. While the left -turn PM peak hour volumes are estimated to be low, an increase in left -turn volumes greater than estimated could impact the existing southbound left- turning vehicles at this intersection. If the existing southbound left -turn pocket is impacted in the future by the project, left -turns from the Del Mar Avenue project driveway could be restricted. The following measure is recommended to reduce potential southbound left -turns at the Del Mar Avenue project driveway to less- than - significant. Page 75 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review Mitigation Measure No. 15 Within six months after 75% of the retail /commercial space is occupied, the project developer shall provide weekday PM peak hour left turn traffic volumes on Del Mar Avenue to the City's Traffic Consultant to confirm that project left -turns do not cause congestion with the existing southbound left -turns at Garvey Avenue. If determined by the City's Traffic Consultant that project left -turns onto Del Mar Avenue during the PM peak hour cause congestion, left -turns at the Del Mar Avenue driveway shall be restricted. All project driveways must meet City driveway standards for adequate site access. The following mitigation measure will ensure the project driveways meet City driveway standards and reduce traffic hazard impacts to less- than - significant. Mitigation Measure No. 16 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall design the two project driveways in compliance with City driveway standards for site access. On -Site Circulation The height of the driveway entries at Del Mar Avenue and Brighton Street restrict the height of vehicles that can safely access the subterranean parking structure, including delivery vehicles for the retail /commercial uses. Because of the restricted driveway heights, the following measures are recommended to reduce potential impacts associated with delivery vehicles to less- than - significant. Mitigation Measure No. 17 All delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering and exiting the site from Brighton Street shall have a maximum height of 8'6 ". Delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering the site from Del Mar Avenue shall have a maximum height of 10'. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering the site from Del Mar Avenue shall be restricted to the first level — no internal access to level B -1. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) that are 8'6" or less can access the site from either Del Mar Avenue or Brighton Avenue and access internally both the first level and level B -1. To ensure that retail /commercial deliveries do not impact the parking spaces that are designed for customers and employees, the following measure is recommended to reduce delivery vehicle loading area impacts to less- than - significant. Mitigation Measure No. 18 All delivery vehicles (no trucks) shall park in the designated Loading areas located within the commercial parking areas. e) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in 3.15 "d" above, the project proposes three separate ingress /egress driveways to the two subterranean parking levels for emergency vehicle access. The proposed driveways will provide adequate ingress and egress for the police and fire departments and other emergency equipment to enter the site in case of an emergency. The proposed driveways at Del Mar Avenue and Brighton Street will be required to meet City building standards prior to the issuance of a building permit. The project does not pose any unique conditions that raise concerns for emergency access, such as narrow, winding roads or dead -end streets. The site plan was reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic Consultant and the Los Angeles County Fire Department to Page 76 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13-02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review ensure that site access complies with all emergency access standards. Based on site plan review by the City's Traffic Consultant and Los Angeles County Fire Department, the project will not have any significant emergency access impacts. f) No Impact. The project proposes 211 parking spaces (205 standard parking and 6 handicap), which exceeds Rosemead Municipal Code parking requirements by six spaces. The project also proposes a total of 21 bicycle stalls for the two subterranean parking levels to encourage the use of bicycles by project residents and the commercial uses. As required by RMC 17.74.050 B.3., the proposed 21 bicycle stalls represent 10% of the total project parking spaces. The project meets the parking requirements of the Rosemead Municipal Code. The project will not have any parking impacts. Page 77 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.16 Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional ❑ ❑ ❑ W ater Q uali ty Co ntrol Board? - -..�_ _ .................... _...._. ............ b) _ _ - -- - .._..__... ---- .._..__._....— -- Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ..... ............................................... --- .... ........... ....................................................................... ............................ ............... ..... _ ..... - - - -- ..... .— - _—._.......... c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ construction of which could cause ..... ... . .. .... significant environmental effects? ...... .................. ............ ........--- ................. ---- ........... _ ............................................. ---- ............ ............. _. ......... ..................._ - - - -- d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ entitlements and resources, or are new ........................................ or expa nded entitlements needed? . .................... .......... _.. -- - - -- -- 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 ............................................................................................................._..........-l-...................................................................................................._....................................... the provider's existing commitments? ...................._.......... - _.._.. --------- .................. ----- ............... - .... ..._..... f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid ❑ ❑ ❑ waste? Page 77 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review 3.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) No Impact. The project will not exceed any wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project will be required to connect to the same public wastewater treatment system that currently serves the site and will not generate a quantity or quality of wastewater that will impact the wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project will not impact wastewater treatment requirements. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will consume more water and generate more wastewater than the existing uses on the site. The project is estimated to consume approximately 14,577 gallons of water per day and 10,604 gallons of wastewater per day as shown in Tables 19 and 20, respectively. The project water and wastewater needs can be accommodated by the existing facilities and construction of new or expanded water or wastewater facilities will not be required. The project will be required to install State mandated low flow water fixtures to minimize water consumption and wastewater generation. The project will not require the construction of any sewer or water lines and have any significantly environmental impacts. Table 19 Estimated Project Water Consumption Use Units /Sq. Ft. Consumption Rate Consumption Residential 60 units 160 gallons /day /unit 9,600 gallons /day Retail 15,553 sq. ft. 320 gallons /day /1,000 sq. ft. 4,977 gallons /day Total 14,577 gallons /day Table 20 Estimated Project Wastewater Generation Residential 60 units 156 gallons /day /unit 9,360 gallons /day Retail 15,553 sq. ft. 320 gallons /day /1,000 sq. ft. 1,244 gallons /day Total 10,604 gallons /day c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.8 "a ", the project will not generate more storm water runoff than the existing storm drain facilities can handle. The project will not be required to construct any new off -site storm drain or surface water collection facilities. The first 3 / of an inch of rainfall of any rainfall event will be retained and discharged into an on -site dry well proposed in the northeast corner in the lower level of the subterranean parking structure. A dry well approximately 30- inches in diameter and 40 feet deep will collect and allow most of the project surface water to percolate into the local soil. A sump pump will pump any runoff overflow from the dry well into the local storm drain system in Brighton Street. The project includes a storm water collection system that will control the project surface water to no greater quantity than is currently generated from the site. The calculated increase of 436 cubic feet of surface water by the project will be retained on -site and metered to the dry well system for on -site percolation. The project will 27 City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering. 28 County of Los Angeles Sanitation District No. 15, Service Charge Loadings, July 1, 2014 -June 30, 2014. Page 78 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13-02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review not require the construction of any storm water facilities that will have significant environmental impacts. The incorporation of Mitigation Measure No. 7 will ensure that project generated surface water does not impact existing storm drain facilities. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Water will be consumed by the retail stores, project residents and to irrigation the landscaping. The installation of State required low flow water fixtures in the retail stores and residences will reduce the quantity of water that is consumed on -site. The project will not have a significant impact on the local water supply or require new or expanded water supplies. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate more wastewater to the local sewer collection system than the current on -site uses. The project site is served by an 8- inch sewer line in Garvey Avenue and this sewer line will continue to serve the proposed project. The project will be required to install State mandated low -flow water fixtures to minimize water consumption and wastewater generation. The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County has capacity to collect and treat the wastewater generated by the project without the need to install large sewer lines or expand the capacity of the existing wastewater treatment plant. The project is not anticipated to significantly impact the capacity of the local wastewater treatment plant with the implementation of the following mitigation measure to reduce wastewater impacts to less- than - significant. Mitigation Measure No. 19 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install all State mandated low -flow water fixtures. fJ Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate more solid waste from the site than the current uses. The solid waste from the project will be hauled to the Puente Hills Landfill. Solid waste collection will be required to conform to RMC 17.74.050 B.7 in terms of collection hours, trash enclosures, screening, etc. The project is not anticipated to have any significant solid waste impacts. No Impact. The project will comply with all applicable solid waste regulations and have no solid waste regulation impact. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ❑ animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? u ■❑ �/ Page 79 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a El E project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ....._.__ ....... .. - ............. ... _.. ...................... ........ .......................... c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial ❑ El adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 3.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.4, the project will not have any impacts to special status species, stream habitat, and wildlife dispersal and migration because no rare or endangered plant or animals exist on the site. The project will not affect the local, regional, or national populations or ranges of any plant or animal species and will not threaten any plant communities because no native plants or animals exist on the property. As discussed in Section 3.5, the project will not eliminate any examples of California history or prehistory or substantially impact historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources since none of these resources either exist or are suspected to exist on the site. The project will not have any biological or cultural resource impacts. b) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no aspects of the project that have the potential to contribute to cumulative hydrology (surface water runoff), water quality, air quality, noise, traffic, public service or public utility impacts due to the small scale of the project. The project will not have any cumulative considerable impacts. c) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no aspects of the project that will cause or expose people to environmental effects. The development of the project as proposed will not cause or have the potential to cause any adverse effects either directly or indirectly on human beings. Page 80 City of Rosemead Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey /Del Mar Plaza - General Plan Amendment 13 -02, Zone Change 13 -02, Tentative Tract Map No. 72529, Design Review 4.0 REFERENCES 1. City of Rosemead General Plan, April 13, 2012 2. City of Rosemead Municipal Code 3. Giroux & Associates, Air Quality and GHG Impact Analysis, Garvey Del Mar Project, City of Rosemead, California, October 30, 2013. 4. Giroux & Associates, Noise Impact Analysis, Garvey Del Mar Project, City of Rosemead, California, November 6, 2013. 5. OMB Electrical Engineers — Outdoor Lighting Study — Garvey Del Mar Project, October 15, 2013. 6. VA Consulting, Garvey Del Mar Project Traffic Study, City of Rosemead, California, January 2014. 7. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 7801 and 7825 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead California, Smith -Emery GeoServices, June 6, 2007. 8. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 7801 and 7825 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead California, Smith -Emery GeoServices, August 9, 2007. 9. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 7801 and 7825 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead California, Smith -Emery GeoServices, February 20, 2014. Page 81