The URL can be used to link to this page

CC - Item 4B - Design Review 14-03 at 8408 Garvey Avenue E 0.4 ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CIVIC PRIDE ORf'ORATED 9g TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER �! DATE: JUNE 9, 2015 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 14-03 8408 GARVEY AVENUE Summary Garvey Garden Plaza, LLC has submitted a Design Review application requesting to develop a new residential/commercial mixed use development totaling 11,860 of retail/office space on the first floor and 46 apartments on the second through fourth floors. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and one level of subterranean basement parking. Access to the proposed project will be provided by two driveways from Delta Avenue that extends along the west project boundary. The project 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 southeast corner of Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue in the C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) zone. This item was presented to the Planning Commission for consideration on May 18, 2015. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission removed condition of approval number 47, since the project does not involve a tentative map, and added two conditions of approval. The first condition required a post traffic study. The second condition prohibited restaurant use in the building due to parking restrictions. Once these changes were noted, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-07, recommending that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 2015-29 (Attachment "A"). The Planning Commission Staff Report, PC Resolution No. 15-07, and Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes are attached as Attachments "B", "C", and "D", respectively. Environmental Analysis The City of Rosemead acting as a Lead Agency, has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment "G") for the proposed mixed use project pursuant to Section 15070 (b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Initial study has found that there are less than significant environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed mixed use is implemented. The environmental factors that could be potentially affected by the project include Aesthetics, Air Quality, ITEM NUMBER: LJ City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 2 of 28 Geology/Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Noise, Public Services, and Utilities/Service Systems. However, with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, to which the Applicant has agreed; the less than significant impact will be reduced to a level that is less as determined by the Lead Agency. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was distributed for a 30-day public review and comment period from April 16, 2015 to May 15, 2015. 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 adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Initial Study was undertaken to determine if the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study was prepared and completed by Phil Martin & Associates, Inc., acting as a consultant to the City, 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 less than significant impact, unless mitigated, therefore a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared. 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 considered a project of statewide, regional or area-wide significance and could affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation. 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. 2015-29 with findings, subject to the ninety (90) conditions outlined in Exhibit "A" attached hereto; and 3. The City Council ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration and file the Notice of Determination for the project. Property History and Description The subject property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue. The site totals approximately 49,484 square feet and is currently developed with three (3) commercial buildings, four (4) residential buildings, and a parking lot. A covenant and agreement was recorded by the property owner on February 16, 2011, which held the six (6) parcels as one (1) parcel and restricts the owner from selling, transferring, or in any way severing any portion of the properties independently from the remaining portions of the property. City Council Meeting June 9. 2015 Page 3of28 Iy Northwest View Project Description The project consists of the demolition of all existing structures to construct a four-story, mixed use development with 11,860 square feet of retail/office space on the first floor and 46 residential units on the second through fourth floors, comprising 51,930 square feet, for a total built area of 63,790 square feet. Of the 46 units, the project proposes seven (7) low-income apartment units. An outdoor seating area and central garden for residents is proposed on the second floor. New landscaping will be provided within the building setbacks around the perimeter of the site and throughout the open space areas. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and one level of subterranean basement parking. The project requests (Attachment "E"), and City Staff recommends, a density bonus under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, which amended the state law to allow density bonuses up to 35 percent. In accordance with SB 1818, the Applicant would be required to provide affordable residential units in order to qualify for this density bonus. Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.84.010 requires the City Council approval for projects requesting density bonuses, concessions, and/or incentives, subject to the provisions of Section 17.84.130. For this reason, the applicant has submitted a Proforma and Affordable Housing Agreement attached as Attachment "F". Under the existing zoning, the project site can accommodate a maximum residential density of 34 units. Therefore, the construction of 46 units would exceed the permitted residential density by approximately 35 percent. The Applicant has chosen to provide seven (7) low-income apartment units, which satisfies the State law requirements. The project is requesting two (2) concessions to allow the development as proposed. The first concession will allow four (4) stories at forty-five (45) feet, rather than the three (3) stories at forty-five (45) feet. The second concession will allow the building residential/commercial ratio to consist of 81.4 percent residential and 18.6 percent commercial, rather than the sixty-seven (67) residential and 33 commercial split under the zoning. City Council Meeting June 9,2015 Page 4 of 28 Site & Surrounding Land Uses The project site is designated in the General Plan as Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac) and on the Zoning Map it is designated C-3 MUDO- D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) zone. The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North General Plan: Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac) Zoning: C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) Land Use: Commercial South General Plan: Medium Density Residential Zoning: R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) Land Use: Residential East General Plan: Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac) Zoning: C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) Land Use: Commercial West General Plan: Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac) Zoning: C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) Land Use: Commercial Development Standards The developer has incorporated the Residential/Commercial Mixed use Development Overlay Zone standards for the proposed mixed use project. The Residential/Commercial Mixed use Development Overlay Zone allows the Planning Commission to grant approval of a well-designed development project that combine residential with nonresidential uses, however, since this project is requesting density bonuses, concessions, and/or incentives, the City Council must approve the project. Development Required Proposed Feature Lot Size 30,000 s.f. 49,484 s.f. Floor Area Ratio 1.6:1 (max allowed) 1.29:1 (FAR) • 12'-0'with 7'-0"wide sidewalk 12'-0'with 7'-0"wide sidewalk(clear zone)and 5-0° Public Sidewalk wide parkway(amenity zone) (clear zone)and 5-0"wide parkway(amenity zone) Front Setback Zero Zero(0)feet Interior Lot Line May be zero(0) but shall be a minimum of ten (10)feet Zero(0)feet Setback if more than zero(0). City Council Meeting June 9,2015 Page 5 of 28 Side Street None Zero (0)feet Setback Rear Abutting Residential 10'-0" 55'-6" Setback Three-stories with a maximum height of forty-five(45) Four stories and Height feet forty-five(45)feet `Requesting concession Establishing a height of fifteen (15)feet above the Requirement met. Please see finished grade of adjacent residential property line and illustration on Elevation Plans in Variable Height located twenty-five (25)feet from the rear property line, Attachment"J"on pages A-3.1 and a sixty(60)degree incline plane is projected that establishes the height limitation. A-3.2. Two(2) parking spaces per dwelling plus one(1)guest 98 parking spaces Parking parking space per two(2)dwelling units *Density bonus allows deviation of (Residential) Total Required: 115 parking spaces required parking spaces to 92 parking spaces Parking Retail and Office: One(1) parking space per two (Commercial) hundred fifty(250)square feet of floor space 48 parking spaces Total Required:47.4 parking spaces Bicycle Parking Ten (10) percent(%)of required off-street parking. 14 bicycle parking spaces (13.84= 14 bicycle parking spaces) Open Space Common Open Space: 150 s.f./dwelling unit(6,900 s.f.) Common Open Space: 9,560 s.f. Private Open Space: 60 s.f/dwelling unit(2,760 s.f.) Private Open Space: 5,857 s.f. Building 81.4% Residential and 18.6% Commercial/ 67% Residential and 33% Commercial Commercial Residential Ratio *Requesting concession Proposed Floor Plans Commercial The floor plans submitted with this application show ten (10) tenant suites, totaling approximately 11,860 square feet that will be utilized for retail and office uses. The project is designed with sufficient on-site parking to accommodate the commercial use, as shown in the table on page four and on the development plan. Residential A total of 46 apartment units are proposed within this development. The manager unit is located on the first floor and all other units will be located on the second through fourth floors of the building. The second floor includes 14 apartment units with a recreation room, the third floor includes 15 apartment units, and the fourth floor includes 16 apartment units. The unit floor plans submitted show two-unit types (Unit A and B), from two-bedroom units to three-bedroom units, ranging in size from 950 square feet to 1,250 square feet of living area. Each unit contains a living room, dining room, kitchen, bedroom(s), bathroom(s), closet(s), storage, washer and dryer, and private open space. City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 6 of 28 Proposed Landscaping and Fencing: A conceptual landscape plan has been attached as "Exhibit J." 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 garden provides added landscaping. 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 south, east, and some areas of the west property lines. Parking and Circulation Access to the site would be provided from two (2) driveways along Delta Avenue. The Applicant is proposing surface and one level subterranean basement parking. A total of 146 parking spaces would be provided, which includes 48 spaces for commercial and office parking and 98 spaces for residential parking. Through the request of density bonus under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, the applicant is requesting a reduction in residential parking from 115 parking spaces to 98 parking spaces. 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 will also include 14 bicycle parking spaces. Traffic A traffic impact study prepared by VA Consulting, dated February 2015, was completed for the project. The Study analyzes trip generation and level of service impacts upon ten (10) nearby intersections. The intersections studied are as follows: 1. San Gabriel at 1-10 Westbound Ramps (stop controlled); 2. San Gabriel Boulevard at 1-10 Eastbound Ramps (stop controlled); 3. San Gabriel Boulevard at Hellman Avenue (signalized); 4. San Gabriel Boulevard at Garvey Avenue (signalized); 5. Delta Avenue at Garvey Avenue (signalized); 6. Walnut Grove Avenue at 1-10 Westbound Ramps (stop controlled); 7. Walnut Grove Avenue at Hellman Avenue (signalized); 8. 1-10 Eastbound off-ramp at Hellman Avenue (signalized); 9. Walnut Grove Avenue at Garvey Avenue (signalized); and 10.Walnut Grove Avenue at Fern Avenue (signalized). Based on the traffic study, 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 City Council Meeting June 9. 2015 Page 7 of 28 project will have less-than signification traffic impacts. The City's Traffic Consultant has reviewed the traffic study and finds it acceptable, and the study has been relied on in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. At the Planning Commission meeting on May 18, 2015, the Planning Commission had concerns relating to post traffic once the project is completed. For this reason, the Planning Commission added a condition of approval which requires a post traffic study (Condition of Approval Number 30). 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 flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines. The front façade has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted through the use of a plaza corner element at the northwest corner of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as landscaping throughout the development site, metal trellises on the top floor, wrought iron balconies, contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer to highlight the commercial entrances on the north and west side 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. • Select lighting fixtures with more-precise optical control and/or different lighting distribution. • Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures. • Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures. • Select lower-output lamp/lamp technologies • A combination of the above." City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 8 of 28 Soils Report The California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey has identified the project site as one subject to potential liquefaction. Liquefaction is the sudden failure and fracturing of saturated ground resulting from an earthquake, which can cause structural failure of buildings, roadways, bridges, etc. Structures presently on the site, as well as any future structures, are subject to the consequences liquefaction. The City's independent geotechnical and engineering geology consultants have reviewed the revised report and have deemed it acceptable as presented on 2011. The report is relied on by the Mitigated Negative Declaration and mitigation measures have been required to address its concerns. Agency Review Comments Comments were received from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) during the 30-day public review and comment period. Caltrans had concerns relating to the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) not including a complete cumulative analysis of projects within the area, specifically, the proposed Hampton Inn & Suites Hotel project and the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan in the City (attached as Exhibit "G"). The Environmental Consultant for this project, Phil Martin & Associates has reviewed Caltrans comment letter and has determined that the Hampton Inn & Suites Hotel project is a pre- application and a formal entitlement has not been submitted for this project. In addition, the project location is too removed from the Garvey Garden Plaza project to generate traffic that could have cumulative impacts. Phil Martin & Associates has also determined that the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan project was filed after we started the preparation of the MND for the Garvey Garden Plaza project. Thus, it is not a requirement to include the project in the cumulative analysis. Furthermore, the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan EIR will include the Garvey Garden Plaza project in its cumulative traffic analysis so the cumulative traffic analysis of the two projects will be adequately analyzed. The LACFD comments were related to the project and those comments have been incorporated into the conditions of approval (attached as Exhibit «H„ Municipal Code Requirements Section 17.28.020(A)(1) 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 façade or landscaping. Section 17.28.020(C) provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove an 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 City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 9 of 28 the City. The Applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic quality, which in Staff's determination will improve the aesthetics of that intersection 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 buildings 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 corner by establishing a mixed use development of high architectural quality. The improvements to the site will provide a marked improvement over the existing appearance of the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Delta Avenue. The architectural style of the building is modern, characterized by multi-story street-facing facades, tall, narrow and arched windows with painted foam-stucco trims, and flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines. The front façade has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the City Council Meeting June 9,2015 Page 10 of 28 building is highlighted through the use of a plaza corner element at the northwest corner of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as landscaping throughout the development site, metal trellises on the top floor, wrought iron balconies, contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer to highlight the commercial entrances on the north and west side 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. 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 façade with higher quality materials, a design that blends better with the area, and greatly improved landscaping and parking lot area. 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 façade 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 This 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, luminaires 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. City Council Meeting June 9,2015 Page 11 of 28 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 flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines. The front façade has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted through the use of a plaza corner element at the northwest corner of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as landscaping throughout the development site, metal trellises on the top floor, wrought iron balconies, contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer to highlight the commercial entrances on the north and west side 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. Access to the site would be provided from two (2) driveways along Delta Avenue. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and one level of subterranean basement parking. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS On May 28, 2015, thirty-six (36) 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. Pr are• : Submitted by: .44- �. Lily T. Valenzuela Michelle Ramirez Associate Planner Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 2015-29 with Exhibit"A" (Conditions of Approval) B. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 18, 2015 C. Planning Commission Resolution 15-07 D. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated May 18, 2015 E. Letter of Request for Density Bonus F. Proforma and Affordable Housing Agreement G. Caltrans Comment Letter H. Los Angeles County Fire Department Comment Letter Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program J. Architectural Plans City Council Meeting June 9. 2015 Page 12 of 28 ATTACHMENT "A" RESOLUTION 2015-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 14-03 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT TOTALING 11,860 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL/OFFICE SPACE AND 46 APARTMENTS. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A DENSITY BONUS APPLICATION. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8408 GARVEY AVENUE IN THE C-3 MUDO-D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A MIXED USE AND DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE (APN: 5283-005-028). WHEREAS, on January 30, 2014, Garvey Garden Plaza, LLC submitted a Design Review for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed use development, located at 8408 Garvey Avenue; and WHEREAS, 8408 Garvey Avenue is located in the C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with Mixed Use and Design Overlay) zone; and WHEREAS, Section 17.28.020(A)(1) & Section 17.28.020(C) 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 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the City Council to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove design review applications; and WHEREAS, Section 17.84.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the City Council to approve projects requesting density bonuses, concessions, and/or incentives; and WHEREAS, on April 16, 2015, an Initial Environmental Study for the proposed Design Review 14-03 was completed finding that the proposed project would have a less than 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 May 18, 2015, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Design Review 14-03 to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2015, thirty-six (36) 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, published in the Rosemead Reader, and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk, specifying the availability of the application, plus the City Council Meeting June 9. 2015 Page 13 of 28 date, time, and location of the special public hearing for Design Review 14-03, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on June 9, 2015, the City Council held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Design Review 14-03; and WHEREAS, the City Council fully studied the proposed Design Review 14-03, 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 14-03 in accordance with Sections 17.28.020(C) and 17.84.010 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 quality, which in Staff's determination will improve the aesthetics of that intersection 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; City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 14 of 28 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 buildings 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 corner by establishing a mixed use development of high architectural quality. The improvements to the site will provide a marked improvement over the existing appearance of the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Delta Avenue. The architectural style of the building is modern, characterized by multi-story street-facing facades, tall, narrow and arched windows with painted foam-stucco trims, and flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines. The front façade has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted through the use of a plaza corner element at the northwest corner of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as landscaping throughout the development site, metal trellises on the top floor, wrought iron balconies, contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer to highlight the commercial entrances on the north and west side 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. 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 façade with higher quality materials, a design that blends better with the area, and greatly improved landscaping and parking lot area. 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; City Council Meeting June 9,2015 Page 15 of 28 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 facade 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: This 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, luminaires 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 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 flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines. The front facade has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted through the use of a plaza corner element at the northwest corner of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as landscaping throughout the development site, metal trellises on the top floor, wrought iron balconies, contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer to highlight the commercial entrances on the north and west side 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. Access to the site would be provided from two (2) driveways along Delta Avenue. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and one level of subterranean basement parking. SECTION 2. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES Design Review 14-03 for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed use development, subject to City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 16 of 28 the Conditions of Approval attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The project includes a density bonus application. SECTION 3. The Mayor shall sign this resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the adoption thereof. PASSED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles of the State of California on June 9, 2015. Margaret Clark, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria Molleda, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Rachel H. Richman, City Attorney Burke, Williams, & Sorensen, LLP City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 17 of 28 EXHIBIT "A" (CC Resolution 2015-29) DESIGN REVIEW 14-03 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL June 9, 2015 1. Design Review 14-03 is approved for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed use development, in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit "E", dated April 21, 2015. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division. 2. Approval of Design Review 14-03 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 within ten (10) day from the approval date of Design Review 14-03. 4. Design Review 14-03 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 14-03 has 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 14-03 is 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 City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 18 of 28 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 14-03. 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. 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. City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 19 of 28 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 seven (7) affordable apartment 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 needs of City residents before nonresidents and to provide affordable housing, the Applicant shall give existing qualified City of Rosemead residents priority in City Council Meeting June 9. 2015 Page 20 of 28 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. The developer shall make all efforts within the first six (6) months of the leasing period to incorporate national or regional tenants into the commercial leasing spaces. 28. The exterior walls of First Floor shall consist of anti-graffiti coating. 29. 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. 30. A post traffic study shall be submitted to the Planning Division within six (6) months from the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The post traffic study shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and City's Traffic Consultant at the expense of the applicant (Added by the Planning Commission on May 18, 2015). City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 21 of 28 31. No portion of any building shall be converted to a restaurant or fast food use of any kind due to parking restrictions (Added by the Planning Commission on May 18, 2015). 32. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. Mitigation Measure Conditions Aesthetics 33. 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. • Select lighting fixtures with more-precise optical control and/or different lighting distribution. • Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures. • Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures. • Select lower-output lamp/lamp technologies • A combination of the above. Air Quality 34. 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 35. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project shall be designed for a peak acceleration value of 0.79g as recommended in the geotechnical engineering investigation and approved by the City Engineer. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 36. 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 City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 22 of 28 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 37. 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 to reduce erosion and minimize water quality impacts during grading and construction shall be installed and maintained during construction to control water quality impacts. 38. 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. 39. 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 planter box along the southern project boundary with capacity to filter the first 3/4 inch of project generated storm water prior to its discharge into Delta Avenue. Noise 40. 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. o 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. o Haul truck and other construction-related trucks traveling to and from the City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 23 of 28 project site shall be restricted to the same hours specified for the operation of construction equipment. o To the extent feasible, construction haul routes shall not pass directly by sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. 41. 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 have a transparent glass or plastic shield to create outdoor space that achieves the 65 dB CNEL or less. 42. Small bulldozers only shall be permitted to operate within 56 feet of the nearest adjacent residential structures. Public Services 43. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall pay any required student impact fee to the Garvey Unified School District. 44. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall pay any required park fee to the City of Rosemead. Transportation/Traffic 45. 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 and site distance. 46. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering the site from Delta Avenue shall have a maximum height of 8'6". 47. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) shall park in the designated Loading areas located within the commercial parking areas. Utilities and Service Systems 48. 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 49. A Topographic survey indicating the proposed tentative tract map should be submitted for approval. This should indicated right of way dimensions, existing City Council Meeting June 9,2015 Page 24 of 28 sidewalk dimensions, street dimensions, street cross sections at Garvey Avenue and Delta Avenue, utilities, etc. 50. No Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained if the improvements are not installed. Otherwise, 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. 51. The City reserves the right to impose any new plan check and/or permit fees. 52. A dedication to the City of Rosemead shall be required to widen the public right of way along the entire frontage of Delta Avenue, as well as at the radius cut- off at the South East Corner of Delta avenue and Garvey Avenue. The applicant shall engage a licensed land surveyor (or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying) to prepare the legal descriptions and documents required for the proposed right of way dedication, all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Land Surveyor, and shall pay all costs for plan checking, etc. 53. The catch basins fronting the proposed project shall be modified, to provide automatic retractable screens to screen storm water from trash, etc. to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All new on-site storm drainage systems shall be designed to retain the first 3/4 inches of storm water runoff and to prevent cross lot drainage and comply with all storm water regulations. 54. Prior to performing any grading, obtain a permit from the Engineering Department. 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. 55. A grading and drainage plan must provide an independent drainage system to the public street, to a public drainage facility, or by means of an approved drainage easement. 56. 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. 57. 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. City Council Meeting June 9. 2015 Page 25 of 28 58. 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. 59. 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. Road 60. 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. 61. All work proposed within the public right-of-way shall require permits from the Public Works Department. 62. Remove and replace existing curb and gutter from property line to property line. 63. Remove and replace sidewalk from property line to property line, minimum seven feet wide. 64. Remove and replace existing curb ramp per ADA compliance. 65. Remove and construct driveway approaches as indicated on the plans. 66. Remove, relocate and construct any driveway approaches conflicting with this development. 67. Construct five (5) feet landscape parkway along Delta Avenue. Install eight (8) 36 inches parkway trees as indicated on the plans. No landscape parkway along Garvey Avenue, only sidewalk and install four (4) 48 inches box parkway tree 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. Sewer 68. Approval of this land division is contingent upon providing a separate house sewer lateral to serve each lot of the land division. City Council Meeting June 9. 2015 Page 26 of 28 69. 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. 70. All existing laterals to be ab=andoned 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 71. All power, telephone and cable television shall be underground. 72. Any utilities that are in conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's expense. 73. Traffic signal improvements at the intersection of Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue will be required (if necessary). 74. Existing street lights are not shown on the proposed project plans, nor are proposed street lights shown. A street lighting plan shall be developed using ornamental lights with underground services as necessary to accommodate the proposed development and to obtain the approval of the City Engineer. The applicant shall bear all costs to provide street lighting, etc., if required. In addition, all utility services to serve the proposed project shall be placed underground. Geotechnical Conditions of Approval 75. The consultant shall be on site during temporary excavation for basement walls and shoring installation. 76. Consultant shall review and approve all shoring system monitoring as recommended in report. 77. An as built geotechnical report should be prepared by the project geotechnical consultant following grading/construction of the subject site improvements. The report should include the results of all field density testing/retaining wall backfill testing, depth of reprocessing and recompaction, depth of overexcavation as well as a map depicting the limits of grading, locations of all density testing, and geologic conditions exposed during grading/excavation. The report should include results of shoring monitoring. City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 27 of 28 Los Angeles County Fire Department Conditions of Approval Land Development Unit: General Requirements 78. The proposed development may necessitate multiple ingress/egress access for the circulation of traffic and emergency response issues. 79. The development of this project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. 80. Specific fire and life safety requirements for the construction phase will be addressed at the building fire plan check. There may be additional fire and life safety requirements during this time. 81. Every building constructed shall be accessible to Fire Department's apparatus way of access roadways with an all-weather surface of not less than the prescribed width. The roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls when measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. 82. When involved with subdivision in a city contracting fire protection with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Fire Department's requirements for access, fire flows, and hydrants are addressed during the subdivision tentative map stage. 83. Fire Department's requirements for access, fire flows, and hydrants are addressed during the building permit stage. 84. Fire sprinkler systems are required in all residential and most commercial occupancies. For those occupancies not requiring fire sprinkler systems, it is strongly suggested that fire sprinkler systems be installed. This will reduce potential fire and life losses. Water Requirements 85. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet and shall meet the following requirements: a. No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access from a public fire hydrant. b. No portion of a building shall exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced public fire hydrant. City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 28 of 28 c. Additional hydrants will be required if hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. d. When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 200 feet on a commercial street, hydrants shall be required at the corner and midblock. e. A cul-de-sac shall not be more than 500 feet in length when serving land zoned for commercial use. 86. The development may require fire flows up to 8,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for up to a four-hour duration. Final fire flows will be based on the size of buildings, its relationship to other structures, property lines, and types of construction used. Access Requirements 87. Turning radius shall not be less than 32 feet. This measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road. A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in-length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs. 88. All on-site driveways/roadways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet, clear-to-sky. The on-site driveway is to be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building when the height of the building above the lowest level of the Fire Department vehicular access road is more than 30 feet high or the building is more than three stories. The access roadway shall be located a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved b y the fire code official. 89. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit's comments are only general requirements. Specific fire and life safety requirements will be addressed at the building and fire plan check phase. There may be additional requirements during this time. 90. The Health Hazardous Materials Division (HHMD) of the Los Angeles County Fire Departmentadvises that the project site should be assessed and/or mitigated under environmental oversight of an authorized government agency and obtain a clearance letter and/or a "No Further Action" (closure) letter prior to the City's issuance of a grading permit. E M f ° 5 4 ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CIVIC PRIDE At0.0RATE0 1859 TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: MAY 18, 2015 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 14-03 8408 GARVEY AVENUE Summary Garvey Garden Plaza, LLC has submitted a Design Review application requesting to develop a new residential/commercial mixed use development totaling 11,860 of retail/office space on the first floor and 46 apartments on the second through fourth floors. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and one level of subterranean basement parking. Access to the proposed project will be provided by two driveways from Delta Avenue that extends along the west project boundary. The project 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 southeast corner of Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue in the C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) zone. 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 found that there are less than significant environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed mixed use is implemented. The environmental factors that could be potentially affected by the project include Aesthetics, Air Quality, Geology/Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Noise, Public Services, and Utilities/Service Systems. However, with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, to which the Applicant has agreed; the less than significant impact will be reduced to a level that is less as determined by the Lead Agency. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was distributed for a 30-day public review and comment period from April 16, 2015 to May 15, 2015. 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 ATTACHMENT "B" Planning Commission Meeting May 18,2015 Page 2 of 42 for approval, the Commission must make a finding of adequacy with the environmental assessment and also recommend that the City Council adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Initial Study was undertaken to determine if the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study was prepared and completed by Phil Martin & Associates, Inc., acting as a consultant to the City, 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 less than significant impact, unless mitigated, therefore a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared. 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 considered a project of statewide, regional or area-wide significance and could affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation. Staff Recommendation Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 15-07 with findings (Exhibit "A"), which is a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 2015-29 (attached as Exhibit "B") approving Design Review 14-03 and recommending adoption of the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit "H"). Property History and Description The subject property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue. The site totals approximately 49,484 square feet and is currently developed with three (3) commercial buildings, four (4) residential buildings, and a parking lot. A covenant and agreement was recorded by the property owner on February 16, 2011, which held the six (6) parcels as one (1) parcel and restricts the owner from selling, transferring, or in any way severing any portion of the properties independently from the remaining portions of the property. — — a r.. Northwest View Planning Commission Meeting May 18,2015 Page 3 of 42 Project Description The project consists of the demolition of all existing structures to construct a four-story, mixed use development with 11,860 square feet of retail/office space on the first floor and 46 residential units on the second through fourth floors, comprising 51,930 square feet, for a total built area of 63,790 square feet. Of the 46 units, the project proposes seven (7) low-income apartment units. An outdoor seating area and central garden for residents is proposed on the second floor. New landscaping will be provided within the building setbacks around the perimeter of the site and throughout the open space areas. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and one level of subterranean basement parking. The project requests, and City Staff recommends, a density bonus under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, which amended the state law to allow density bonuses up to 35 percent. In accordance with SB 1818, the Applicant would be required to provide affordable residential units in order to qualify for this density bonus. Under the existing zoning, the project site can accommodate a maximum residential density of 34 units. Therefore, the construction of 46 units would exceed the permitted residential density by approximately 35 percent. The Applicant has chosen to provide seven (7) low-income apartment units, which satisfies the State law requirements. The project is requesting two (2) concessions to allow the development as proposed. The first concession will allow four (4) stories at forty-five (45) feet, rather than the three (3) stories at forty-five (45) feet. The second concession will allow the building residential/commercial ratio to consist of 81.4 percent residential and 18.6 percent commercial, rather than the sixty- seven (67) residential and 33 commercial split under the zoning. Site & Surrounding Land Uses The project site is designated in the General Plan as Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac) and on the Zoning Map it is designated C-3 MUDO- D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) zone. The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North General Plan: Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac) Zoning: C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) Land Use: Commercial South General Plan: Medium Density Residential Zoning: R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) Land Use: Residential East General Plan: Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac) Zoning: C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) Land Use: Commercial Planning Commission Meeting May 18,2015 Page 4 of 42 West General Plan: Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac) Zoning: C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) Land Use: Commercial Development Standards The developer has incorporated the Residential/Commercial Mixed use Development Overlay Zone standards for the proposed mixed use project. The Residential/Commercial Mixed use Development Overlay Zone allows the Planning Commission to grant approval of a well-designed development project that combine residential with nonresidential uses, however, since this project is requesting density bonuses, concessions, and/or incentives, the City Council must approve the project. Development Required Proposed Feature Lot Size 30,000 s.f. 49,484 s.f. Floor Area Ratio 1.6:1 (max allowed) 1.29:1 (FAR) 12'-0'with 7'-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 parkway(amenity zone) Front Setback Zero Zero(0)feet Interior Lot Line May be zero(0) but shall be a minimum of ten (10)feet Zero(0)feet Setback if more than zero(0). Side Street None Zero(0)feet Setback Rear Abutting Residential 10'-0" 55'-6" Setback Three-stories with a maximum height of forty-five(45) Four stories and Height feet forty-nine(49)feet *Requesting concession Establishing a height of fifteen(15)feet above the Requirement met. Please see finished grade of adjacent residential property line and illustration on Elevation Plans in Variable Height located twenty-five(25)feet from the rear property line, Exhibit"I"on pages A-3.1 and A- a sixty(60)degree incline plane is projected that 3.2. establishes the height limitation. Two(2)parking spaces per dwelling plus one(1)guest 98 parking spaces Parking parking space per two(2)dwelling units *Density bonus allows deviation of (Residential) Total Required: 115 parking spaces required parking spaces to 92 parking spaces Parking Retail and Office: One(1)parking space per two (Commercial) hundred fifty(250)square feet of floor space 48 parking spaces Total Required:47.4 parking spaces Planning Commission Meeting May 18,2015 Page 5 of 42 Bicycle Parking Ten (10) percent(%)of required off-street parking. 14 bicycle parking spaces (13.84= 14 bicycle parking spaces) Open Space Common Open Space: 150 s.f./dwelling unit(6,900 s.f.) Common Open Space:9,560 s.f. Private Open Space: 60 s.f/dwelling unit(2,760 s.f.) Private Open Space: 5,857 s.f. Building 81.4% Residential and 18.6% Commercial/ 67% Residential and 33% Commercial Commercial Residential Ratio *Requesting concession Proposed Floor Plans Commercial The floor plans submitted with this application show eleven (11) tenant suites, totaling approximately 11,860 square feet that will be utilized for retail and office uses. The project is designed with sufficient on-site parking to accommodate the commercial use, as shown in the table on page four and on the development plan. Residential A total of 46 apartment units are proposed within this development. The manager unit is located on the first floor and all other units will be located on the second through fourth floors of the building. The second floor includes 14 apartment units with a recreation room, the third floor includes 15 apartment units, and the fourth floor includes 16 apartment units. The unit floor plans submitted show two-unit types (Unit A and B), from two-bedroom units to three-bedroom units, ranging in size from 950 square feet to 1,250 square feet of living area. Each unit contains a living room, dining room, kitchen, bedroom(s), bathroom(s), closet(s), storage, washer and dryer, and private open space. Proposed Landscaping and Fencing: A conceptual landscape plan has been attached as "Exhibit I." 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 garden provides added landscaping. 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 south, east, and some areas of the west property lines. Parking and Circulation Access to the site would be provided from two (2) driveways along Delta Avenue. The Applicant is proposing surface and one level subterranean basement parking. A total of 146 parking spaces would be provided, which includes 48 spaces for commercial and office parking and 98 spaces for residential parking. Through the request of density bonus under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, the applicant is requesting a reduction in residential parking from 115 parking spaces to 98 parking spaces. The maximum standards for residential parking are: Planning Commission Meeting May 18,2015 Page 6 of 42 • 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 will also include 14 bicycle parking spaces. Traffic A traffic impact study prepared by VA Consulting, dated February 2015, was completed for the project. The Study analyzes trip generation and level of service impacts upon four (4) nearby intersections. The intersections studied are as follows: 1. San Gabriel at 1-10 Westbound Ramps (stop controlled); 2. San Gabriel Boulevard at 1-10 Eastbound Ramps (stop controlled); 3. San Gabriel Boulevard at Hellman Avenue (signalized); 4. San Gabriel Boulevard at Garvey Avenue (signalized); 5. Delta Avenue at Garvey Avenue (signalized); 6. Walnut Grove Avenue at 1-10 Westbound Ramps (stop controlled); 7. Walnut Grove Avenue at Hellman Avenue (signalized); 8. 1-10 Eastbound off-ramp at Hellman Avenue (signalized); 9. Walnut Grove Avenue at Garvey Avenue (signalized); and 10.Walnut Grove Avenue at Fern Avenue (signalized). Based on the traffic study, 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 will have less-than signification traffic impacts. The City's Traffic Consultant has reviewed the traffic study and finds it acceptable, and the study has been relied on in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 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 flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines. The front façade has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted through the use of a plaza corner element at the northwest corner of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as landscaping throughout the development site, metal trellises on the top floor, wrought iron balconies, contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer to highlight the commercial entrances on the north and west side 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. Planning Commission Meeting May 18,2015 Page 7 of 42 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. • Select lighting fixtures with more-precise optical control and/or different lighting distribution. • Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures. • Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures. • Select lower-output lamp/lamp technologies • A combination of the above." Soils Report The California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey has identified the project site as one subject to potential liquefaction. Liquefaction is the sudden failure and fracturing of saturated ground resulting from an earthquake, which can cause structural failure of buildings, roadways, bridges, etc. Structures presently on the site, as well as any future structures, are subject to the consequences liquefaction. The City's independent geotechnical and engineering, geology consultants have reviewed the revised report and have deemed it acceptable as presented on 2011. The report is relied on by the Mitigated Negative Declaration and mitigation measures have been required to address its concerns. Agency Review Comments Comments were received from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) during the 30-day public review and comment period. Caltrans had concerns relating to the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) not including a complete cumulative analysis of projects within the area, specifically, the proposed Hampton Inn & Suites Hotel project and the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan in the City (attached as Exhibit "F"). The Environmental Consultant for this project, Phil Martin & Associates has reviewed Caltrans comment letter and has determined that the Hampton Inn & Suites Hotel project is a pre- application and a formal entitlement has not been submitted for this project. In addition, the project location is too removed from the Garvey Garden Plaza project to generate traffic that could have cumulative impacts. Phil Martin & Associates has also determined that the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan project was filed after we started the preparation of the MND for the Garvey Garden Plaza project. Thus, it is not Planning Commission Meeting May 18,2015 Page 8 of 42 a requirement to include the project in the cumulative analysis. Furthermore, the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan EIR will include the Garvey Garden Plaza project in its cumulative traffic analysis so the cumulative traffic analysis of the two projects will be adequately analyzed. The LACFD comments were related to the project and those comments have been incorporated into the conditions of approval (attached as Exhibit «G„ Municipal Code Requirements Section 17.28.020(A)(1) 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 façade or landscaping. Section 17.28.020(C) provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove an 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 that intersection 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. Planning Commission Meeting May 18,2015 Page 9 of 42 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 buildings 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 corner by establishing a mixed use development of high architectural quality. The improvements to the site will provide a marked improvement over the existing appearance of the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Delta Avenue. The architectural style of the building is modern, characterized by multi-story street-facing facades, tall, narrow and arched windows with painted foam-stucco trims, and flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines. The front façade has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted through the use of a plaza corner element at the northwest corner of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as landscaping throughout the development site, metal trellises on the top floor, wrought iron balconies, contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer to highlight the commercial entrances on the north and west side 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. 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 façade with higher quality materials, a design that blends better with the area, and greatly improved landscaping and parking lot area. 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 May 18,2015 Page 10 of 42 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 façade 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 This 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, luminaires 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 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 flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines. The front façade has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted through the use of a plaza corner element at the northwest corner of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as landscaping throughout the development site, metal trellises on the top floor, wrought iron balconies, contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer to highlight the commercial entrances on the north and west side 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. Access to the site would be provided from two (2) driveways along Delta Avenue. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and one level of subterranean basement parking. Planning Commission Meeting May 18,2015 Page 11 of 42 PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS On April 16, 2015, thirty-six (36) 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, published in the Rosemead Reader, and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk. Prepared by: Submitted by: 1,''►' d Lily T. Valenzuela Michelle Ramirez Associate Planner Community Development Director EXHIBITS: A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-07 B. Draft City Council Resolution No. 2015-29 C. Conditions of Approval D. Letter of Request for Density Bonus E. Assessor's Parcel Map (5283-005-028) F. Caltrans Comment Letter G. Los Angeles County Fire Department Comment Letter H. Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Site Plan/Floor Plan/Elevations PC RESOLUTION 15-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 14-03 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT TOTALING 11,860 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL/OFFICE SPACE AND 46 APARTMENTS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8408 GARVEY AVENUE IN THE C-3 MUDO-D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A MIXED USE AND DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE (APN: 5283-005-028). WHEREAS, on January 30, 2014, Garvey Garden Plaza, LLC submitted a Design Review for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed use development, located at 8408 Garvey Avenue; and WHEREAS, 8408 Garvey Avenue is located in the C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with Mixed Use and Design Overlay) zone; and WHEREAS, Section 17.28.020(A)(1) & Section 17.28.020(C) 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 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove design review applications; and WHEREAS, on April 16, 2015, an Initial Environmental Study for the proposed Design Review 14-03 was completed finding that the proposed project would have a less than 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 April 16, 2015, thirty-six (36) 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, published in the Rosemead Reader, and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time, and location of the special public hearing for Design Review 14-03 pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on May 18, 2015, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Design Review 14-03; and WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. ATTACHMENT "C" 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 14-03. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Design Review 14-03 in accordance with Section 17.28.020(C), 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 quality, which in Staff's determination will improve the aesthetics of that intersection 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. 2 C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings 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 corner by establishing a mixed use development of high architectural quality. The improvements to the site will provide a marked improvement over the existing appearance of the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Delta Avenue. The architectural style of the building is modern, characterized by multi-story street-facing facades, tall, narrow and arched windows with painted foam-stucco trims, and flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines. The front façade has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted through the use of a plaza corner element at the northwest corner of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as landscaping throughout the development site, metal trellises on the top floor, wrought iron balconies, contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer to highlight the commercial entrances on the north and west side 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. 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 façade with higher quality materials, a design that blends better with the area, and greatly improved landscaping and parking lot area. 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 façade 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: This proposed development meets all of the minimum code 3 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, luminaires 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 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 flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines. The front facade has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted through the use of a plaza corner element at the northwest corner of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as landscaping throughout the development site, metal trellises on the top floor, wrought iron balconies, contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer to highlight the commercial entrances on the north and west side 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. Access to the site would be provided from two (2) driveways along Delta Avenue. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and one level of subterranean basement parking. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of Design Review 14-03 for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed use development, subject to the Conditions of Approval. SECTION 4. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on May 18, 2015, by the following vote: YES: ENG, HERRERA, LOPEZ, AND TANG NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE 4 SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the Applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 2015. 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 18th day of May, 2015, by the following vote: YES: ENG, HERRERA, LOPEZ, AND TANG NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE Michelle Ramirez, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Gregory M. Murphy, Planning Commission Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP 5 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 18,2015 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Eng at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-Commissioner Lopez INVOCATION-Commissioner Tang ROLL CALL- Commissioners Herrera, Lopez, Tang, and Chair Eng OFFICIALS PRESENT — City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez, City Engineer Fajardo, City Planner Bermejo,Associate Planner Valenzuela, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Murphy explained the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 15-02 AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.04 AND 17.72 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO REGULATIONS FOR NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, LOTS,AND PARKING FACILITIES- Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 consists of a City initiated amendment to revise Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code to modify existing regulations for nonconforming uses, structures, lots, and parking facilities. The code amendment proposes to establish new development regulations for legal nonconforming uses that were approved by a discretionary entitlement. The purpose of the amendment is to encourage the City's continuing improvement by limiting the extent to which nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded, or replaced, while improving the health, safety, and welfare of all residents without creating an economic hardship for individual property owners or business owners. Lastly, Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 proposes to eliminate the Zoning term and definition of"bachelor apartment" from Chapter 17.04.050, as it is outdated and the definition is no longer accepted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. On April 6, 2015, the Planning Commission continued this item to the May 18, 2015 Commission meeting and asked staff to bring back a resolution supporting the amendment with the omission of proposed standards which would allow the addition of conforming structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are developed with legal nonconforming residential structures. The revised MCA 15-02 has been included in this report as Exhibit"A." PC RESOLUTION 15-04 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTERS 17.04 AND 17.72 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO REGULATIONS FOR NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, LOTS, AND PARKING FACILITIES Staff Recommendation - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is ATTACHMENT "D" recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 15-04 with findings (Exhibit "C"), a resolution recommending that the City Council APPROVE the Negative Declaration and ADOPT Ordinance No. 935(Exhibit"D"), amending Title 17"Zoning" of the Rosemead Municipal Code. City Planner Bermejo presented the staff report. City Attorney Murphy addressed the Planning Commission and explained the procedural aspects of this item. Chair Eng asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Tang stated based on the revised Municipal Code Amendment what are the legal nonconforming properties able to do now and what are they able to do under the revised code. City Planner Bermejo gave examples of what the current code allows, when a Minor Exception process is possible, and the revisions in respect to parking. Commissioner Tang asked City Planner Bermejo when she states that the draft Minor Exception from the last draft that was eliminated, which Minor Exception was that. City Planner Bermejo stated what she just reviewed with the Planning Commission was the current code and not the draft. She reiterated the provision that was presented at the Planning Commission meeting held on April 6, 2015, which would have allowed for additional structures without requiring the existing structures on site to be corrected. She stated there were standards that allowed the beautification of the existing structures, the maintenance, the elimination of any type of building and safety issues that made the structure not safe, and that was the main difference. Commissioner Tang asked if the current draft today contains this provision. City Planner Bermejo stated that provision has been removed, but it maintained the elimination of the definition for "bachelor apartment", and it has cleaned up some of the language. Commissioner Tang asked based on the new code does the Minor Exception process still apply. City Planner Bermejo replied yes. Commissioner Herrera asked if the Planning Commission is going to make a recommendation to City Council to accept this item with our changes or is this it. Chair Eng replied that this is a recommendation to City Council with the changes. She requested clarification's on some of the language that is being proposed. She stated the first one is under "17.72.020 Establishment of legal nonconforming status. Item A" and referred to "the change of ownership" and asked if something has been established as legal nonconforming, if there is a change in ownership, it does not change the status. City Planner Bermejo replied that is correct. Chair Eng referred to Item's B and C and read B. She expressed that section is concerning to her because there are a number of properties that may be non-permitted and this may provide a hardship for property owners if they have to abate immediately. ATTACHMENT "D" City Planner Bermejo explained that currently anything that does not have a permit is considered illegal and the intent of this section is to just put property owners on notice. She added if it is found that something is unpermitted staff and the Building Division continues to work with the property owner to see if it can be permitted through the current code. City Planner Bermejo stated it could also pertain to a use that is unpermitted that is a detriment to the City, the residents, and the community. Chair Eng stated she would like to make sure the City gives property owners the opportunity to correct safety issues and encourage property maintenance. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that the Planning Division and Building Division works with the property owner and sets time frames that are achievable. Chair Eng referred to "17.72.030 Legal nonconforming uses, Item A" and asked if there is an existing nonconforming structure and they want to build additional improvements, they have the ability to do that as long as it is brought up to current standards. City Attorney Murphy explained that 17.72.030 deals with uses and 17.72.040 deals with structures. He added 17.72.030 would be seen more for non-residential properties and it would be a use that used to be allowed for a particular zone and no longer is. He explained that legal nonconforming use would mean that as long as the use is maintained on that site you can't construct a new building or start a new use. He stated 17.72.040 is the one that deals with actual structures and recommended the Planning Commission move to that to answer their questions. Chair Eng stated she has the same concern for "17.72.040 Item A" and asked if they want to make improvements, add on, and if they have a lot that permits that, then the nonconforming use or structure would have to be brought up to code under this new code. City Planner Bermejo replied yes, for separate buildings. She explained for structures they still have the Minor Exception process for an enlargement of an existing building. Chair Eng asked if that would only apply to anything up to 120 square feet. City Planner Bermejo replied that would apply to an existing legal nonconforming building that is only for building, it doesn't mean a setback or a development standard, they could do an enlargement to that building through the Minor Exception process. Community Development Director Ramirez stated they could also do a second dwelling unit also known as a"granny flat". Chair Eng referred to "17.72.040 B 1. Enlargement" and asked if a structure is extended or enlarged on the interior, how will that not impact floor area. City Planner Bermejo explained that when floor area is referenced here this would not apply to a building that is nonconforming because it exceeds the maximum floor area ratio. Chair Eng referred to "17.72.080 D." read it and asked what it means. City Planner Bermejo explained that if they are in violation of their conditional use permit, this lets them know they are subject to either the City modifying their conditional use permit or revoking it. 3 ATTACHMENT "D" City Attorney Murphy clarified that the Section Number should be "Section 17.72.800 A-C" and from legal perspective what this says is if you are a legal nonconforming use and you are approved by some kind of discretionary permit issue by a body like this, rather than a building or business permit, and if you are violating your permit, then prior to having any right to expand or change your structure, the City is going to make you come back and get back into compliance as part of that process. Chair Eng asked since this is an ordinance this is only applicable to R-1 and R-2. City Planner Bermejo replied this ordinance is City-Wide. Chair Eng referred to the City's Wireless Telecommunications Facility Ordinance and stated the City of Los Angeles recently updated their Wireless Ordinance for any new facilities to comply with earthquake safety. She asked staff if the City could add the same thing to the City of Rosemead's Wireless Facility Ordinance for new facilities. City Attorney Murphy replied this is not something that can be done through this ordinance. He recommended staff be given direction to research that and have the Community Development Director give a report on what Los Angeles did at a future Planning Commission meeting. Chair Eng stated she would like to request staff direction to see how much work would be involved and if it is something worth pursuing. She asked if there were any further questions or comments for staff. None Chair Eng asked for a motion. Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to approve that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 15-04 with findings, a resolution recommending that the City Council APPROVE the Negative Declaration and ADOPT Ordinance No. 935, amending Title 17 "Zoning" of the Rosemead Municipal Code. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director stated this item will be presented to the City Council and that there will not be an appeal process at this time. B. DESIGN REVIEW 14-03 - Garvey Garden Plaza, LLC has submitted a Design Review application requesting to develop a new residentiallcommercial mixed use development totaling 11,860 of retail/office space on the first floor and 46 apartments on the second through fourth floors. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and one level of subterranean basement parking. Access to the proposed project will be provided by two driveways from Delta Avenue that extends along the west project boundary. The project 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 southeast corner of Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue in the C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay)zone. PC RESOLUTION 15-07 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF 4 ATTACHMENT "D" ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 14-03 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIALICOMMERCIAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT TOTALING 11,860 SQUARE FEET OF RETAILIOFFICE SPACE AND 46 APARTMENTS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8408 GARVEY AVENUE IN THE C-3 MUDO-D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A MIXED USE AND DESIGN OVERLAY)ZONE. Staff Recommendation - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 15-07 with findings (Exhibit "A"), which is a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 2015-29 (attached as Exhibit "B") approving Design Review 14-03 and recommending adoption of the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit"H"). Associate Planner Valenzuela presented the staff report and clarified two (2) items. The first is that the height of the building is four (4) stories at 45 feet not 49 feet. The second is that a Tentative Map is not being proposed or recorded, so staff would like to eliminate Condition of Approval number forty-seven (47). Chair Eng stated she has three items she would like to share with the Planning Commission and staff. The first is that the applicant's consultant Mr. Mike Lewis reached out to her about the project and that they had a met previously at Starbucks. At that meeting she informed him that she had not reviewed the staff report and was not prepared to share specific thoughts about the project. Mr. Lewis also provided her color renderings, site and floor plans for the project at that meeting. The second item is that she had walked the project site with Mayor Margaret Clark and a community member who has seismic concerns about the project site being built in a liquefaction zone. Her third item is that she is acquainted with Mr. William Duong through community events and he did inform her about the project. In those conversations she did inform him to work directly with staff on his application and that she wanted to wait until she reviewed the staff report to learn the details of the project. She added she has not discussed the details of this project with staff prior to this Planning Commission meeting. She asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Tang asked if a map could be shown to see what the six parcels look like. Associate Planner Valenzuela stated she did not have an aerial of the property but in the staff report, "Exhibit E" there is an Assessor's map showing the six parcels. Commissioner Tang asked what the current uses for the six parcels are. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied they are mostly all residential. Commissioner Tang asked if it would be considered as two(2) commercial and four(4) residential. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Tang referred to the parcel that is being split, the used car sales lot, and asked if that is two lots being combined into one. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied the used car sales lot is leasing that lot. Commissioner Tang referred to the 46 residential units being built and asked for a breakdown of how many bedrooms each unit will have. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied there will be 30 two-bedroom units, 15 three-bedrooms, and 1 one-bedroom unit(which is a managers unit). 5 ATTACHMENT "D" Commissioner Tang asked where the loading and unloading zones for trucks are located. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied the Municipal Code permits trucks to load and unload in a standard parking stall. Commissioner Tang asked what if the truck is too big and does not fit in a standard parking stall. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied there is a Condition of Approval that limits the size of the truck. Commissioner Tang stated that only limits the height of the truck. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied it also states the width. Commissioner Tang referred to Condition of Approval number 44 and stated it has a maximum height of 8'6" but does not have a width. He asked where those trucks would go to do deliveries. Chair Eng recommended looking at the site plan and that it may indicate the width of the driveway to enter into the trash enclosures. Associate Planner Valenzuela stated that delivery trucks are generally 19' in length and will fit in a standard stall. Commissioner Tang stated his question is if the truck exceeds that size where will they go to load or unload. City Engineer Fagardo explained that trucks that enter this site will typically be 19' in length (such as a UPS vehicle) and larger trucks will not be able to enter this site. Commissioner Tang asked if a commercial business has a delivery from a larger truck where will they go to unload or unload. He asked if they will just park on Delta or Garvey Avenue. City Engineer Fajardo replied they would park on Garvey Avenue. He stated that is an issue that will be researched further and staff will add another condition of approval if necessary. Commissioner Tang stated that was going to be his question if another condition of approval would be necessary. He explained that Delta Avenue is a small street for large trucks to make deliveries or to have access at the floor level of the site. Associate Planner Valenzuela stated the Municipal Code does not allow them to drive on Delta Avenue. Chair Eng asked currently where the loading is and unloading for commercial. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied it is not called out on the plans but on the final plans they will have a standard parking stall as a loading and unloading location. Chair Eng asked as a City is that something that is usually required. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Tang asked if that is located on the floor level parking lot. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied that is on the surface. 6 ATTACHMENT "D" Commissioner Lopez asked if that is assuming it has to be entering from Garvey Avenue and not through Delta Avenue. He asked if everything that is unloaded is being backed up from Garvey Avenue. Chair Eng stated there is no entrance on Garvey Avenue. Commissioner Lopez asked if large trucks cannot use Delta Avenue where will they enter from. Associate Planner Valenzuela stated they can't park on Delta Avenue but they can enter from there. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the Condition of Approval specifically states no trucks are allowed. Chair Eng asked how is waste disposal addressed. Community Development Director Ramirez replied this is only pertaining to delivery vehicles. Commissioner Tang referred to the rear abutting residential set-back of 55'6" and asked what the standard for a two- way traffic is. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied it is 25'for a two-way driveway. City Engineer Fajardo referred to Condition of Approval number 86 and it is indicated that 28 feet would be the minimum width of the driveway. Commissioner Tang stated so they have exceeded that because they are at 55 feet. He asked staff to explain the density bonus that's given for the parking spaces for the residential. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that there is a condition under SB 1818 that allows a reduction in parking spaces for residential units only when requested by the applicant. Commissioner Tang asked if that would essentially make these three concessions. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no and explained that the parking reduction is not considered a concession. Commissioner Tang asked what private open space is. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied but the response was not audible. Commissioner Tang referred to the surface area parking on the site plan and there is a lot area of 3,960 square feet and asked what the area is. Response was not audible. Commissioner Tang referred to traffic and stated for post development it has been determined that the traffic flow will be heavily impacted and asked what some of the mitigation measures are for that. Traffic Consultant Itigaki replied that one of the Conditions of Approval refers to traffic signal improvements at Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue, which would help mitigate traffic impacts, at the location, in the future. Commissioner Tang asked what kind of signal improvements that would entail. 7 ATTACHMENT "D" City Engineer Fajardo gave a brief summary of proposed improvements. Commissioner Tang asked if the bus stop located right in front of the proposed site on Garvey Avenue will remain or will it be removed. City Engineer Fajardo replied it will stay for now but if it is relocated they will need to request permission from MTA. Commissioner Tang asked how it will be determined that it will have to be relocated and is it based on post development traffic studies. City Engineer Fajardo replied traffic studies, complaints from residents, and sometimes cars cannot turn right. He explained a field analysis is conducted to see what may be done and permission from MTA is necessary. Commissioner Tang referred to the Mitigation Declaration on Traffic and asked how traffic volumes are forecasted and projected. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied that question can be deferred to the Traffic Consultant. Commissioner Tang asked if the City has ever conducted a post development traffic study. Associate Planner Trinh replied no. City Engineer Fajardo recommended that is something to consider for in the future. Commissioner Tang stated he would like to see that because of anticipated new developments coming in on Garvey Avenue and the potential impact on traffic. He referred to the Mitigated Declaration and stated that the area roadways will continue to operate within their design capacity and asked what is their design capacity. City Engineer Fajardo replied that is a question that can be deferred to the consultant. Commissioner Tang referred to page 81 of the Mitigated Declaration at the bottom and pointed out there is a mistake, it should be corrected to state"98 residential spaces" instead of"98 commercial spaces". Chair Eng asked if the floor plan is all in one building. Associate Planner Trinh replied yes. Chair Eng referred to the commercial parking spaces with the standard of 1 per 250 and asked if restaurant use is being anticipated. Associate Planner Trinh replied the applicant is only proposing retail and office use. She added if the applicant request restaurant use it will require more parking. Chair Eng asked what is the restaurant parking standard. Associate Planner Trinh replied it is 1 per 100. Chair Eng stated it is important that they prepare parking standards for restaurant use in the future. She referred to the soil report that was conducted in "2011" and asked if it is still current today. 8 ATTACHMENT "D" Associate Planner Trinh replied yes and that staff contacted the State to verify. She added that through the Building Plan Check process the soils report will have to be updated. Chair Eng asked if that will have to be put into the conditions of approval. Associate Planner Trinh replied that there is a Mitigation Measure which requires the submittal of a soils investigation report. Chair Eng stated in the staff report it was mentioned there is a proposed hotel named "Hampton Inn and Suites" and asked if that is in Rosemead and where is it being proposed. Community Development Director Ramirez replied it is only a pre-application and staff has not received an actual application for it. She added its location would be on Walnut Grove Avenue and Rush Street, the triangle lot which is currently owned by Southern California Edison zoned as Open Space (OS). She stated that the County has rejected the first review and that they are not allowing them to cover the wash. She explained that staff does not know if it will come back as an actual application at this time. Chair Eng referred to the Mitigation Measures regarding the soils report and numbers 33, 73, 74, and 79 and asked if those comply with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that this property is not located in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. City Attorney Murphy clarified that while it is technically in the zone, the way the Mitigated Negative Declaration reads is that this particular site because of the studies that the MND relies on, states that the soil on the site is non liquefiable. He explained so while the site would technically be in the zone it would not have the same type of liquefaction impacts because of the type of soil on the site. Chair Eng referred to the MND 3.8 regarding Hydrology and Water Quality and stated there is a water plant owned by the City of Monterey Park and asked if that will have any impact or does the City have any record of reported sinkage from the parcels in question here. Associate Planner Trinh replied questions regarding the MND should be addressed by the consultant. Chair Eng referred to the percolation test that was performed in March, and which will probably need to be addressed by the consultant, and asked what was its purpose and if there were any mitigations measures that came out of that test. She asked staff in anticipation of restaurant use will it be required that a clarifier be installed. Community Development Director Ramirez replied the application that has been submitted does not request a restaurant use and none of that has been taken into consideration. The Planning Commission can confirm with the applicant if they desire to make those changes or not. Chair Eng referred to Conditions of Approval number 11 and asked if appropriate agencies need to be included also or is it a given. Associate Planner Trinh replied it is a given. Chair Eng referred to the Construction Management Plan and Condition of Approval number 29. She asked staff if it is required that the applicant contact neighboring businesses and residents when construction begins. 9 ATTACHMENT "D" Associate Planner Trinh replied yes, through the Construction Management Plan they will have to notice the residents and come up with a plan. Chair Eng asked what if they need to make accommodations or work with the adjacent businesses to minimize some of the impacts. Associate Planner Trinh asked what type of impacts Chair Eng is referring to. Chair Eng replied parking, deliveries, and if that is what is included as part of the Construction Management Plan. City Engineer Fagardo replied yes,that is part of the Construction Management Plan. Chair Eng referred to MND Condition of Approval number 33 and stated that will be a question for the consultant. She referred to Condition of Approval number 38 and read the hours of Refuse Collection of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and the hours of loading building materials of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. She expressed concerned because to the south of the site and that it is a residential neighborhood. She also expressed concern in regards to the construction haul route needs to stay off of Fern Street, which is very narrow and there are schools. She asked staff how it can be incorporated and if maybe it can be included in the Construction Management Plan. City Engineer Fajardo replied that prior to getting building permits the applicant will be required to submit a truck route for approval. Chair Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 46 and asked because of water conservation is it being limited to just water fixtures. Community Development Director Ramirez replied the Building Division will follow State law in regards to water conservation. Chair Eng read Condition of Approval number 66 and asked staff if the developer is responsible for getting the sewer hooked up. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes. Chair Eng read Condition of Approval number 71 and asked who will be paying for that. City Engineer Fajardo replied a federal grant from the State. Chair Eng referred to Conditions of Approval numbers 73 through 75 and asked if the consultant is a licensed Structural Civil Engineer. Associate Planner Trinh replied yes. Chair Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 75 in regards to the soils report and asked if it is found that additional support is needed, who will be responsible for paying the additional mitigation. Community Development Director replied the applicant. Chair Eng asked if there were any further questions for staff. None 10 ATTACHMENT "D" Chair Eng opened the Public Hearing. Representative Michael Lewis stated he is present on behalf of the applicant and presented a brief overview of the mixed-use project, concessions, density bonus, and showed a rendering of how the project will look when completed. He addressed the liquefaction issue and explained that the make-up of the soil is not conducive to liquefaction. He passed a site plan around to the Planning Commission showing the six lots, with the existing buildings and uses, and stated all of it will be removed for this project. He addressed the commercial loading and unloading and stated there is a condition limiting the truck height. He stated there is a signal light at Garvey and Del Mar and since there is not going to be any restaurants, no one will be coming in for lunch or dinner, and there won't be that type of traffic pattern for this project. Commissioner Tang asked how the traffic study was forecasted. Representative Lewis stated he can answer a previous question that Commissioner Tang had and shared that the City did require a post traffic analysis for the Wal-Mart project. He added the results were accurate in terms of what actually happened. Chair Eng asked if they envision any restaurant use. Representative Lewis replied there will not be sufficient parking to have restaurants. Chair Eng stated she does not want to restrict the project to not have it if it is something they would want. She added there was a previous project located at Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue the City put a specific limit in terms of restaurant square footage and asked if this is something the applicant would like to consider. Representative Lewis stated he does not know if there is a way to add more parking for a restaurant and it has been calculated at the retail use and not restaurant use. Chair Eng asked Mr. Lewis if he would be willing to agree to a Condition of Approval for commercial property that there not be any restaurant use. Representative Lewis replied yes, and they do not envision any restaurant use. Chair Eng asked staff if that will work. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. City Attorney Murphy stated conditions of approval do not need to be written this evening because this item is a recommendation to City Council and when the Planning Commission makes their final recommendation just include direction for staff to add the condition. Chair Eng asked the applicant how long he has been working on this project. Simon Lee, AIA replied it has been 7 to 8 years. Chair Eng asked why they are building apartments instead of condominiums. Representative Lewis replied they believe there is a market for new apartments in this community. He stated that is Mr. Duong's business model he has other apartment buildings and knows how to run them successfully. He added it 11 ATTACHMENT "D" is a nice option for younger families, the young professional, it is an excellent location, and has easy access onto the freeway. Chair Eng asked if a former market research was completed to support the demand for apartments. Representative Lewis replied yes. He added the rental rates are very affordable and 7 of them are set by the State. Chair Eng asked the anticipated rental rates for the two bedrooms and three bedrooms. Representative Lewis replied for the two bedroom units it would be $1000 - $1200 and for the three bedrooms it would be$1500. Chair Eng asked if the low income units would be set by statue. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Chair Eng asked about the HVAC plan for the project and if the commercial and residential units will have separate units. Architect Simon Lee replied each residential and commercial unit will have its own HVAC unit. Chair Eng stated that the plans anticipate solar panels in the future. Architect Simon Lee replied yes, he encourages the developer to look into it because it is very rewarding. Chair Eng asked if that would power the commercial units or is there a main generator to receive all the energy. Architect Simon Lee replied the proposal is to have the solar energy utilize the common area first. Chair Eng asked Mr. Lewis if Mr. Duong has developed any other mixed-use projects like this and if they have experience managing apartments. Representative Lewis replied he has a mixed-use project down the street on Valley Boulevard but it does not have residential properties instead it has office and restaurant uses. Architect Simon Lee stated Mr. Doung has apartments in Monterey Park. Jimmy Duong, son to Mr. Duong stated they have about 100 apartment units, and have developed some townhomes and condominiums. He explained that he lives and manages a complex they built. He added they have a 78-unit apartment complex in Monterey Park. Chair Eng asked if that is an accumulation of different projects. Jimmy Duong replied they are three different parcels that are adjacent to one another. Chair Eng asked what Mr. Duong's management task consist of. Jimmy Doung replied maintenance for the building, repairs to small concerns, and they also manage commercial buildings. Chair Eng asked if it is a requirement to have an on-site manager. 12 ATTACHMENT "D" Jimmy Duong replied anything over 20 units is required to have an on-site manager. Chair Eng asked how long they anticipate construction will take. Jimmy Duong replied about 1 1/2 years. Chair Eng asked if there is committed financing for this project. Jimmy Duong replied they need to get the entitlements before the bank gives them the financing. Business owner Jimmy Wang stated he has had a business in the City of Rosemead for over 33 years and is in favor and supports this project. Business Owner Sherman Rourman stated he own two lots adjacent to the car dealership at 8724 Garvey Avenue. He stated there is mortality and impact rate that needs to be addressed and expressed that getting in and out of his business is very dangerous. He requested a green zone in front of his business to remove the traffic and parking concerns. Community Development Director Ramirez stated this request would need to go to the Traffic Commission and that the City Engineer, being at this meeting, is able to note this. Chair Eng stated that in the Construction Management Plan construction impacts will be taken into consideration for adjacent businesses. Business owner of 10 years, Daniel Dang stated he owns two properties with one being on Delta Avenue and one on Walnut Grove. He stated he is in favor and supports this project, it will provide affordable housing for the younger generation, and it will beautify the City. Resident Tung Duong stated he has lived in Rosemead for over 20 years and he supports this project. He stated it will bring business opportunities, bring up the economy, and bring job opportunities. Resident George Chen stated he has lived in Rosemead for over 10 years. He stated he runs a small construction company and the majority of his employees are Hispanic and locals. He is in favor of this project because it will give construction workers more opportunity to work. Business owner Sherman Rourman requested his water rights be returned to him based on California Water Code 10910 and California Resource Code. Geotechnical Engineer Paul Kim stated he has 35 years of experience and he prepared the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation including the liquefaction analysis for this site. He stated the liquefaction analysis concluded that this site does not have liquefaction potential because the soils are very strong. Chair Eng asked what had been done to get that conclusion and if test had been conducted. Geotechnical Engineer Kim replied yes liquefaction analysis testing was done and one major factor that is processed is the Standard Penetration Test(SPT) block count procedures and explained the technical details of the test. Chair Eng referred to the 0.79g peak acceleration vale and asked the Geotechnical Engineer to explain it. Geotechnical Engineer Kim explained using the SPT block count and the earthquake magnitude it is put into a 13 ATTACHMENT "D" formula for liquefaction analysis. He added soil density is another factor used and that there are three factors used in the liquefaction analysis. Traffic Engineer Keith Rugerford explained the trip forecasting process. Phil Martin from Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. stated he is present to answer questions in regards to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Chair Eng referred to the Hydrology Report and asked what the Percolation Test was for and if it resulted in any type of mitigation. She also asked if the Water Plant adjacent to this project site has any impact on this project. Consultant Phil Martin stated he will let the applicant's Geotechnical Engineer Consultant answer the question about the Percolation Test because they conducted that test. He stated in regards to the Water Treatment Plant next door they have not identified any potential impacts of being next door to this site. Chair Eng asked Geotechnical Engineer Kim what is the Percolation Test. Representative Lewis explained how the most recent changes made by the State for controlling storm water requires that you capture the first 3/4 inch of rainfall on your property, treat it and then you can put it into the storm drain system or you can percolate it into the aquifer. He explained in order to decide what technique to use to capture, filter, and clean the water the question was will it perk if you go into the aquifer or will it not perk, and will we have to put it into the storm drain system. Chair Eng asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this item. None Chair Eng closed the Public Hearing. She asked the Planning Commission is there were any more questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Tang requested a condition of approval that requires a Post Traffic Report. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that recommendation can be made known to the City Council. Commissioner Tang stated currently there is a Garvey Avenue Specific Ad-Hoc Committee that is looking into development along Garvey Avenue and asked if this project somehow fits into that overall concept and plan. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes and explained that is why this side of Garvey was not included in the Specific Plan because there was already a lot of development taking place and projects were coming in on their own. Chair Eng stated she likes this project, it is well thought out, the apartment sizes are comfortable, and young families need places to stay. She stated she is partial to single-family homes for home ownership but not everyone has the resources to own their home. She added this is a nice place for a young family to start out with amenities inside the unit, there is privacy with an outdoor patio, and it is very attractive for young professionals. She likes that this project is in a designated mixed-use node. Commissioner Tang stated he echo's Chair Eng's comments and he is partial to home ownership also. He added it builds communities but understands there is a great need for affordable housing. He stated there is a lot of work to do on Garvey Avenue and he is excited to see projects like this to bring livelihood to the community that has been long overdue. He realizes the applicant has been working on this project for 7 to 8 years and he hopes this project 14 ATTACHMENT "D" will spruce up the local area as well as encourage the surrounding area to develop in the same way. He supports this project and would like to make a motion with the recommendations to City Council that have been discussed. Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to approve that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 15-07 with findings, which is a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 2015-29 approving Design Review 14-03 and recommending adoption of the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion has been approved and will be presented to the City Council with the recommendations for final approval. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of 4-6-15 Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of 4-16-15 as presented. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez stated the date, time, and location of the Community Area Watch Committee, Memorial Day Celebration, and Public Safety Connection meeting and invited all to attend. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR&COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Tang asked the completion date of street sign replacements within the City. Community Development Director replied she will find out the requested information and send the Planning Commission an update. Chair Eng asked if at staff level if there has been preparation or discussion on the possibility of all the mixed-use projects on Garvey Avenue that have been approved, in regards to the timing of construction and the impact it will have in regards to traffic. She expressed if all four projects begin at the same time traffic will be congested. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that they are all proceeding at different rates and it is possible that they could eventually overlap. She stated the first mixed-use project that was approved by the Commission still has not submitted their plans to Building and Safety Division, while the second project has recently submitted to Building 15 ATTACHMENT "D" and Safety Division. She explained they are all on different time frames and that is why the Construction Management Plan is in place, which the Building and Safety Division will look at. Chair Eng recommended and encouraged staff to look into this concern. She also requested a report be brought back to the Planning Commission regarding cell sites. Community Development Director Ramirez stated it will be brought back to the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Tang asked in regards to the four mixed-use projects when they were adopted with City Council does staff know if they were modified from the original recommendation that the Planning Commission approved. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that only three have gone to City Council and there was one that was changed from apartments to condominiums but it was based on the Planning Commission's recommendation. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, June 1, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. Nancy Eng Chair ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 16 ATTACHMENT "D" GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA LLC 8728 Valley Blvd., Ste #206 Rosemead CA 91770 T: 626-943-8888 F: 626-280-5588 MIXED USE PROJECT AT 8408 GARVEY AVENUE, ROSEMEAD CONCESSION REQUEST LETTER The proposed project is located at the southeast corner of Garvey Avenue and Delta Avenue in the City of Rosemead. The parcel is"L"shaped. it measures 50,012 square feet(1.148 acres)and is zoned C-3D, Mixed Use and RC-MUDO, Residential Commercial Mixed Use Design Overlay. The property to the east is designated Mixed Use and to the South, it is R-2. The site is one parcel and currently contains 6000 square feet of commercial and a few attached residential units. The proposal is to build three stories of apartment dwellings over one story of commercial/retail space. Maximum building height would be 45'. The project calls for 11,860 square feet of commercial (approximately 10 small shops) fronting on Garvey Avenue and on Delta,46 apartment units,and 146 parking spaces(140 are required). Garvey Garden Plaza LLC requests the following Concessions of both Building Height/Story and Building Mass: 1. The RCMUDO height limits the allowable height of forty-five (45) feet with a maximum of Three(3)stories. Our project proposes a Mixed Use Commercial building of forty-five(45) feet with Four(4) Stories. 2. The RCMUDO building mass requires 67% Residential and 33%Commercial land use mix. Our project proposes a 81.4%Residential to 18.6%Commercial land use mix. Sincerely, Jimmy Duong Garvey Garden Plaza LLC ATTACHMENT "E" GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA, 8408 GARVEY AVENUE COST& REVENUE PROFORMA COMPARISON Base Case Only I Base Case with Base case with Density Bonus with proposed I proposed 1 all proposed Concession 1 1 Concession 2 only concessions only 27 units (approx. 27 units (approx. 34 Units (approx. 46 units (approx. net net 35,530 sf) net 35,530 sf) net 47,400 sf) 47,400 sf) (residential) (residential) (residential) (residential) net 17,500 sq. ft net 17,500 sq. ft net 11,500 sq. ft net 11,500 sq. ft (retail) (retail) (retail) (retail) Height Three stories, Four stories, with Three stories, with a Four stories with a with a maximum a maximum maximum height of maximum height of height of 45 feet _ height of 45 feet 45 feet 45 feet Use mix 67% residential 67% residential 85.1% residential 85.1% residential, 33%commercial 33% commercial 14.9% commercial 14.9% commercial Contractor's fees $9,800,000 $10,200,000 $9,800,00 $10,200,000 (shell cost, on-site improvements, off- site improvements) Residential parking $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 garage costs Contingency $640,000 $645,000 $640,000 $645,000 allowance Architecture fees $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 Permits and fees $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 • school, public works, entitlement Debt Service $1,315,000 $1,324,500 $1,315,000 $1,324,500 Approximate cost Per Sq Ft $270.88 $277.92 $270.88 $277.92 34751.001-2239146v2 ATTACHMENT "F" Approximate Annual Lease $420,000 $420,000 $276,480 $276,480 revenue— commercial Approximate Annual Lease $532,950 $532,950 $711,000 $580,500 revenue—market rate residential Approximate Annual Lease $104,880 revenue— affordable units Approximate Total $952,950 $952,950 $987,480 $961,860 Annual Revenue Approximate Total $905,303 $905,303 $938,106 $913,767 with 5% Vacancy This pro forma budget is only an estimated forecast of the expenses, revenues and profits,and is subject to changes, including without limitation, changes in costs and availability, changes in the labor market, changes in the industry, changes in the economy, unforeseen circumstances, and many other factors. 34751.001-2239146v2 2 Statement Of Findings For Incentives/Concessions The requested incentive/concessions are required to make the units affordable. The Applicant is proposing to construct a four-story mixed-use building with three stories of residential units over one-story of commercial/retail space, comprising of approximately ten (10) commercial units and forty- six(46) residential apartments. The Applicant is requesting two incentives/concessions in connection with this project, in exchange for which the Applicant would agree to make seven (7) apartment units available for rent at an affordable cost by eligible low income households for a period of thirty(30) years: 1. The Applicant is requesting an increase in the maximum number of floors in order to construct a four-story, 45 foot high mixed-use building in a zone where development standards (in Section 17.28.030.D.13.a.1) otherwise restrict development to three stories and 45 feet. Pursuant to Rosemead Code of Ordinances Section 17.84.070.A.1, the Applicant may seek reduction of development standards, including an increase in maximum building height and floors, if it results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. The additional story constructed by increasing the number of floors in this zone will allow the developer to include additional residential units which will increase the financial feasibility of providing affordable housing on-site. The project will still comply with the maximum height of 45 feet; however, the inclusion of an additional residential floor results in actual cost reductions as follows: • Spreads the cost of construction over greater floor area and resulting in a reduction in average cost per square foot; • The substantial revenue increase from the additional floor which could make the project attractive to more lenders and result in lower debt servicing cost. These identifiable cost reductions and added revenue allow the project to finance the additional affordable housing units, which otherwise would not be financially feasible. 2. The Applicant is requesting a regulatory incentive/concession in order to construct a mixed-use building with a proposed mix of 85.1% residential and 14.9% commercial uses in a zone where development standards (in Section 17.28.030.D.12.d.2) otherwise restrict development to a mix of 67% residential and 33%commercial. Pursuant to Section 17.84.070.A.5, Applicants may seek regulatory incentives or concessions that result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. The proposed mix of 85.1% residential and 14.9% commercial uses results from the inclusion of an additional story of residential units, in a zone that otherwise requires 2 stories of residential (67%) over 1 story of commercial retail (33%). Providing residential uses at a greater proportion than otherwise required results in actual cost reductions as follows: • Allows residential units to have a greater overall floor area, thus increasing the rentable square footage and increasing rental revenue, which could result in lower financing costs. • Retail uses above the ground level are not highly desirable and command significantly less revenue. Thus, including more commercial uses at any level above the ground level is financially infeasible and would result in a more costly development model. • In addition, having more commercial square footage would force the project to provide more underground parking. The added excavation and construction costs for an additional subterranean parking would be substantially more expensive than the proposed plan which includes some parking at grade and some parking one level below grade. These identifiable cost reductions allow the project to finance the additional affordable housing units, which otherwise would not be financially feasible. RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO: City of Rosemead 8836 East Valley Boulevard P.O. Box 399 Rosemead, California 91770 Attention: City Clerk Space above for Recorder's Use This Agreement is recorded at the request and for the benefit of the City of Rosemead and is exempt from recording fee pursuant to Government Code Section 27383 AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT Dated as of , 2015 By and Between the THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, a California general law city("City"), and GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA, LLC, a California limited liability company("Covenantor") 34751.001-2239172v1 AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT THIS AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made by and between the CITY OF ROSEMEAD, a California general law city ("City"), and GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA, LLC, a California limited liability company("Covenantor"), as of the day of , 2015. RECITALS A. Covenantor is the owner of certain real property ("Property") located at 8408 Garvey Avenue, in the City of Rosemead, commonly known as "Garvey Garden Plaza" and more particularly described in Exhibit"A"attached hereto. B. The Covenantor desires to improve the Property by constructing thereon a mixed- use commercial and residential project consistent with Design Review and Tentative Tract Map , comprised of one building containing approximately ten(10) commercial units and forty-six (46)residential apartments (collectively,the "Entitlements"). C. The Entitlements were approved by the City's Planning Commission on ; in accordance with subdivisions (b)(1)(A) and (c)(1) of California Government Code Section 65915. The Entitlements included a "density bonus" in exchange for which the Covenantor agreed to make the ( ) apartment units on the Property shown and identified on Exhibit `B" attached hereto as affordable units (collectively, the "Affordable Units") available for rent at an affordable cost by eligible low income households for a period of thirty(30) years. D. Condition No. of the Entitlements' Conditions of Approval obligates the Covenantor to provide an instrument that can be recorded against the Property in order to preserve the Affordable Units' status as affordable housing units for the benefit of low income households within the community. E. Therefore, the Covenantor and the City now enter into this Agreement for the purpose of regulating that certain Affordable Units upon the Property. The restriction of the Property as provided in this Agreement is in accordance with the public purposes and provisions of applicable state and local laws and requirements. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE,the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows: ARTICLE I NONDISCRIMINATION Section 1. Nondiscrimination. Covenantor covenants by and for itself, its successors and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, 34751.001-2239172v1 color, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease,transfer, use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of the Affordable Units, nor shall Covenantor itself or any person claiming under or through it, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees, or vendees in the Affordable Units. ARTICLE II DUTIES OF THE COVENANTOR Section 1. Maintenance. The Property shall be kept and maintained so as to be in conformity with the landscaping, maintenance and signage standards of the City. Section 2. Structural Modifications. In order to protect and maintain the architectural and structural integrity of the Property, no structural modifications will be made to the Property without a validly issued building permit in accordance with the requirements of the City's Municipal Code (the "Code"). Any application for a building permit pursuant to this section and in connection with a proposed exterior modification to the Property shall be accompanied by plans depicting the proposed modifications. Section 3. Graffiti Removal. Any graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four(24)hours from the Property. Section 4. No Nuisance. Covenantor shall not maintain, cause to be maintained, or allow to be maintained on or about the Property any public or private nuisance, including, without limitation, the conduct of criminal activities set forth in the nuisance abatement provisions of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act (Health & Safety Code Sections 11570, et seq.) or the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act (Penal Code Sections 186.22, et seq.) or any successor statute or law. Section 5. Use and Occupancy Standards. The Affordable Units shall be rent restricted and occupied by "Eligible Households" (as defined below). The maximum occupancy of each Affordable Unit shall not exceed the maximum occupancy allowed by the Code. Covenantor shall, upon demand by the City's Department of Economic Development, submit to same an affidavit verifying Covenantor's compliance with this Section 5. Said affidavit may be required by the City's Department of Economic Development on an annual basis. 2 Section 6. Affordable Housing Restriction. For purposes of this Section 6,the following definitions apply: "Affordability Period" means the thirty (30) year period commencing on the date of recordation of this Agreement and ending on the thirtieth(30th) anniversary thereof. "Affordable Rent" shall mean the consideration received by Covenantor in connection with the use or occupancy of an Affordable Unit, which Affordable Rent shall not exceed the product of thirty percent (30%) times the income limits for Eligible Households adjusted for family size appropriate for the Affordable Unit. The Affordable Rent may be adjusted when the income limit figures for Los Angeles County (as set forth by the California Department of Housing and Community Development)are adjusted. "Covenantor" shall mean Garvey Garden Plaza, LLC, a California limited liability company, its successors in interest to the Property, and any person or entity to which it assigned all or any of its obligations hereunder by an express written assignment. "Eligible Households" means persons or Households whose Gross Household Income does not exceed the income limits for "Low Income" households for Los Angeles County, adjusted for family size as set forth by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. "Gross Household Income" means the income of all members of the Household over the age of eighteen(18). "Household" means all persons who will occupy an Affordable Unit located on the Property whether it be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share living arrangements provided that all the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement are met. Covenantor acknowledges that the purpose of this Agreement is to encourage affordable rental to Eligible Households. Pursuant to such purpose and except as provided hereinbelow, the Affordable Units may be rented or leased by Covenantor during the Affordability Period only to an Eligible Household at an Affordable Rent (an "Eligible Lease"). In order to verify a buyer's status as an Eligible Household, Covenantor shall submit to the City's Department of Economic Development the identity of the proposed tenants and adequate information evidencing the income of the proposed tenants. Said income information shall be submitted together with a notice of proposed Eligible Lease not less than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the proposed lease and shall include true copies of income tax returns for the two (2) most recent years in which a return was filed and such other financial documents required by the City's Department of Economic Development in order to verify household income and determine Eligible Household status of the proposed tenants and whether an Affordable Unit is available to such tenants at an Affordable Rent. 3 COVENANTOR UNDERSTANDS THAT THE AFFORDABLE RENT PERMITTED HEREUNDER MAY NOT INCREASE OR DECREASE IN THE SAME MANNER AS OTHER SIMILAR REAL PROPERTIES WHICH ARE NOT ENCUMBERED BY THE RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT. COVENANTOR FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF THE CITY AND THIS AGREEMENT IS TO PROVIDE HOUSING TO ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS AT AN AFFORDABLE RENT AND THAT THE RENTAL RATE MAY BE LESS THAN OTHER SIMILAR PROPERTIES WHICH HAVE NO RESTRICTIONS. ARTICLE III ENFORCEMENT Section 1. Remedies. Breach of the covenants contained in this Agreement may be enjoined, abated or remedied by appropriate legal proceeding. Section 2. Rights of City. As a party to this Agreement,the City is entitled to the following rights: (a) City has the right, but not the obligation,to enforce all of the provisions of this Agreement. (b) Any amendment to the Agreement shall require the written consent of City. (c) This Agreement does not in any way infringe on the right or duties of the City to enforce any of the provisions of the Code including, but not limited to, the abatement of nuisances and or dangerous conditions. Section 3. Cumulative Remedies. The remedies herein provided for breach of the covenants contained in this Agreement shall be deemed cumulative, and none of such remedies shall be deemed exclusive. Section 4. Failure to Enforce. The failure to enforce any of the covenants contained in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of the right to enforce the same thereafter. 4 ARTICLE IV GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. Severability. Invalidation of any one of these covenants or restrictions by judgment or order of a court of competent jurisdiction shall in no way affect any other provisions which shall remain binding and enforceable. Section 2. Construction. The provisions of this Agreement shall be liberally construed for the purpose of maintaining the Property. The article and section headings have been inserted for convenience only, and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of interpretation or construction. Section 3. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended only by the written agreement of Covenantor and City. Section 4. Notices. Any notice permitted or required to be delivered as provided herein from one party to another shall be in writing and may be delivered either personally or by first-class or certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. If delivery is made by mail, it shall be deemed to have been delivered seventy- two (72) hours after a copy of same has been deposited in the United States Mail,postage prepaid. Notices shall be addressed as follows: To City: City of Rosemead 8836 East Valley Boulevard P.O. Box 399, Rosemead, California 91770 Attention: City Clerk. To Covenantor: Garvey Garden Plaza, LLC 8728 Valley Blvd., Suite 206 Rosemead, California 91770 Such addresses may be changed from time to time by notice in writing to City, which shall be made by certified mail to the other party in accordance with this Section 4. Section 5. Term of Agreement. The covenants, conditions, and restrictions of this Agreement shall run with the Property and shall expire thirty (30) years after the date of recordation of this Agreement. Section 6. Subordination. The provisions of this Agreement shall be subordinate to any first lien on the Property held by an institutional lender or investor (the "Lender") and shall not impair the rights of Lender, or Lender's assignee or successor in interest, to exercise its remedies under the first lien in the event of default under the first lien by Covenantor. Such remedies under the first lien include the right of foreclosure or acceptance of a deed or assignment in lieu of foreclosure or if the mortgage is assigned to the Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban 5 Development. After such foreclosure or acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure, this Agreement shall be forever terminated and shall have no further effect as to the Property or any transferee thereafter; provided, however, if the holder of the first lien acquires title to the Property pursuant to a deed or assignment in lieu of foreclosure, this Agreement shall automatically terminate upon such acquisition of title, provided that (i) City has been given not less than thirty (30) days written notice of a default under the first lien, and (ii) City shall not have cured the default under such first lien within the cure period provided in such notice sent to City. Such cure period shall be at least sixty (60) days from the date of City's receipt of such notice. The City's subordination provided in this Section 6 shall be subject to City's rights of notice and right to cure as provided herein. Section 7. Covenants Do Not Impair Liens. No violation or breach of covenants, conditions, restrictions, provisions, or limitations contained in this Agreement shall defeat or render invalid or in any way impair the lien or charge of any mortgage or deed of trust or security instrument. [Signature page to follow] 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Covenantor have caused this instrument to be executed on their behalf by their respective officers hereunto duly authorized as of the dates set forth below. DATED: "City" CITY OF ROSEMEAD, a California general law city By: Name: Title: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney DATED: "Covenantor" GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Name: Title: EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 34751.001-2239172v1 z SIIAI11 altIVQlI033V Al, IIMHX 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G.BROWN Jr..Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7-OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 'i' '`` `� '100 S.MAIN STREET,MS 16 ANGELES,CA 90012 PHONE (213)897-9140 Serious drought. FAX (213)897-1337 Help save water! www.dot.ca.gov May 7, 2015 Ms. Lily Valenzuela City of Rosemead 8838 Valley Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 91770 RE: Garvey Garden Plaza Vic. LA-10/PM 25.84 to 26.301 SCH#2015041052 IGR/CEQA No. 150444AL-DMND Dear Ms. Valenzuela: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced project. The proposed project is to demolish all existing structures and to construct a four-story, mixed use development consisting of 11,860 square feet of retail/office use on the first floor and 46 residential units on the second through fourth floors, including 10 low-income residential units. The project will generate 619 daily trips and 39/59 AM/PM peak hour trips according to the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared in February 2015. The TIA does not include a complete related/cumulative analysis of projects in the area. The traffic cumulative analysis should also include SWC Walnut Grove Avenue and Rush Street-Hampton Inn& Suites Hotel. It should also include the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan (proposed 1,175,475-square feet for non- residential area and 892 dwelling units). This plan will have a regional traffic impact. Otherwise, TIA may not provide an accurate and reliable traffic analysis. As a reminder, in Caltrans' Guide "The level of service (LOS) for operating. State highway facilities is based upon measures of effectiveness (MOEs). Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS `C' and LOS `D' on State highway facilities. If an existing State highway facility is operating at less than the appropriate target LOS, the existing MOE should be maintained." The existing LOS on the freeway should be disclosed regardless of how many trips will be assigned to the highway. Currently the LOS on I-10 is operating at or near capacity during peak hours. Additional vehicle trips from the project may contribute significant impacts to the I-10 when all related projects and specific plan is developed. "Provide a safe,sustainable,integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" ATTACHMENT "G" • Ms. Lily Valenzuela May 7,2015 Page 2 On Table 3, page 19 of the TIA, Location 6 shows LOS F (99.6 second AM)/(174.8 second PM) for 2014 existing condition and LOS F (129.3 second AM)/(225.8 second PM) for 2017 baseline condition. For the AM, there is a 29.82% increase in delay and for the PM, there is a 29.18% in delay when comparing the existing and baseline conditions. This increase in delay should not be ignored. In addition, the TIA should include an off-ramp queuing analysis in which capacity of the off- ramp should be calculated by the actual length of the off ramp between the terminuses to the gore point with 30 feet per car. The queue length should be calculated from the traffic counts, actual signal timing and the percent of truck assignments to the ramp with a passenger car equivalent factor of 3.0 (worst case scenario). The analyzed result may need to be calibrated with actual signal timing when necessary. Please include mitigation measures if forecasted vehicle queues are expected to exceed 85% of the total available storage capacity such that the storage will allow a 15% safety factor. It is also recommended that the City determine whether project-related plus cumulative traffic is expected to cause long queues on the on and off-ramps. In the spirit of mutual cooperation, we encourage the City to work with Caltrans in an effort to evaluate traffic impacts, identify potential improvements, and establish a funding mechanism that helps mitigate cumulative transportation impacts in the area. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Alan Lin the project coordinator at (213) 897-8391 and refer to IGR/CEQA No. 150444AL-DMND. Sincerely, RICK HOLLAND Acting Branch Chief Community Planning&LD/IGR Review cc: Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse "Provide a safe,sustainable,integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" oJ�t,OF L09ko COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ; { FIRE DEPARTMENT ••'€' 1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE CALIFOPMP K LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90063-3294 4:bARTte DARYL L.OSBY FIRE CHIEF FORESTER&FIRE WARDEN May 6, 2015 Lily Valenzuela, Associate Planner City of Rosemead Planning Division 8838 Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 Dear Ms. Valenzuela: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, "GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA", CONSISTS OF THE DEMOLITION OF ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH 11,860 SQUARE'FE€T OF RETAIL/OFFICE SPACE ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND 46 APARTMENTS ON THE SECOND THROUGH FOURTH FLOORS, 8408 GARVEY AVENUE, ROSEMEAD (FFER 201500068) The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Notice of Public Hearing has been reviewed by the Planning Division, Land Development Unit, Forestry Division, and Health Hazardous Materials Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. The following are their comments: PLANNING DIVISION: 1. We have no comments at this time. LAND DEVELOPMENT UNIT: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF: AGOURA HILLS CALABASAS DIAMOND BAR HIDDEN HILLS LA MIRADA MALIBU POMONA SIGNAL HILL ARTESIA CARSON DUARTE HUNTINGTON PARK LA PUENTE MAYWOOD RANCHO PALOS VERDES SOUTH EL MONTE AZUSA CERRITOS EL MONTE INDUSTRY LAKEWOOD NORWALK ROLLING HILLS SOUTH GATE BALDWIN PARK CLAREMONT GARDENA INGLEWOOD LANCASTER PALMDALE ROLLING HILLS ESTATES TEMPLE CITY BELL COMMERCE GLENDORA IRWINDALE LAWNDALE PALOS VERDES ESTATES ROSEMEAD WALNUT BELL GARDENS COVINA HAWAIIAN GARDENS LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE LOMITA PARAMOUNT SAN DIMAS WEST HOLLYWO01 ESTLAK BELLFLOWER CUDAHY HAWTHORNE LA HABRA LYNWOOD PICO RIVERA SANTA CLARITA WHITE AKE VILLAG BRADBURY ATTACHMENT "H" Lily Valenzuela, Associate Planner May 6, 2015 Page 2 1. The proposed development may necessitate multiple ingress/egress access for the circulation of traffic and emergency response issues. 2. The development of this project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. 3. Specific fire and life safety requirements for the construction phase will be addressed at the building fire plan check. There may be additional fire and life safety requirements during this time. 4. Every building constructed shall be accessible to Fire Department's apparatus by way of access roadways with an all-weather surface of not less than the prescribed width. The roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls when measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. 5. When involved with subdivision in a city contracting fire protection with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Fire Department's requirements for access, fire flows, and hydrants are addressed during the subdivision tentative map stage. 6. Fire Department's requirements for access, fire flows, and hydrants are addressed during the building permit stage. 7. Fire sprinkler systems are required in all residential and most commercial occupancies. For those occupancies not requiring fire sprinkler systems, it is strongly suggested that fire sprinkler systems be installed. This will reduce potential fire and life losses. WATER REQUIREMENTS: 8. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet and shall meet the following requirements: a) No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access from a public fire hydrant. b) No portion of a building shall exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced public fire hydrant. Lily Valenzuela, Associate Planner May 6, 2015 Page 3 c) Additional hydrants will be required if hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. d) When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 200 feet on a commercial street, hydrants shall be required at the corner and midblock. e) A cul-de-sac shall not be more than 500 feet in length when serving land zoned for commercial use. 9. The development may require fire flows up to 8,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for up to a four-hour duration. Final fire flows will be based on the size of buildings, its relationship to other structures, property lines, and types of construction used. ACCESS REQUIREMENTS: 10. Turning radii shall not be less than 32 feet. This measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road. A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in-length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs. 11. All on-site driveways/roadways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet, clear-to-sky. The on-site driveway is to be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building when the height of the building above the lowest level of the Fire Department vehicular access road is more than30 feet high or the building is more than three stories. The access roadway shall be located a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. 12. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit's comments are only general requirements. Specific fire and life safety requirements will be addressed at the building and fire plan check phase. There may be additional requirements during this time. 13. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Lily Valenzuela, Associate Planner May 6, 2015 Page 4 14. The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit are to review and comment on all projects within the unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles. Our emphasis is on the availability of sufficient water supplies for firefighting operations and local/regional access issues. However, we review all projects for issues that may have a significant impact on the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. We are responsible for the review of all projects within contract cities (cities that contract with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department for fire protection services). We are responsible for all County facilities located within non-contract cities. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit may also comment on conditions that may be imposed on a project by the Fire Prevention Division, which may create a potentially significant impact to the environment. 15. Should any questions arise regarding subdivision, water systems, or access, please contact the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit's Inspector Claudia Soiza at (323) 890-4243. FORESTRY DIVISION — OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: 1. The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Forestry Division include erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, vegetation, fuel modification for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones or Fire Zone 4, archeological and cultural resources, and the County Oak Tree Ordinance. HEALTH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION: 1. The Health Hazardous Materials Division (HHMD) of the Los Angeles County Fire Department advises that the project site should be assessed and/or mitigated under environmental oversight of an authorized government agency and obtain a clearance letter and/or a "No Further Action" (closure) letter prior to the City's issuance of a grading permit. Lily Valenzuela, Associate Planner May 6, 2015 Page 5 If you have any additional questions, please contact this office at (323) 890-4330. Very truly ours, KEVIN T. JOHNSON, ACTING CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION PREVENTION SERVICES BUREAU KTJ:ad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA Design Review 14-03 rm_ • " I iii. "�tI= •,ill n ' ' �� I i ._ # �--� I ' -' I I isr Ti i 'y 1 it - I r l i7 i t thr i1hn rl J l� ar , 711 TlEn �J . IzI Lead Agency: City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 (626)-569-2142 Project Proponent: Garvey Garden Plaza LLC 8728 Valley Boulevard,#206 Rosemead, California 91770 (626) 284-8888 Environmental Consultant: Phil Martin &Associates 4860 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 203 Irvine, California 92620 (714) 454-1800 April 15, 2015 ATTACHMENT "I" City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 TABLE of CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose 1 1 1.2 Location 1 1.3 Project Description 5 1.4 Intended Use of This Document 5 1.5 Environmental Setting 14 1.6 Cumulative Projects 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 16 3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 19 3.1 Aesthetics 19 3.2 Agricultural Resources 26 3.3 Air Quality 36 3.4 Biological Resources 37 3.5 Cultural Resources 3.6 Geology and Soils 37 38 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 43 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 3 3.9 Land Use 4 47 3.10 Mineral Resources 54 3.11 Noise 3.12 Population and Housing 54 64 3.13 Public Services 67 3.14 Recreation 67 3.15 Transportation/Traffic 82 3.16 Utilities and Service Systems 84 3.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance 4.0 REFERENCES 86 Appendices Appendix A—Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis Appendix B —Geotechnical Report Appendix C— Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix D— Hydrology Report Appendix E— Noise Report Appendix F—Traffic Report Page i City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 LIST of FIGURES Figure Page 1. Regional Location Map 2 2. Local Vicinity Map 3 3. Aerial Photo 4 4. Site Plan 6 5. Building Elevations 7 6. Building Elevations 8 7. Landscape Plan 9 8. On Site Photographs 10 9. Off-Site Land Uses 11 10. Off-Site Land Uses 12 11. Photo Orientation Map 13 12. Cumulative Projects-Aerial Photo 15 13. North Building Simulations 21 14. West Building Simulations 22 15. Photometric Study 24 16. Land Use Plan 49 17. Zoning Map 50 18. Noise Measurement Locations 56 19. Construction Equipment Noise Levels 63 20. Existing Study Area Traffic Controls and Intersection Geometrics 71 21. Project Trip Distribution 72 22. Project AM Peak Hour Turning Movement and Roadway Link Volumes 73 23. Project PM Peak Hour Turning Movement and Roadway Link Volumes 74 24. Baseline 2017 With Project Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes and Volume to Capacity Ratios 79 LIST of TABLES Table Page 1. South Coast Air Basin Emission Forecasts (Emissions (tons/day) 27 2. Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2009-2013) 28 3. Daily Emission Thresholds 29 4. Construction Activity Equipment Fleet 30 5. Construction Activity Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day) 30 6. Daily Operational Impacts 31 7. Maximum Daily Disturbed Acreage Per Equipment Type 32 8. LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day) 32 9. Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO2(e)) 34 10. Operational Emissions 34 11. Rosemead Noise Ordinance Limits 55 12. Measured Noise Levels (dBA) 56 13. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis (dBA CNEL at 50 feet from Centerline) 57 14. Project Traffic Noise Level Increases (dBA CNEL at 50 feet from Centerline) 57 15. Vibration Levels from Project Construction Activities 61 16. Project Trip Generation 69 17. 2014 Intersection Levels of Service Without Project 75 18. Baseline 2015 Intersection Levels of Service Without Project 76 Page ii City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 19. Baseline 2017 With Project Level of Service Study Area Intersections 78 20. Estimate Project Water Consumption 83 21. Estimated Project Wastewater Generation 83 Page iii City of Rosemead Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 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 proposed Design Review (DR) 14-03 for the construction of a mixed use project. The project is located on approximately 1.13 acres and includes 46 residential units, 11,860 square feet of retail/office use, and 144 parking spaces, including compact and handicap spaces, in a four-story building with one level of subterranean parking. The project proposes that 20% of the apartments will be low-income that allows a thirty-five percent (35%) density bonus. 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. Approval of the site plan is required by the City. 1.2 LOCATION The project site totals approximately 49,484 square feet (1.13 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 five parcels (APN 5283-005-028) and is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Delta Avenue 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 Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac) and the zoning is C-3D and RC-MUDO (Medium Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed Use Design Overlays). The exiting land use and zoning designations allow the uses proposed for the site. The General Plan land use designations adjacent to the site include Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac) to the north, west, and east and Medium Density Residential (12 du/ac) to the south. The zoning is C-3-MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed Use and Design Overlays) to the north, west, east, and south. 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is currently developed with seven buildings, including three commercial buildings and four residential homes. The project will require the demolition of all of the existing structures to allow the construction of a proposed four-story, mixed use development consisting of 11,860 square feet of retail/office use on the first floor and 46 residential units on the second through fourth floors. Of the 46 apartments, the manager's apartment will be on the first floor, 14 apartments on the second floor, 15 apartments on the third floor, and 16 units on the fourth floor. 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% for low income housing. As a result, 10 of the apartments will be available for low-income households and allow the development of a total of 46 apartments. Page 1 PVA Phil Martin&Associates,inc. GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA r--------- . .., IN,...., _,.., it_e ••, , t,,• — — .. _ , r1.1.14. • irellgadt: 4.11.V. . ' mr Alladena • ,j,, :0-- t Od bank t's,,,„ s...4.5..Game Pack S.nik --. 1 . .,,,,,.........\. eng \., patele,e Attad' ' pus". &Fuse G/enda" •- We Roc. :-/r1 01.044) _,sojt, id.kleurp, ' SM u.rloorstr, . NortheetPs"4"-' Tple C -*—* emity 1 • f i „10%Avg. Alhambra et Nome L7 Coema 0.*Ciwtpiwkor (---- ,, ".-----"1--," -/- _ . ell' . 1 '— ,- LA . , y Mlallef oty* Rosemead " ' aildwArk'n „ it ; ,, ...,, .).t 1.„1„,.....„,;,_,..Los Angela a 4.P..1 08, soom R moue &me, • -1.........,,,,-,_ A.......e. vskpda Geiger Pork gel Site Location L..,.... „ ,, w..., , Anes lArtntebello , ,,, H.ocoenda--"klo: , „,...sepo' ',. '''• '''. '..^,---"-I'South j.os ,4 ',.. rd 1 •W, ."' Ange168 -1424" aell .' P'coRm' Whdlr, - t Rowland •,. Hooloi / P:01111re-Greilann len Gard•ns it AIL... "...-^ SOutt%Cialt i 5•Outh s...,__Ai Fe wh,,,.. teeter. rid,6 Nirg,,,t . / esppool Downey w""93 CO 'I 0,4,111 lysiwnoci La Habra ...”."0..r......• 1\ La Mirada weete.., /on '- Noma--_. 4 ANP-1- Compton - .. ". ` t "! 7._ ... r ,..— I I J----- . \\ r -...., \ 1 _ _1..t ______ r ..._ ___.. t_....,, I .... I I 0 • ..-/".--- I / ,,...„, 1 e• en .,... ... // . 0 I C.) II 0 0 'i 1 93,_ 7r.0" a&ot:;10 I i --( . itzt i Ca i L 7 ,..... ,.......: ';i,------- Source:Phil Martin&Associates, Inc., Google Maps 2013 N Figure 1 (1_9 Regional Map Ply A Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA Anwr It A...4 k.11 Ajt .1 • ID F i 4 i g t A -,r,Ai,Wm! •ucce•,Kr1 WM. :F {.11CVNI,•,••• 1.11•1•4,...? Disiso••11•••••• wcareendal- 4 , i Often as Iliktrel s how" act*0 - i.--- ...:- t - , : 7 ..-- - ,-.., • il ,e - :KAOINi en C4bales• ! : - ... •.,---.-o., ,-. : .so Wird f um/we I •-.• i „•,,, A t ., • Mir@ tlemenun.- r- Garvey Garden Plaza aenerneal f•viAc 4 ',."- 51•01.... 44 44,4,4 4.4,. - • -‘Iamego re,e••••••■• C'a." a .(4,•,e,•kuon 0•••■ Akin 41•1 8 .. e S 4,LAW 1 eatmel ,..apr L.A s_ ...alaw a :1.15 1••••••••"de". *Wpm,. t-•As••••••4— k Sett•See.e'C'• V \ ..1 ' t . , -- 1. - .., ..- 1 . 1 k ,07 Aes-• Source: Google Maps,2014 Figure 2 N Local Vicinity Map (1_13 PVA Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA sM' it . ... c �' ," �"�Y' ,A � '. 1 ' 1)�--' ;=_li__ ami Vii! irk ., 1� � ' �} 2, _ • a, ,,.., 1 `af vey',4"e .41. _. ' Garve Avenue r,` " a, 4114"4 i #� � rot 1.1 -- - . � � i; � r _' 114444 ! ... , t > ,�.;•�- .1 _. { 'f `1,e. 4^iti %.-,,1•4. ?'Ida` ,.r • y':r. • _ 1 4. '.: "4IN -0-- Illiiiiiiiiiiii co „iiiii— J.�' fD - E Ill :•� ..-----• r. 1+ 57 "^""- _. Iiii., g— ° ;Ws,: , a, ... lig Z ` 4. 1 rwiltaan....,,,,:,14116*111/ ' -../'`.. < ., '• -.. ' r� T� I . p .I C 11 ill: i: 1 1 rt x i.a F Y; d - - j �_ 5 — .in ti '°•mot I Y W. �' ... a , .� Source:Google Earth 2014 Figure 3 N Aerial Photo City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 New landscaping will be provided within the building setbacks around the project perimeter. A 10'-wide landscape setback is proposed along the southern project boundary. A 6' decorative block wall is proposed along the east boundary and most of the length of the southern project boundary to separate the project from the existing adjacent residents. The westerly 20' of the southern project boundary will step down from the decorative six foot wall to a 42" tall decorative wall. A 36" tall decorative block wall 28' in length is proposed along the west project boundary south of the southerly driveway at Delta Avenue and connect with the 42" decorative wall at the southern project boundary. The project includes a total of 146 parking spaces with 48 spaces on the ground level for the retail/office space and 98 parking spaces in the subterranean parking level. As proposed, the building is 45' in height. There are two points of site access. A two-way driveway from Delta Avenue near the southern project boundary provides access to the ground level parking. A two-way driveway provides access to the subterranean parking approximately mid-site from Delta Avenue. Access to the subterranean parking area is provided on-site from the ground level via a two-way ramp at the east side of the ground level parking area. Delivery vehicles for the retail/office uses on the ground level will use the surface parking on the ground level for truck deliveries. A 12' wide public zone is proposal along the north and west sides of the project and includes a five foot landscaped parkway and a 7' sidewalk. The project has a 25' street right-of-way from the centerline on Delta Avenue and a 50' street right-of-way from the centerline on Garvey Avenue. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 4. Building elevations of the proposed building are shown in Figures 5 and 6. A conceptual landscape plan showing the types of landscape materials proposed for the site is shown in Figure 7. 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 develop appropriate mitigation measures to reduce 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 in an urbanized area that is developed with single-family detached homes to the south, commercial uses to the west, east, and north. Photographs of the project site and the surrounding land uses are shown in Figures 8, 9 and 10, respectively. Figure 11 is a photo orientation aerial showing the locations of the photos in Figures 8, 9 and 10. The land uses surrounding the site include: Page 5 P V A Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA' -4 1------<.- , . i/e-r.RC—MUDOy ,, ,97t ON ,OPE :. s :at ,,� ors :: b::•.NOT F.PART / ,�'t _ Q=f '-\ - r �+-.:,e1 /.Ili MI ® 4 �i� 9eR>e tail sx /�ltd.lf�::: uy 6. -•4 io J ,e: !d7o1�1 : ` i 17 .. 15 - ' j1\ rr r m.rdre ---. � .� l r-ar J "� x•u 'V aa- .eoar _' 1 /mss TO OO - �_ -0.rxlur sou !BM uu ,; �t0A�0. a< ^� '' _ j{>A GTE 13 rm •1401 KM o MOM wtr/DOm� , SEW.r A- ;UNIT-J. 1.240 SF. _ -- n i ( 1{0 {- 1 sore■Weld/ / •v.o[wlrl .�P - ,ter.ri o ,r.G2, I �,K . 13 ' a°- CO4PACf G04PCT •. COMPACT e'I I �t�I._! Td, 1•x,CC22 32 H%1H' - 8'X1s'3r ..riiu uM1 1 - . Rota, :t•,� UNIT-I: 1,580 SF. cyT 3$ _ C3s i1.i 11�, ? IBI fsi11 . 24 31 35 11 i MD"; ' 10 �' ,!> ii I STANDARD STANDARD -.NIPACT --- \'fro tn 0 ri T Dpi, 30 s7f20• I B'1f20' 37 3! 8'If18' _ OFFlCE 9 �fi._1 �1 UNIT-H: 1,150 SF. oeo 5F 1 kl u../ 1 A sr_-_14 '26,._... AY __f1 _-78! OR -`� - p flREIANE DRNEWAY ti Di RETAIL OFFICE ARE �..� �i OPEN r0 s%Y - "i AI rr ,li --jl ( L• , ) ,} ` r r`r I Cif n C❑ — 1 SIANDAR0 I 46 GROUND 4 2 w PARKING SPACES 71�r11 1 .� I` :e , /��I 0 {•a IUNR-G: 1,700 SF. _ DNR f t~h ! i 1 4®2 S j r 270 SF. i HY20,, s rr own--F 1,930 SF. - - �t�,. __24�4__ LFAS7NG OFFlCE�� 2 ORIYTM4 C AGER GARAGE flKD..WE DRIVEN/A. NNtW40 5 - �, 10'7120' ,, � 3 4 3 r i 111 !y` 'III... �awp UNR-E UNIT-D UNIT-C UNIT-8 UNIT-A Q axle' C .• 2¢11 j/�'r/�' i'``�,, 0 706'SF- ° 760 SF. 760 SF. 760 SF. 800 SF.°. - � - I STANDARD I METER R4 400 SF. �/ _ i`f_1 .` t/ �. Ik; 1 48 9'%le' ..., OPEN S1W 1 J61.: I[-1, �`.� // //111111 r rMi• iI i� '} ry/l .11,11 -- —' 1 <`1..S2��tCn - A i j�4 Cii1 Iri .l iii° a C /`<r<I��4a0 7.: 4, - ASnSRrna s -- -- -1 rrl ;�6f L, r '' I Res_-- --- - el' L- ;�![ i■ aaaP ` _ T` 1.3� 4 z DELTA CENTERLINE - ' _ AVENUE I■ Source:Pro Design Engineers Figure 4 Site Plan !DMA Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA I _ f ; . . I EvricirI1� r�p,a� _11 r1b ai III i �. _ •h FR.lv �• _ • c� ci F 1 , 1 171- , y� I i , 4101171711- Irgii t , ••so FA Am } � al 11� I __ _ -_ /. M(•nN J6 • • } A ri. ,Vr 4 1 I _ a r'I x.r°«was {;' .i - a•-GI 1 n1!1IIIII m 1'11":117 l.I� A_ rrIl-I .. od . . NORTH ELEVATION (VIEW FROM CARVFY AUF.) 1 - • - ' ` l ..._ III; LI- _ Ii go 1 ;. _11. 1 _ n I _ �1,. --101 m,y,l L Ii,1 � h� 1 1 41 uwn fl_ ,..._ III 1,, t amwae _ _ A ii I_. v • u L WEST ELEVATION (VI7W FROU IRO TA Affl) Source:Simon Lee bAssoc.Architects Figure 5 North and West Elevations PV A Phil Martin&Associates,inc. GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA , k t - i e i 3 t I -- -........ - 1 ,?• • EV — 1-4—c• • _.•• , 1 . 1 rusi 1111 7 lr 4 .6 • li If ,E: Li ,--_. ,,, , '..1 n■ 4 r IT t 1 -:7"' 4 El ii-- r 7 f---, r-- i II4 -'6""''°'x's '.;..q '1 I — 111111 11111111111.11111 111=11.1 11.111.111111.1 MN I ,.,p,„+awl) • 1' 1 1 1 I E; ' . 111~1 RAU 1111.11 111 -I It hitiym Lill - 1 1 , • frt•c0.0,••L SOUTH ELEVATION 1 / Willigillir ,. . / Mont i - ........... ,. _ --— - _ • to. I _,..--_____-7—=,--, MOSIIIMIIIIII ... / ,....., .,... ... , .,. / _____ _ „ 6 ; 1 ' 1111.:11 7 II IF [PH Ifil 1 ■•.••IMA Ws / o alliA .-- ... 1 I ip 1, P 1111 I Aril u Lit _ Pril .. . , ,... -, ,___ ,-,,,, •'IN. Ii_. _ L_____ s. 1 ,,,a raok • I. 1, -- --IIIIIIIIIIII- 111101111111111111111111111111111.11111111111i- I ) . I :•• ..• rE p... IN I •-, - 1111.11.1.1111111111111.11111111111.11, III . _ • L _I EAST ELEVATION u.,..= Source:Simon Lee 6-Assoc.Architects Figure 6 South and East Elevations P V A Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA PLANT LE6END Mao,MN NO.M.O.,NAM 02000%Me NW O.NlI• l..e Oa sneer,w rem coy 5504450 NV 00X II TM I I I I �s® co I I 0O PwNDea• ;m TPM* 54.110% • 11155 IuCAMIO I ROAM@ I ".. I 0.,.X2.» ,NQ.A. 5••SOX W N. NCI•N,Ir par a a I YEN rlNC I4•.OX , TM I rR I 27 Alo.•mm, '❑ .GIOMNL.Ir I -- �i A Y ,::_ _ _ _ 00 0__ :9 :1131...,:.':-a1 it o,.„,Ih -- O NwlX.os6.•• rr Nr PAW PALM •...L. m Ma I------ o II �tI' 54+11 PARVIwLN nele.Nel r.A.. ♦ +n®I 60 ��r'�, � L_ I . D❑ r.A.. • 2254 L°d6R�1�9�00 _=1ri� I°"`o• dal 411 11,'..:•• Q ul.ulelaanuw + run>an.r 1 I I NDt.NAT = � �—�I�n��1j ,p -,, ,.lp� OO ttl"OI.OWM INIr.P.N61 2M4 H .IW •J y ,0awuM,a.r.u1. >rw�,r..,NS n.nla,cN2» pm I 1- p , Q Q� I ■1- to I�\ ulauwrrvMU N .NtTN+•Nr r•AL • .Ar SWUM g a 1r i yy O i¢ '.�� 0 l —raw n 54 Ar •.K. u 2154+ CV /� I (� I .I.e.A.r•er14.e.D711:nrr, 1 ? i�r' �: - I N -_--� .I, ❑ dl �( II I _� a If:J. n awuN..wrel vPwaPwO V. I . II u - AA2n ❑ r.0rrncrA 2aaRr AWn.Xa lif.wL 14 r 111N.• 02.2,1% D4•DIA X]4'NT.FIEE\..A55 O ; / „A IN I ( l►411 P.M. .2P �.rL2A 2021 • I N, I ,� 1�.. ► 02 rWtl22PN reuw wcwalalw MP a *MO •� 1" L•- Ynn I, .� ��ii 000 0 I ' -Ir\ e, .NNH.AN OLLIO MILL.NALL5A •0, • NOM CI ( , i::, �� ... ...V�. I -};\ enewwranXOw wwfvu 02.54• raL u ass cn 1f° _ OK ,„,7,•�.,,,, _.Yy:_,, a �� 1"C O O VII! ' `` .0Lrw2reNA 000.0 e� H -*Ill Hd2OA•.121.•254 co..srLf C•Al i -- �. aXOxo aNnw a :cr I 0 I P cf.,: \ ❑^ �L r �-- 2212 x r2r I r:t„s' -� ' I I VII Iw1°au eP""°®wr •sPa. .• .154.2° 'pd, UNIT-H >! I L�_I/\ I O P2AN2.M IQTw»I n.r e.wNw C.A. •0� I a- COMMERGAL AREA � - / a cD i r * iI� I�R\ 000 M20DIOA �. I AD'7473 X NI.P 7°'' '' O ;' •"°f° -K a MALI ALLOL X4 'MY Mit 5 eAL OGVOI I rOT SLINIT-C 21'21•, -- \ .. '41404h�-% "/ r I C2alU /lAT pbL fP.0 ilf■ ''�-.' I � �// r•il I s IIi.\ © I: 2rw2uA ww•AnnN fILKR Carer 545454 O I 1 y • 1 - - "'>,N•2o- 7a, IT . it-1 I 0 Wn Ironi•;.A IL I' iI I 1 il'I ulur-P RETAIL • \ I I 40 L%N'WX14'HLPnEPOLAee 8 j ° .I . ; P j ° ;r I►aI w Su1GeR P � • O 1 r- nl� �� N7i1?r'� a \ - unr-E IrtIIT-7 u rx r 0 ,'$�" 0 Ta.M7 ; 5 r2..ir 1, •r'I, 1 _IQ © I LLAµimeG7re OPD,IH.WGpEA'PPLkO U st.(WATER CPPIGIENr a•._':l i tII Y;q'1 ° ' yyu�� •xr -'1 /� I l ry.•r ii 11 , .. i'L4 _.�^r, 0 I.Poor 6.RIIICCS sNALL x FPOVloe7 roR Au miss WnNIH II ,/ 'nf�u, •\ �"y' *11 "1-', \4 I'-_U-C i 1 1�[T ,�\1 •�Lf. i. \•IO0"."C — 9 REr OP 7LL P7V o APEA5 7,0 PQNb7r10N4. 11 II �V �.�I l_J lI }. \I \� _� \e \I .��. - 'J. TA�IN6 SHALL DC KEPT GlGW 7W PRlE Or• '. L`�' j' +PpXla�= •• _ � 4.ALL UNDSLN MALL E[MAINTAINED M A NEAT AND INV$ " IE"w4...v.�° :� IMAL.IWt COHOMOR p �n Ar 5.5110EWED H000 OHlre I'-0.Lt/toll.S/O'+!/D'pNllnE1C• o'X UNI- -/ I+ V INGtC THICK MIII.oI5PMAB,EVEM.T,,Mans.O fr ALL.3".7'• L` r� 1 POTS I PLANT,*AREAS. El AVENUE ----�-— _ DELTA _.---�e",,i,,,,NE- ,-_-- C.ALL VIE IIePOOrwe I V OF TIE YO D oeslx+m er onePe- 1r n m PLYONSIE411Y 01•Te OeNeP/•L caNlRACroR TO ..._ _ _ - sT2Er re4 ra Oltt 110AMO.O2NMATOL 10 vr.rr I.,N clx VERlrr THAT ALL ADEAVATE LAN same A AND NA a Bed FOR T� f:'1 M.LIG YI GPMGI.POP SALT VITA Sr4.10 ILOOATO. A.MHAT ALL AID LAN NGOPI AREAS 1NVE EEEN TOT. I4 �� L -- I Z€1.2) Source:Ben Lundgren&Associates Figure 7 Landscape Plan P V A Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA y. c _,,, Itt V ,A 1. / 1 — I ` . m - f.a 1.Residences fronting Delta Avenue 2. Residences on southern area of site 0 T"Thi�`�''` 'Imre...A— , - , :(' ,.. ... 1 -- win _y.._. - I - .'1 V Wan' , M r' a ar ate' � "�� , Via• .� � i, �., 3.Commercial use at Garvey Avenue and Delta Avenue 4.Used Car Lot Figure 8 Source:Phil Martin 6 Assoc. On-Site Photographs PVA Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA .r IF -: . ,11$ ,'. t It - .yews ill ' M M tl t , , ,j, , 1, r r C r Imo• w.• .. AI• _'ate.. __. . uy'"""ti r 5.Car wash north of site 6.Commercial use north of site •4 . ,.r •r- • =' ter , S+ic+ F4 4 1• el . Wu f Q �... * •444...- Y 7.Commercial use west of site 8. Nursery west of site Figure 9 Source:Phil Martin&Assoc. Off-Site Photographs PMA Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA t .'`'", r, to Y t- . 536. +''I 44. 1111 ''` '''. ,.ti € - - --- i . IuII._. 1111.‘e;rns saee drtOr,St z 3 ;� -� —r- y , !i c _ r w d « y e `r k '13.' � t atV , " « i . S 9.Residential homes south of site 10.Commercial uses east of site fronting Garvey Avenue Pt " w . .: may.. `-- Property Line 11.Used car lot and businesses east of site 12. Used car lot east of site Figure 10 Source:Phil Martin e'rAssoc. Off-Site Photographs P V A Phil Martin&Associates,inc. GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA .. ..... - •i. `` r. 1 11; ..+�I . -- '4". 1. ..• • , , w. .�, ''~ 0 0 �9 , r 47 - Gar-vey-Ave y ., 1 '�`� = Garvey Avenue i .m runs,.. _. 4. -ter . - _ IV-- i 1: o _ •m 1,i•l0 ( ` I' •�1� t r * 1 �'. , i 0 elk. PROJECT '� - m VIP Q SITE ► m ra Irpild , ri, _ , airsii... ,, II :. _...,, , , , , „0 ,, . i r ,. . r rr - f < .T if ' id k C :fir `,i �. Y0 -....... , . .... . . ' ' 1 ,Source:Google Earth 2014 ®" Figure 11 Photo Orientation Map City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 North General Plan — Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (31-45 du/ac) Zoning — C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) Land Use — Commercial South General Plan — Medium Density Residential (0-12 du/ac) Zoning — R-2 Light Multiple Residential Land Use — Single-family detached East General Plan - Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (31-45 du/ac) and R-2 Light Multiple Residential Zoning - C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) Land Use - Commercial and Residential West General Plan - - Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (31-45 du/ac) and Public Facilities Zoning - C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) Land Use— Commercial and City of Monterey Park Water Department Pump House 1.6 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS The City of Rosemead identified four projects that, along with the proposed project, could have cumulative impacts. The four 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 46,000 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. C. Garvey Del Mar Plaza — The project proposes to develop a 1.14 acre site at the northeast corner of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue with 60 residential units, including 12 low income units, and 15,553 square feet of retail space. D. 9048 Garvey Avenue — develop a 2.1 acre site with 48 residential units and 6,500 square feet of retail space. An aerial photograph showing the location of the four cumulative projects is provided in Figure 12. There are no additional cumulative projects that along with the proposed project could have potential cumulative impacts. Page 14 PV A Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA axon vet E Ross Ave • 0 �'RaTonaBlvd ._ .. ao R V a moia .._ _ _ .,,..;. yr^+"r+.�llr�rr""" a � a n.. 'tl �. •, � � y'i s Ar kW) Goluri,biatSt t' W v s ' 'iii ;rt; ''' o Hellman A\.e " 'Hellman Ave a --A �' AIWA + , t a d,rj• 'Hershey A yr ., co: a , Telsla Aver . R, heI aav } Otiy Z.. `l' 1 c ° It e Emerson ve c ti ry. 0r ♦� o E w n fi iQirAivte S. t x A - Garvey Market Place"► B Garvey 168 Plaza +� ` orlaa. i,) 'I is ,e Garve Del M`ar Pla a j ,Garve Avenue • '� .n ?, ��' �. ,ri �: e , 4. , e 6'arveyeAve .t ,.� t i A .. • on, •• .4D ,9'048.Garvey-'Avenue• n Pto�e tAStte Gaf ey Garden Plaza' I r� f ! 'i „ roant-d Lod, G,o,a E Mabel A;e,y 111 1: !, u `t - Egley Ave it 1 - 53.e "r, .,-,-- w-ii"9,048 Garvey Ave .r,,, ,41. -pa"�" e � _ N e vd i n i,l( r',,,,,, - . co yE "b , 1%Ilia' I , w41. `q t,.VI E Newritark Ave ';r & �1 -� �wz}t /e �: - p i i -1,1p.�,, ilk.:'-: n.. w�l� Fe,,ni�1 d• urval1,, •. Cu E :- 19 ' wise 0, Cr • w r 'i • ++ .o y a Hiylciill ;I D tl d f It i t <, § p KI�nric.m in : f rt, I rb d . T � y nt �` a �� r r1 r <e ;h til :ya FAIR 0,nF i• r -`'' .f R•ush;St ,i E Rays. 1�ev{� v.., �oresa 'r, �P!noilDr m n' � a ` ,` c: 1 1-10' ,'' `South San Gabriel • I "� tea Ij- 0 ° ,'W• 4, 'Lelito Ur r+ t roil.ill Brim e,cA -1 3_ 7. L 1 nZ^ y 0 G co 1:_i J � K,1Ci °..F 1+11 • If/ n� ''�'- t Source: Google Earth 2015 Figure 12 " el_19 Cumulative Projects Aerial Photo City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 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 ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Services Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 'r rs�+�I�lit of i ��.s'Ii P1aYe7� - '- � - '- � o-.,_�.:• ,f On the basis of this initial evaluation: LI 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. n 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 16 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 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 17 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 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 18 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION - K Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact - j 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 a scenic vista by the City of Rosemead General Plan. The most predominant scenic vista open to the Rosemead community is the San Gabriel Valley mountain range approximately 8 miles north of Rosemead. No existing residents adjacent to and north, west, or east of the site will have to look across the site to view the San Gabriel Mountains. The residents adjacent to and south of the site will have their direct northern views of the San Gabriel mountain range blocked by the project. However, the residents further south of the project will have less of their distant mountain views impacted. The project will not have any significant scenic vista impacts because there are no City adopted scenic vistas that are visible from the area adjacent to or surrounding the site that would be significantly impacted by the project. b) No Impact. The project site is not located adjacent to or near a state-designated, or eligible scenic highway.' The project will not impact any existing scenic resources, historic buildings, etc., within a state scenic highway. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is developed with three commercial buildings and five one-story single-family residences. The commercial buildings front Garvey Avenue on the north, four of the residential units front Delta Avenue on the west and the fifth residence is located along the east project boundary in the southeast area of the site. All of the buildings and site improvements will be demolished to allow the project to be developed. The building setbacks along the west and southern boundaries will be landscaped. The landscaping proposed along the west project boundary will provide some aesthetic buffering to motorists and pedestrians on Delta Avenue. Landscaping is proposed along the entire length of the southern project boundary along with a 6' decorative block wall. The 6' State of California Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenichighwa r�s/ Page 19 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 decorative block wall will buffer the project from the residents south of the site. The landscaping proposed within the five foot parkway along Garvey Avenue and Delta Avenue will improve the aesthetics of the project site for motorists and pedestrians on these two roadways compared to the existing condition that has no landscaping along either street adjacent to the site. A visual simulation is provided to show the proposed development from Garvey Avenue and Delta Avenue: Figures 13 and 14 show visual simulations of the site as seen from Garvey Avenue and Delta Avenue, respectively. As shown, the three levels of apartments will be constructed on top of the ground floor of retail use. The ground level retail stores will allow direct pedestrian access. There are approximately 25 existing trees on the property. The project proposes to remove all of the existing trees and plant twenty-five replacement trees throughout the site. The 25 replacement trees will include four trees in the public parkway along Garvey Avenue and seven trees in the public parkway along Delta Avenue. The remaining 13 trees will be planted along the southern project boundary, the southeast corner of the site and the northeast corner of the easterly extension of the site. None of the trees that will be removed from the site are oak trees. In addition to planting 25 trees, the project proposes to plant vines, shrubs and other landscape materials within the landscaped setback areas along the east, south, and west project boundary. The project perimeter landscaping will improve the aesthetics of the project for pedestrians and motorists on Delta Avenue compared to the existing condition that has minimal perimeter landscaping. The project will improve the existing aesthetics of the site with the construction of a new building and landscaping. The proposed building will be more visible to area residents and businesses compared to the existing development on the site due to the height of the building and density. As stated previously, the proposed building is four stories in height compared to the existing one- and two-story buildings on the site. Because of its height, the project will also be more visible to residents further from the site compared to the existing buildings. While the project will be more visible compared than the existing development, the project is not anticipated to significantly degrade the existing visual characteristics of either the site or the surrounding due to the variations of building relief and heights. Although the proposed building is 45 feet in height compared to other buildings in the area that are 30 feet in height or less, the existing zoning allows structures up to 70 feet tall. The project proposes a building that is 25' shorter than allowed by the City's zoning. The project will change and reduce the privacy of the residents south and southeast of the project due to the height of the proposed building. The proposed building will allow project residents to have greater views of the areas surrounding the site compared to the existing condition. Views by the project residents to the south and southeast could reduce the existing privacy of the residents that are closest to the site. Similarly, existing residents south and southeast of the site will have direct views of the residential units and residents of the apartment building. 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. Page 20 PV A Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA a /. iiiiiiiftr s.- 7 i I 1 I , - ll' i a ip-- , ,. 1 I Ws iiii\ ii 1 p I ma di PI ',.-, , 1 , , ,r.i. , - • -..-._�..a a... `wr'YM1'• °�? " iy3yyp�x`i'N.'-ru.%t a .,.k r vE4 Source:Artistic Engineering Figure 13 North Building Simulation P V A Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiimilii.I r1 I s 1 b' I II,. . -s i 'A 1 ,, i '''' 5 k, I II . 111VPH: 0 114 .:, , 1 ' i . i — AM i , »4 i k,t r NW, rtr „I..., ii _, , 1 . _ , , ,...„,„ , "41 • �, H vow `•».fir► .". '- iyE.... Source:Artistic Engineering Figure 14 West Building Simulation City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 Street trees are proposed along both sides of the project adjacent to streets including four streets trees along Garvey Avenue and eight trees along Delta Avenue for a total of twelve street trees. 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 Delta 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 project proposes a 250 square foot circular plaza at the northwest corner of the building at the intersection of Garvey and Delta Avenues to meet 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 existing structures on the site are older buildings including both residential and commercial uses. The existing buildings are not consistent in their design and architecture. The buildings show signs of delayed maintenance and repair compared to other buildings in the area. Compared to the existing development on the property, the project would improve the aesthetics of the site with a new building that is current with other new development in Rosemead in terms of design and architecture. The replacement of the existing older buildings on the site with a new four-story building with residential units and commercial uses and proposed site improvements, including landscaping, 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 Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue 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. Light In compliance with RMC 17.74.050.A.12, a photometric study 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 15. The photometric analysis shows that the project will have maximum light of 2.2 foot candles at the east project boundary and 4.4 foot candles along the southern project boundary. The lighting industry recognizes a maintenance horizontal luminance 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 on the site that will extend off-site with accompanying glare resulting in a combination of floodlight effects that could impact project residents and adjacent residents. The following measure is recommended to reduce on- and off-site lighting impact to 0.1 foot candles and less-than-significant. Page 23 PMA Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA , ! . • ! .. . . ............... .:.. .._.._•.• -,„., _...___ ______ ,. . .,.. -.--•,--._ - , , ,,. ,, ,...,.....„... ,,,!ZialirtiIitf,tfelb957ff"'"1::/t1r, -14':,f."...1..'....•.:.-'.....•'•'•• . . .. • • • • • •• -,--- •c. • . . . , , '... Y, :,,,', : . . . . , i ,i .. . . . .... . . . _. . . :.; • • ,•••••• ••. . . . . . . . . - . • • -...... 'ct' 1' '";.s.'",,,,: '. ; E : .•::,',.. : '.', :. : L• •.',. . . i • !. .....,„-.„.„... .... . . . . . -, . ..,.........:... .i•...:....,.. ....„ . ...... .. .14, ; ; ,...,;.,....c,;•••; ; ; ; , i;;;s„, ; ; ; t ; t 1 I I • .. - ; '.. " . ..; "X :` i '.• : '.• '.', . r :,' . : ' .: . , . •.; .... I kV.%7 t u. CO i .i i',..1 i .4 le. .• • 1.0 ' > 1 ••: If• i • 1•,:r. ' ;•" • "''''" - " ' ' " " " ' " -' -"' '' ' ' -..." :A!, -11:1321 ;1-•• -; ..-;1 •• i•-••;••• ;; . . :. ••••'..!:,....:-.,- *kk • 1 ,1 I ;q 1 i---r- -7...:..........,..c..2-:i p.0 • .■ 076--13.c.; CI.cr-r.f.•,) 1.1.1_,....y.4.1:__trgr.7. ." .Mernlitr455Y-'' •. " • " ' . -,. d. •, •,!.,..• "-‘, 7.".4...,.!..•.......'4,..;1,, .42.0' .••• ,. -- ' , • '1............4.,...X.:8 wx A. ...et .4 4 4. •.2 .4 4. ,a ...,•la 2. 2..„........... L.e •se a.2 /.... y. ,a .1% ...„ .0 m. ..'1' ... ''''.''.'.`'....“..........• tr n : 0 ,, •_ .- ....,,.. ... T.i-i7,■",;1,......:i„ .P.............................. ,.;',/sNIZi.; • i ht. a., .... i 7 a/*a ., 14 g• ... ..:2# 2. I. 4 iiI.A I.(' ' i,I.II .• ' .. I I I ''i...I•,'. . .:4'' ''.I : • ...-...^...-...^.......-;I; ,iii,7..•,,,„,; : ,.... a........ 23. 2.aVI.4.4 1.0 .0.4 2 a •i4.....:•.:... ..., ...■ ..4 ., ... i • . .. . ,, :., .. ....•... .. ... ... .i•• 1,--.:‘. i . :'. .i•; i I 1 ..„..,.. i • n, I..- . i ....; •,..,•• .„ ..,,, ... .1....... . . , i il•••• a.-; ..••• •■•••■•,j.f4 ••■ ....I..1 •••:,'A•1:•,!•!.!••,..t.........;!. .......,.....÷1'..4.".. ■•• 4' 4 •••i • . .:. • ..- .,,„, „..... „ „, ,,.,, 4:". .' . - I 1 , . . . • ...... ...4 I .• P. i . • , 4 'I ... .. ,t, .1.4 s...1 a.1)'••.1•4:•.4., 0...• VS I.VA, ■.■ o.it.•■it .N. .i. ..ii.1., i,.. ,.. • t • I ' . •*Tv, r. II , fli n •, ,,,,-..,,air.,:f,.. I- •' '.0'.-■ ••-••••••••'•••.-----•••;-- ....r.lir:,;::: ,ii, -.4.-7.-.--7.. .. ...... ..... ......."1" 2 .,..',.' •, 1,, . , '4•-kl.s: ; 1 7.-"ri:: y ' . : i,..! . : ..f..•••■•,, ■.1... ... .... .! •••;....•....:!... •..../..,1 :, ..'..,....? .'" .•f' •' ...,,,',.....,.:_•........gr : . . . : : 4 N. • ' .,,r•: i" . ' .... .. icy ;..1 4.4 k.sr.... 34. ■,. ..2e i.... e o.i.• :, A., .f 4• ..., .k.' ". 11. ". ' \ 9. t..7, a.l Z. •.■ 5 a 1... ,n,.4...:. .5....,-.• = , - i r,,,..3 • ■ . •■• '.•-■*cr.' .- 'YYY' l'i i " b''''''r:""L'17'''''. .'IF.' '' ''• 114:,,PPL'i 41,.P,... ,,:i1"..;;•,..','••i4 'S."'''',' .4." '' "e7, i ' 'k. i.1 • ..0...., ., .....„iti .......nli.."S7I' ... [,. r,,.• 1111:e''.3 1. 1,-. ''1.!. 11 ' '\.- • A - ..1 . , 11 .......A. , ,.. ......., ... ...„.,...... ..:..::: * .. , i i .: .• i.:!...., . , L.,..........._.... .. ... ...-..--t-,,-.:-.. ,..1•-•-:.;..--;--..74,-1.7,-•,.., ,.....,-,..p:,..707.,....:•1 ..):- ,,,.. , ; t ......_,............. ? . ' ''. ..,j,...:,.. ,... .....,.... ., .. .. .. .. ..2...-„,,,,,,wr,,,...%, .....4.1,..4.• .a F..:-.T2,1 •;.!-:....,...45,..,...../, ,41..1 1-5-15121- . :: "':' ''' "" ``'" '''' ''" ""' ' .' 1'''\ .. :,, ..„.1 ......... - ‘..'.........- ....,.:,--iii •.1. z..\ el 0..• 0, : '4.:,•••• 1, 1 . ••1 -;" " .t......At...t..-.:'. ;:•;:::".i .4.,; s. - 4 " -4 .4 ,-, ll .... : i..k .,'...... ,.,, .... 4.. ,... 1.....•' -4;1,1' / I r' ' - '-.i •P, . .., .4 , • I''.• i;,.. 1 • • . 3 ) i . . 1.1 : :r• `.1' .4.' ",....-.4.....,;-='41%1° 3 t....' - .' .'. ... r*. i •-•._ . : 3 , . . 2 1 110- . • ,. , 96 4 * I * ' i n"-----,,-* i-.sp.., 10 ...:O.,•'.4••' 1 • , . 4 4.1 .e t.*4 I t• .•a .4 ..a•• 4 . ...V,..I............... . • I 4 I. 1 ..0 :, n ,,..I''7....'"I 777 .r"..' .......,,.......2. 1.,„ r,.101.4;1 -...,1 ,•.,. 47,.... i ,t. ,: ': .2y'..:'..r.1. ' , I" .2.1i „ 'Xiit•,,„..-) i,...,.,,,,,,...,...... .,/.....7•. .-1,,,....a '1'4: ':.1 l' : V.:7:" TV'.:, <.,,..,:IP'',,.,•. c,,..,..,. . , ..., ,,, . •...., ••••i--'41-0- _.._ _ _---................_._.________------............._-.... . . •.. .... ... . . . . .. . . . .0..0 ,0,0,1.0.0 O.Lcr.-e-',.47. 0-0.A.04....q.0 .0.2 .4.0 .2.9 3.2 2..O. 0.4 P•0 0,2 .P..9 o Ac..1.,.,.p,R, ..-Y•s ••.,'•,,.._.,': .. . .2,'„,,',„12.,..::..1.,:,..,',.'„,,,,„.-"g1,....;„,,;:.-::.,A.21... ....*1:%.• •-•••••,,•„..A..;..,..1...,...: 1......-4:C..,,,,,„.........,.. .....(.1,-. ....L.:1:::••••,11',-,.... .....,--.4.1-..-......-----...-.....„.,.-1A... 1.,..1,„:144.••- e,P1 ...... 01 , • ' ' ,. • . : s. c• DF1,TA AV E N UE__ "r. .. . i .' ..*,,,..-- ---•••- q.. •- . . .. . . „;., ,;',7 I ,, . . *.............__............. . . .. • _ ..... ... . .. • \ .. .'• • ...-' i -...... ..... •- ..., Source: CEG Engineering Figure 15 Photometric Study City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 Mitigation Measure No. 1 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. • Select lighting fixtures with more-precise optical control and/or different lighting distribution. • Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures. • Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures. • Select lower-output lamp/lamp technologies • A combination of the above. Glare from the windows and metal surfaces of the proposed building could impact adjacent land uses that are glare-sensitive, especially residences east and southeast of the site. A proposed 6 foot block wall along the east and south project boundary will block and eliminate ground level glare impacts to the residents adjacent to and east and south of the project. Glare from apartment windows and any metal building materials of the apartments could extend to area residents. For the most part, the windows on all building floors that could generate glare are recessed into the building. Because the windows are recessed and somewhat set-back in the building, glare from the windows will be minimal. Overall, glare by the project 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 rI 3.2 Agricultural Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the eC3lifornia;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. 4160 the project: Atekaillt a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland ❑ ❑ ❑ Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ❑ use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or ❑ ❑ ❑ nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Page 25 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES a) No Impact. The project site is completely developed with commercial and residential uses. There are no agricultural uses on the site or within the immediate 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. 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. 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 on the property. The project site and the surrounding properties are developed, located in an urbanized area, and not used for agriculture. Therefore, 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. less Than Potentially Significant Less Than _ „Significant, With; Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation, Impact- Impact 3.3 = Air Quality �L: Where available, the significance crileria,establislred by.the applicable air quality management or air pollution control;district may be relied upon to make the following determinations '[L 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 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 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 precursorsj? 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. Page 26 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 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. Table 1 South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts (Emissions Tons/Day) Pollutant 2010a 2015b 2020b 2025b NOx 603 451 357 289 VOC 544 429 400 393 — PM-10 160 155 161 165 PM-2.5 71 67 67 68 '2010 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 plann ng inconsistency. The SCAQMD, however, while Page 27 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 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 significant increased quantities of emissions and impact the AQMP. The project will not generate any emissions that will exceed AQMD adopted thresholds. The project will not impact the AQMP. b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. 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. Ozone, carbon monoxide, PM-2.5 and nitrogen oxides are monitored at the Pico Rivera air monitoring facility, while 10-micron diameter particulate matter (PM-10) is measured at the Azusa air monitoring station. Table 2 shows the last five years of monitoring data from a composite of the data resources. Table 2 Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2009-2013) Pollutant/Standard 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Ozone 2 1-Hour> 0.09 ppm (S) 8 1 1 5 8-Hour> 0.07 ppm (S) 6 1 1 6 3 8- Hour> 0.075 ppm (F) 3 1 0 0 0 Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.101 Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.07 Carbon Monoxide 0 _ 1-Hour> 20. ppm (S) - 0 _ 0 0 0 _ 1-Hour> 9. ppm (S, F) 0 0 0 0 0 Max 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 2.5 2.3 2.7 xx xx Max 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 2.1 1.9 2.4 2.2 2.0 Nitrogen Dioxide 0 1-Hour> 0.18 ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.089 0.08 Inhalable Particulates (PM-10) _ _ 24-Hour> 50 µg/m3 (S) 7/52 5/55 8/61 6/61 6/61 24-Hour> 15014/m3 (F) 0/52 0/55 0/61 0/61 0/61 Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (µg/m3) 72 68 63 78 76 Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM-2.5) 24-Hour> 35 4/m3 (F) 2/118 0/117 1/114 1/119 0/114 Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (µg/m3) 71.0 34.9 41.2 45.3 29.1 xx-data not available,S=State Standard,F=Federal Standard 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.00v/adam/ Page 28 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 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. 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 that is generated 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 CaIEEMod was developed by SCAQMD to provide a model to calculate construction emissions and operational emissions for a residential or commercial project. CalEEMod Page 29 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 calculates both the daily maximum and annual average emissions for criteria pollutants as well as total or annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The CaIEEMod 2013.2.2 computer model was used to calculate emissions from the default construction equipment fleet and schedule anticipated by CaIEEMod as shown in Table 4. Table 4 Construction Activity Equipment Fleet Phase Name and Duration Equipment 1 Concrete Saw Demolition (20 days) 3 Loader/Backhoes 1 Dozer 1 Grader Site Prep (3 days) 1 Scraper 1 Loader/Backhoe 1 Grader Grading (6 days) 1 Dozer 2 Loader/Backhoes 1 Crane 3 Forklifts Construction (220 days) 1 Generator Set 1 Welder 3 Loader/Backhoes 1 Concrete Mixer 1 Paving Equipment Paving (10 days) 1 Paver 2 Rollers 1 Loader/Backhoe 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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5 Emissions 2015 ------ Unmiti•ated 17.3 32.5 23.4 0.0 8.4 5.0 Miti•ated 17.3 32.5 23.4 0.0 4.4 3.0 2016 ------ Unmiti•ated 17.3 2.4 2.7 0.0 0.3 0.2 Miti•ated 17.3 2.7 .4- 0.0 0.3 0.2 • Page 30 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 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. Mitigation Measure No. 2 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 CaIEEMod2013.2.2 for a project build-out year of 2017. The operational emissions for the project are shown in Table 6. Table 6 Daily Operational Impacts Operational Emissions (lbs./day) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5 CO2 Area 2.7* 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 889.1 Energy 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 172.9 Mobile 2.2 5.8 24.0 0.1 3.7 1.1 4,823.1 Total 4.9 5.9 30.0 0.1 3.8 1.1 5,885.1 SCAQMD 55 55 550 150 150 55 - Threshold Exceeds No No No No No No NA Threshold? Source: CaIEEMod Output in Appendix • Assumes natural gas hearths for residential use 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. 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 Page 31 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 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 occur during demolition and construction activities. 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. CalEEMod 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 Type Acres/8-hr-day Crawler Tractor 0.5 Graders 0.5 Rubber Tired Dozers 0.5 Scrapers 1 Based on the equipment listed in Table 7 for the project and the CalEEMod default, the equipment fleet will disturb 1.5 acres daily during peak construction grading activity as shown below: (1 dozer x 0.5 + 1 grader x 1 = 1.5 acres 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 acre/25 meters CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5 S. San Gabriel Valley _ ��'1�4•C{C7�911-��. Sx.a._:S•�_..5.�0.9� ..;�� `...u.a:..: ._...._ `1 _ _,j- '."� '�;..V. 'c. _x, .... Demolition Unmitigated 22 30 2 2 Mitigated 22 30 2 2 Site Prep Unmitigated 19 32 3 2 Mitigated 19 32 2 2 Page 32 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 LST 1 acre/ 25 meters CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5 S. San Gabriel Valley Grading Unmitigated 21 31 8 5 Mitigated 20 31 4 3 Construction Unmitigated 17 26 2 2 Mitigated 17 26 2 2 Paving Unmitigated 12 20 1 1 Mitigated 12 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. 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 divided into quantification of project-related GHG emissions, making a determination of significance, and specification of any appropriate mitigation if Page 33 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 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 MTCO2(e) 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 two years. During project construction, the CaIEEMod2013.2.2 computer model predicts that the construction activities will generate the annual CO2(e) emissions shown in Table 9. Table 9 Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO2(e)) CO2(e) Year 2015 388.8 Year 2016 7.2 :'Overall Total396:Q Amortized 13.2 *CaIEEMod Output provided in appendix 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 13.2 MTCO2(e) per year, which is less than the threshold of 3,000 MTCO2(e). Therefore, the project GHG impacts are less-than-significant. Operational GHG Emissions The operational and annualized construction emissions were calculated and shown in Table 10. The annual GHG emissions are calculated to be 932.7 metric tons CO2(e)/year, which is less than the significance threshold of 3,000 MT. The operational GHG emissions are less- than-significant. Table 10 Operational Emissions Consumption Source MT CO2(e)tons/year Area Sources* 10.8 Energy Utilization 140.7 Mobile Source 721.5 Solid Waste Generation 15.0 Water Consumption 31.5 Annualized Construction 13.2 Total :932:7 • Significance Threshold 3,000 • • Assumes natural gas hearths for residential use Page 34 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 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/year 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). 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 east and south 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 nine pieces of construction equipment operating on the site at any time. The potential for all nine pieces of equipment to operate simultaneously is considered to be low. Therefore, the odors that will be generated by the operation of the construction equipment 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 35 City of Rosemead Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 Less Than P5IFIW, Significant Less Than Significant With Significant. No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3:4 Biological Resources - . 1lould the protect ._ ,,.� _ a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local ❑ ❑ ❑ or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional ❑ ❑ plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ---- c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited 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? 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 commercial buildings, single-family residences, pavement and other site improvements. There are less than 20 introduced, non-native trees on the property. There is no native habitat on the site to support native wildlife. The existing introduced 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. Page 36 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 b) No Impact. The project site and the surrounding area are developed with residential, commercial, and public facility uses. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities either on the site or on any of the surrounding properties. The project will not impact riparian or sensitive habitat. c) No Impact. There are no wetlands either on or adjacent to the site. The project will not impact wetlands. d) No Impact. The project is developed with three commercial buildings, five single-family residences, pavement and other site improvements. The surrounding properties are developed with residential, commercial and public facility 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 since there is no habitat on or adjacent to the site that supports wildlife. e) No Impact. Approximately fifteen non-native trees will be removed during project demolition. In their place, 12 new street trees will be planted along Garvey and Delta Avenues. In addition, trees will be planted along the west project boundary at the southwest corner of the site, along the length of the southern project boundary and the sitting area at the southeast corner of the site. 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. f) No Impact. The City of Rosemead is not located within an 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. Less Than Potential y Significant Less Than Significant With Significant N. fi Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation impact Impact' 3.5 Cultural Resources � VJlould�t:e:nro�ecf - a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as ❑ ❑ ❑ defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ❑ ❑ pursuant to§15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ❑ ❑ geologic feature? _ d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? Page 37 City of Rosemead Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES a) No Impact. None of the existing buildings on the site are classified as, or a candidate as a historical resource by either the City of Rosemead or the State because they do not meet the criteria for a historical resource. The demolition of the existing buildings and other site improvements 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 any paleontological resource impacts. d) No Impact. Neither the site nor the surrounding area is known to 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. - Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant Na Environmental issues impact Mitigation Impact Impact i f � rc r �-• .6 Geology and Solis Mould the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving_ i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ----- ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ® ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss ❑ ❑ ❑ __.__....__.of topsoil__. .__......—..-.__..__._..—.____--__—__..__..._..._..__._____.__.._.___..._...-..----.----.--..._..__..___..____.._....----_.—__._._...._.._.__. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result ❑ ❑ ❑ in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Page 38 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 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.2 A copy of the geotechnical investigation is included in Appendix B. a i) 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 Rosemead General Plan). The entire City of Rosemead is underlain by the Santa Fe Springs segment of the Puente Hills blind thrust fault.3 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.4 a ii) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. 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 2 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Pacific Geotech, Inc.September 27,2013, 3 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation,Pacific Geotech, Inc.September 27,2013, page 4. 4 Ibid,page 5. Page 39 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 acceleration of all of the other faults in the area with an expected peak acceleration value at the site from such an earthquake approximately 0.79g and should be used in all site design criteria. Mitigation Measure No. 3 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project shall be designed for a peak acceleration value of 0.79g as recommended in the geotechnical engineering investigation and approved by the City Engineer. a iii) Less Than Significant Impact. The site is located within a liquefaction zone based on the State Seismic Hazard Zone map (El Monte).5 The historically high groundwater under the subject site is 8 feet below ground surface. Calculations for liquefaction potential were performed for the soil layers below the depth of 8 feet, the historically highest groundwater table at the site. The results of the calculations indicate that the onsite soils are "Non- liquefiable".6 Thus, the site will not be significantly impacted by liquefaction. a iv) No Impact. The site is generally flat. The development surrounding the site is also generally flat. 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 single-family detached residences. None of the existing development shows any evidence of unstable soil conditions. The project proposes to construct a 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 sand. The sandy materials will have no expansion potential.' The project will not be impacted by expansive soils. e)the project Impact. The site is currently to be served by the public sewer system.l Thle project the project to connect to and not impact any soils resulting from alternative disposal systems. 5 Ibid,page 6. 6 Ibid. 7 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation,Pacific Geotech, Inc.September 27,2013, page 8. Page 40 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 less Than Potentially. Significant ;Less Than - Significant With Significant - No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials oudtae •roect a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine ❑ ❑ ❑ El transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? _ _ __ — b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably 1:1 foreseeable upset and accident conditions El CI El involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?__ ____—_ -- c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, ❑ ❑ ❑ El substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?------------------ ______—______ d) Be located within one-quarter mile of a facility that might reasonably be anticipated ® El emit hazardous emissions or handle ❑ Cl hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances 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 117 CI as identified by the State CI 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 Code?_ __ __ -- -- f) Be located on land that is, or can be made, sufficiently free of hazardous materials so ❑ ❑ ❑ El 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 ❑ CI ❑ El airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project 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? ----- Page 41 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A Phase 18 Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) was prepared for the site by Robin Environmental Management (REM). The report is included in Appendix D. a) No Impact. Based on the Phase I ESA that was conducted for the site in April 2012, the existing uses on the site do not use or generate any significant quantities of hazardous materials and significantly impact the public or the environment.9 Similarly, the project does not propose to use or generate any hazardous materials that would significantly impact the public or the 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. Sanchez Elementary and Roger Temple Intermediate schools are approximately a quarter mile southeast of the project. Willard Elementary School is approximately one-quarter mile northeast of the site and the Rosemead Education Center is approximately a quarter mile to the east. The project does not propose any use that would emit or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials or substances and impact any schools, including Sanchez Elementary, Roger Temple Intermediate, Willard Elementary, or Rosemead Education Center. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The site was occupied in the past with a variety of uses including various types of markets, liquor stores, and restaurants.10 The site is currently occupied with a two story building that is occupied with office use on the ground floor and apartments on the second floor, a single-story commercial building, paved parking lots, and residential units. None of the existing uses on the site either use or generate any hazardous materials. The government records that were searched as part of the Phase I ESA that was prepared for the site identified three Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Spill sites that are located within 1/8 mile of the site and targeted as a potential environmental concern. The three sites include: • Laidlaw Harley Davidson, 8399 Garvey Avenue — listed as a "Case Closed" status. • Laidlaw Harley Davidson, 8351 Garvey Avenue — listed as an "Open" status. • Corsair LLC, 8350 Garvey Avenue — listed as a "Case Closed (No Further Action Required)" status. Based on the Phase I ESA, all three of the identified sites are located down gradient of the project site in terms of groundwater flow. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of the three identified environmental concerns could significantly impact the subsurface environment of the project site.11 As a result, the potential for the project to be significantly impacted by hazardous materials from any of the three sites is less-than-significant. 8 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 8404-8416 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead California, Robin Environmental Management,April 24, 2012. 9 Ibid, page 27. 10 Ibid, page 8 " Ibid,pages 28-29. Page 42 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 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 I ESA, the property does not contain any hazardous materials and has not been used as a hazardous waste site in the past. 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. 4 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, except for the potential for the presence of asbestos or lead paint in the buildings. If asbestos or lead paint are present, the incorporation of Mitigation Measure No. 4 above will reduce potential asbestos and lead paint impacts to less-than-significant. 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 proposed project. g) No Impact. The closest airport to the site is El Monte Airport, which is approximately 4 miles northeast of the project. The project will not impact airport operations at El Monte Airport or result in any safety hazards for project residents and employees. 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. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Would a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 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 granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site?__ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned 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? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY A hydrology report12 and Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) prepared by Jong Chen Engineering. The hydrology report and SUSMP are included in Appendix E. 12 Preliminary Hydrology Report, Proposed Commercial Building Garvey Garden Plaza at 8408 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead,CA 91770, October 4,2014. Page 44 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project could generate silt and other debris with surface water runoff during project 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 generated from the site is regulated under the National 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 of Rosemead requires all development projects in its jurisdiction to comply with the NPDES requirements for construction and operations as appropriate. Therefore, the project 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 project developer will be required to submit the completed Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan 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 3/4 of an inch of surface water runoff from the site prior to off-site discharge. To comply with the law, the project proposes to provide a planter box along the entire length of the southern project boundary to retain and treat the first 3/4 inch of surface water runoff. The planter box totals approximately 1,948 square feet in area and four feet deep and serves as soil and plant-based filtration device to remove pollutants through a variety of biological, physical, and chemical treatment processes. The proposed planter box has a capacity of 2,893 cubic feet. All surface water runoff will be directed to the planter box at the southern project boundary for retention and treatment prior to discharge. Any surface water greater than 3/4 of an inch will be discharged from the planter box via a 6-inch diameter drain to the curb and gutter system in Delta Avenue adjacent to the project. The proposed planter box in conjunction with the incorporation of all 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. 5 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 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. 6 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. Page 45 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 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 planter box along the southern project boundary with capacity to filter the first 3/4 inch of project generated storm water prior to its discharge into Delta Avenue. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes landscaping along the east and southern project boundary. The project also proposes to plant tree wells along the north and west project boundary and a planter box along the entire length of the southern project boundary. The street trees along Garvey Avenue and Delta Avenue and a planter box along the southern project boundary will allow on-site water percolation. The planter box along the southern project boundary will collect and treat the first 3/4 inch of rain. The planter box will collect runoff from the site that is currently discharged untreated into the local storm drain system. The project will collect and direct the first 3/4 inch of rainfall to the planter box and allow project generated surface water to infiltrate and recharge the local groundwater. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, but rather provide an on-site planter box to allow project runoff to percolate into the local groundwater. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The existing storm water drainage pattern of the site is generally towards the southeast corner and surface water drains to the adjacent properties southeast of the site. Some surface water flows north to Garvey Avenue and east in the curb and gutter. Surface water that currently enters Delta Avenue west of the site flows south in in the curb and gutter in Delta Avenue. As discussed in 3.8 "a)" above, while small quantities of project generated surface water runoff from the sidewalks and driveways will continue to be directed towards Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue, the majority of the runoff will be collected and discharged into a planter box along the southern project boundary for on-site percolation. The project will not alter the general existing drainage pattern on the site or cause erosion or siltation of a stream or river because the planter box will reduce the amount of existing runoff from the site that is directed to the local storm drain system and allow some of that runoff to percolate into the local groundwater. By reducing the amount of runoff that will be generated from the site, the project will reduce and 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, surface water drainage from the sidewalks and project driveways will continue to flow west to the existing curb and gutter system in Delta Avenue and north to Garvey Avenue. The project is estimated to generate approximately 0.22 cubic feet per second of runoff more than the existing condition due to the increase in the impermeable surface area by the project. The project will discharge most of the surface water runoff into a proposed planter box along the southern project boundary for water quality treatment and percolation and reduce the amount of runoff that would be discharged to the local storm drain system. The proposed on-site planter box along the southern project boundary would reduce the amount of surface water runoff that is currently generated from the site. By collecting and directing most of the project generated surface water runoff to the on-site planter box, the potential flooding impact by the project would be less-than-significant. e) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.8 "d)" above and based on the hydrology report, the incremental increase in project surface water will not exceed the capacity of either the existing or proposed storm water drainage system that serves the project. The existing local storm drain system (curb and gutter) in Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue, along with the regional downstream storm drain facilities that serve this area of Page 46 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 Rosemead have capacity to handle the additional 0.22 cubic feet per second of surface water generated by the project. The discharge of the first 3/4 inch of rainfall to the on-site planter box along the southern project boundary for water quality treatment and percolation 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 3/4 of an inch of storm water runoff to remove debris and other pollutants. The project proposes a storm water collection system to collect and filter the project runoff and discharge the runoff to an on-site planter box along the southern project boundary that will allow runoff to percolate into the soil. Most of the project runoff will be filtered and discharged into the on- site planter box. During periods of high rainfall, storm water that overflows the planter box will be discharged into a 6-inch pipe in the planter box and discharged into Delta Avenue adjacent to the site. 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 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designates Rosemead to be in Zone "X", which is outside the 100-year flood plain.13 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 not exposed to mudslides. °Less Than Alippotentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No -Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impac 3.9 Land Use and Planning s Hsu .:fie 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? _ ^_ 13 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No.06037C1665FF, September 26, 2008. Page 47 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 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. The project proposes construct through 11,860 s. retail on the first floor and 46 residential units on he second fourth floors. The project will not divide the established surrounding community. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Rosemead General Plan designates the site as Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac; 3 stories) as shown in Figure 16, Land Use Map. The zoning for the site is C-3-MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed Use and Design Overlays).as shown in Figure 17, Zoning Map. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and zoning designations for the site and will not require a General Plan Amendment or zone change. General Plan The Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac; 3 stories) land use designation allows a maximum development of 34 units on the site.14 and a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.0:1 with up to 87,120 square feet of commercial use. The project proposes 46 residential units, including 12 low income units, 690 square foot manager's apartment, and 2,410 square feet of lobby, meter and utility room space for a total of 42,930 square feet of residential use and 11,860 square feet of retail use on the first floor for a total development of 54,790 square feet. The project proposes a FAR of 1.25, which is less than the maximum 2.0:1 FAR allowed for the site by the Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac; 3 stories) land use. The project is consistent with the current Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac; 3 stories) land use designation. Zoning The project is consistent with and meets the standards for development in the C-3 zone, including the building height. The height of the proposed four story building is 45 feet and complies with the 75 foot maximum height allowed in the C-3 zone. The project meets and complies with all other applicable development standards, including minimum lot area, minimum lot width/depth, and floor area ratio (FAR). Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Development Overlay (RCMUDO) 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 14 Based on a 1.13 acre site and 30-du/acre, a maximum of 34 units can be developed on the site. Page 48 INA Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA L -- > ... -.-,i.r.•■?.-. dite*,-. e.„,_ 1:i ?7 --- e _., ii . . . - ,_ . ,- ._ hp„ 3_7= •v.___.-t .,:, -_-_,. ....____- :,:-. __,. „--" W -, nr: . ..:7; % - il Iritiliiik..-,101____,_- - ' mr+Ismdmvser! s...-; "' '-it i $111.111010?,!..1.- -Jill r „...., 1 - ' Z:7 .., . -Ai. ,0.1011 It _-._ - 2-.., ..,,,..... I. iF---4 - -: - -- L-_- 4 . • Di • - g Racole- .,, '-•:. • -f....; - 1- i — 2/ ---m;'- -. _.2_"k r_-7_ - - a -- ---- - -_- 41 . ,-=_ _- „. .. - uknoT;o2 Ni" -• --. - , -. - ... g-I i-:. _ __ =. I,. _... ,. -•.; 0.... IL::i-i-, -:--- .1. -_,I, ='I-. • _.._ i _____-r-: •----a:.__-- -II .........J ....--- % .L 5,,i.trnartE- ric.F.ry ----s',--1111/ Mil0.1.,■aemre Rzoriiiit7 --=.- I --.:.--, — ---... ..•...-... ,... .................-... ;-.,e---- Tj•..-,i,5,.kr-M.i;4"-,..,-=•=-",; =-=--s- 7. ,.• ..,r__-.-.-_-F s',,:_l■-..-:..- ---.----- -7z--.-i•=---- _ c 3 _7'='•• _ ,:7-4 i=..:--r.7....e.••-T-'-.• .• \ r- " 2 , ••■ r__________,_,_-_._. .., -77-1 7-4,....= ....-_!•!--- -- ,..- ' -.= 4.7 tt•aite-th..,3•_,N. II _ rt.nort_S.-- : .,.: F.E= _ - --.7- .... .--•=7--77._-_, .re -7- 1,--_-:—.I e -,---r- -, ---.1., .,-- 1..._ -,e,..,,,,,,.--.... _..,..... _ p .......: . Kr...... ir. -.-----,c.--le s6 __..,-..—.=..-i.-1;„',■,. ,- ,_. -•...S-...3.11.1.=111'M0.,, ..... b--• I: . Project t A. - \, ; . 4 • . - 7 = Location n — - ..,,.,..... ftil■tiff,S4 - ',..tt”'.. -32-:: ' 0 7 I - ...._,,,_ata Itmodsmoot=...z z ° .-1...:..7... .- \ 7 ; ; i t::-. =lusn it" -i 711111A. i S X ';.. Z.: _ if, w.!rTiER et . 'YARROW s 7 • •.-. '- — 1... POPIPPIP FS/Pp ..1.C.44. •4...er. . • -.NO LLGG la RECRC•rtONAL Polt...NT PARK Lewd .A.. 1..Cm Numb:Itemidefitde;005't:Alc: Mixt.C:1..fer fte.deolilwc...C.Vine,m1V ,RI tt.:tir-3 510400 IIII ork.v.a.4.1.:1,430:* •194.,••114•3•••,t9,.*ci•lisi f.1.12 Ovaci •Wet l4.0 Kwi•ntitft:44irwcol 100 ckii07.A•Wratt dik,ty.r:rogiry Arsidnrtiar.'t•Wel Gil en.P.:1 all%aril Hs,Inthift.tr..11..rnrwrt,roN al NICA?•41,1C.P! inZarvpaual to 11Iniers■iy e.t.Inmer..11 4'il Cerretory 1 girt,MVO*4:2tItenTr.2.1141,e31 •1441 I.,..-..y,...,..,,a41.7.AVM I •163b in:ot.tly Source:Rosemead General Plan N Figure 16 E1_19 Land Use Map PMA Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA ■ a IN ..^^_""' •. \o --I- I I 1 ''. y ! 1 1 I . /' I i 1 I 1 '7.4. . I 11 °�.� `SA Vi. zT1_':,'J:r m„, ■ CITY OF __ I 'Ilk - -� -�• y .�+•v "an TEMPLE CITY I/! I {f__,_ - II -I t --111-:11ym hr1 �- i •'!.-I 1 ��,n I fiYI �� .Jtj r,��.y,/ -. 1 1:1a� 11 .11 «1 i J�• ,„„„. I _ �{in nl I IL..: amp WWIYIMNPI 5 •I 1 \\\ SANIGABRIEL SJ_r� iv: a1N 11a1Ai11/1111 - 1 \ .. ainllm 40111 h Ii1111 II ,hurl mn r • 'i a + 1111111 !11111111flllllln111 NIII�II111IIIII 11;fi' 11111 rilII1111III 11111111111111p1 YI _. $S 1 - ;i mr II1111111111l�•1111ULtil0Y1 11101► ° _ 1 '''Si. _��_ alit j�!1_1111111 ri�liiiY�IIIIIIIIAIIH i111111111111Ulltlllll' 111 1>Y 1 3�. -� - \� — ii- 1•_g11111iIIYIIU•111110111111111111 i ��.1G,c_y '_�� r`_ °L IIIAIII? `�-•�� .tluuuu.wtl nl.nnuwe�1iilllr°'- i \ _� cs aizi��dr 7�.z'r----. r'�-'-I Ih1 unn II111i u c�illll. !!=2�'•sill 0t S _1I1r11111:I111110w11IlIIl I'Illl�l reRif R 1 ,�7,71ins 1 'IIIII Th.- Iii-,_1 Milli, ' ” - mIwIN& lul 1 I + ; l 'n\ _ • I Alfll'hl� I'� _ Il llli-�� -:a111714- • n ,nucE w =�'-r ,,,,-morn I �V '_-,j0„�.-V--, l-•�-cxr__y ■i1 -1. •nlnuq V.24 lT 1� 0. r12 r i _ _e_• 1 - CITY OF �� --'- ��-_a°a%aamraa'''W.2 min' -,•:-+--. - _ -- N < EL MONTE ./ wiillDltiM 1� _ r_�1 ' w• t• -4--f 1 r - °y"�� i 32 maI` 6'- "7.I-1 =yam -7-.6;1—I - w_9Pr.,• mum 9 I_�mn r c _ rr�611 t. :„41::,_.-1. \ f ' �i ft- -,r,„..11 '�a v '� I • IA. •�I ` _f! 1 1 n eel■way= -6Wi�-.w. si- Im-=TI I I I \\ I Pr •ect F y1int?-1r1 �l -� - { I Lo ati®�9 Twmrx ..:w��' °°� __ CITY OF 1/ n I--i City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 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.15 The intent of the RCMUDO is to accomplish the following objectives: 1. 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 rest residential/commercial comer ial mixed-use developments that attract and encourage 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 cial developing a property under the base zone district, or developing a tiialne is/commer d mixed-use development under the overlay zone. In this case, the to the C-3 zone and the project as proposed is consistent with the C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) 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 designated Hated n pro e General and/or sder unified control. The mix of uses percentage shall be as g The types of uses allowed with the RCMUDO zone 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 for the site would have to comply with the businesses However, all future approved business permitted by RMC 17.74.040. 15 RMC 17.74.010 A 16 RMC 17.74.020. Page 51 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 Consistent with RMC 17.74.040F.4, the proposed meets 46Sesl residential project, as proposed, meets three floors above the proposed first floor of commercial on and complies with all of the applicable RCMUDO development ent s ada noted rds, with the all xception of the types of commercial uses allowed for the commercial uses must meet the permitted uses in RMC 17.74.040. Design Overlay and that The purpose of the design overlay zone is to ms with n aespe°pfied area; to prevlednit tghe structures, signs and landscaping will be har oniou development of structures or uses which o have atd depreciating or negative design or the appearance or are of inferior quality or likely appearance or other local environment or surrounding area by reasons of use, design, a criteria affecting value.17 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 t precis, development plan includes architecture and design, number of stories, height, color, signage, proposed uses, mechanical equipment screening, etc.18. The review and approval of the precise development plan in compliance with the design requirements o uirements of RMC Chapter 17.72 would r Zone. project meets the City's design Overlay for development in the Design Y Density Bonus 46 The project proposes 10 low and moderate income dens units bonus a The proposedo 10 low residential units and allows the applicant a 35% residential units represent 20% of the 46 proposed units. While the C-3 zone allows a maximum of 34 units, the 35% density bonus with the roposede1 wlow the dens tnunits, bonus project is allowed to develop up to 46 residential the project is consistent with the C-3 zoning. Project Concessions The 35% density bonus allows the project applicant up to two development concessions, if necessary. Due to several site constraints, project applicant is requesting two concessions from the RCMUDO development standards. 5'. 1. The RCMUDO zone allows three stories n a with a maximum floor of ildiinig height f 45'. The project proposes four stories, including ground stories of apartments above the ground floor of retail. a 2. The second concession is for density. The aDuOse� The allows p oposed density of 67% of residential and 33% of o by the project totals 78.4% residential o{eet tdhelma/ximumrrratioaof Therefore and the project exceeds and does not use. 17 RMC 17.72.020. 18 RMC 17.72.040 B. Page 52 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 The project meets the development standards for the RCMUDO zone, with the exception of the two requested concessions. Although the project is requesting two concessions, 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. The project is not anticipated to have any significant land use impacts. 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. Less Than - Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impac 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 Board19 the project site is within the MRZ-4 classification20. 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. 19 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. 20 MRZ-4—There is insufficient data to assign any other MRZ designation. Page 53 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 7. Less-Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant = With Significant> No Environmental Issues Impact M itigation Impact Impact 3.11 Noise Would the prQje. esult in " 4- 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ IZI 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 report21 was prepared by Giroux & Associates. The noise report is included in Appendix E. a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project is located in an urbanized area and adjacent to Delta Avenue, which is a local roadway on the west and Garvey Avenue on the north that is a Major Arterial. The existing noise levels on the site are due to the on-site activities, traffic on Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue and daily activities of residential and commercial uses in the vicinity of the site. Noise Standards 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 metric used in the Rosemead noise ordinance is the level exceeded 50% of the 21 Noise Impact Analysis, Rosemead Garden Plaza,Giroux&Associates, December 3,2014. Page 54 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 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 50th 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 L50 noise standard for residential uses 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 L50 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 level xc and acommercial y of noise standards, Table 11. In the event shall be increased edambient t brefeect the level exceeds any of the ambient noise level. The 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 Sundays or Federal Holidays. Table 11 Rosemead Noise Ordinance Limits (Exterior Noise Level not to be Exceeded) Residential Use Commercial Use Maximum Allowable 7 AM to 10 PM 10 PM to 7 AM 7 AM to 10 PM 10P to 7 AM Duration of Exceedance (Daytime) (Nighttime) (Daytime) (Nighttime) 5 dB 65 dB 60 dB 30 minutes/Hour (L50) 60 dB 4 45 dB 70 dB 65 dB 15 minutes/Hour (L25) 65 dB 55 dB 75 dB 70 dB 5 minutes/Hour (L8) 70 dB 75 dB 1 minute/Hour (L1) 75 dB 60 dB 80 dB Never (Lmax) 80 dB 65 dB 85 dB 80 dB Source: Municipal Code Section 8.36.060 Baseline Noise Levels Short term on-site noise measurements were made to document the existing baseline levels both on the site and in the project area. The baseline noise levels are used as the basis to calculate future noise levels by the project to the surrounding community and existing noise levels from the community on the project. Noise monitoring was conducted Monday, November 10, 2014 at approximately 2:30-3:30 p.m. at two locations as shown in Figure 18. The noise levels that were measured at the two noise measurement locations are shown in Table 12. Noise measurement location 1 is representative of the noise levels that exist along Delta Avenue adjacent to the project site. Approximately 50 feet from the centerline of Delta Avenue, the existing noise levels are expected to be approximately 63 dB CNEL. Meter 2 was located on the corner of Garvey and Delta Avenues and the noise measurements reflect the existing worst case on-site noise levels. The measured noise levels at noise measurement location 2 are approximately 72-73 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline of Garvey Avenue. The City of Rosemead considers CNELS up to 70 dB to be conditionally acceptable for residential use and requires a noise analysis. Page 55 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 Figure 18 Noise Measurement Locations If a I ,, IS) ! .„„„...„, aL.4a,. ._ lif,::— __. ' ,-" $i e..- ... :, 1�- .!• - ,.• �� t L �a aO.�� 1, �t ♦3i _ � _ _ PI 1.1' S1 '�1-i!'1 ,I _ _ . ,`t` ' ■ `++ �j t• . `T` I ,.:a _� i {Y !� t fin, c , ``..17 -°-ate..:t 11 I®! j Ih� ,+ it.; M JJ� L ' . 1 i ,_ ' ', s. •- . -t j :„mss . :a ...ant — I ' • . u " ,.� II J 1 -•� _ I . 1 ic f _ :. . - --Go'bgle ie rt t -c(�1.li• F' ' Table 12 Measured Noise Levels (dBA) Site No. Leq Lmax Lmin L10 L33 L50 L90 1 60 77 44 62 58 56 46 2 69 79 56 72 70 67 59 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 project area roadway segments. Four traffic scenarios were evaluated; the 2014 existing conditions "with project" and "without project" and 2017 "with project" and "without project". Page 56 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 Table 13 Traffic Noise Impact Analysis (dBA CNEL at 50 Feet from Centerline) Segment 2014 No 2014 With 2017 No 2017 With Project Project Project Project Garvey Avenue Willard-Charlotte 71.9 72.0 72.1 72.1 Charlotte-San Gabriel 72.3 72.4 72.5 72.5 Delta Avenue South of Garvey 63.2 63.2 63.3 63.4 Walnut Grove Avenue South of Garvey 70.7 70.7 70.8 70.8 North of Garvey 71.2 71.2 71.3 71.3 North of Hellman 72.5 72.5 72.7 72.7 Fern Avenue Dearle-Delta 60.9 61.0 61.1 61.1 San Gabriel Boulevard North of Dorothy 72.9 72.9 73.0 73.0 Table 14 shows the change in the noise levels due specifically to the project. As shown, the 2017 project opening year noise levels 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 and most segments show no discernable noise level increase. Because the area is built out, the addition of project traffic to area roadways does not significantly increase and impact the existing traffic noise environment. The cumulative analysis, which includes the development of three other area projects, compares the "future with project" to "existing" conditions and shows a maximum noise level increase of+0.2 dB CNEL at 50 feet from roadway centerlines. Table 14 Project Traffic Noise Level Increases (dBA CNEL at 50 feet from centerline) Segment 2014 Project 2017 Project Cumulative Only Only Impacts* Garvey Ave/ Willard-Charlotte 0.0 0.0 0.2 Charlotte-San Gabriel 0.1 0.1 0.2 Delta Ave/ S of Garvey 0.0 0.0 0.2 Walnut Grove Ave/ S of Garvey 0.0 0.0 0.1 N of Garvey 0.0 0.0 0.1 N of Hellman 0.0 0.0 0.1 Fern Ave/ Dearle-Delta 0.1 0.1 0.2 San Gabriel Blvd/ N of Dorothy 0.0 0.0 0.1 *The difference between"2017 with project"and"2014 existing"traffic noise levels. 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. Based on the information in Table 14, the maximum noise level increase by the project and cumulative projects is calculated to be +0.2 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the roadway centerlines. Therefore, the project and the cumulative noise level impacts are less- than-significant. Page 57 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 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 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 re aui fe by the (CBC)n with v° specified dto fresh Central air conditioning ore an whole hoe 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 does not r posed siting outdoor dining f ospactypical hhe noise impacts to this retail the project does not proposed any for the ground level will be less-than-significant. On-Site Project-Related Vehicular Noise Impacts 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 at reasonable separation 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. Page 58 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 The future with project traffic noise level along Delta Avenue is calculated to be approximately 63 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline and less than the 65 dB CNEL exterior noise compatibility guideline for new residential dwellings in California. The noise level on the site adjacent to Garvey Avenue is calculated to reach 72 dB CNEL at 50 feet from roadway centerline. The proposed residential units along Garvey Avenue have balconies that front Garvey Avenue. The closest proposed patios are approximately 60 feet from the centerline of Garvey Avenue. At 60 feet, the exterior noise level is estimated to be 71 dB CNEL. If the patios of the units that front Garvey Avenue are required to meet the established 65 dBA CNEL noise threshold, noise mitigation would be required. In this case, a shield would break the line-of-sight between the receiver and noise source. A transparent 5.5 foot tall plexi-glass wall would reduce noise levels to 65 dBA CNEL and still allow views by the residents through the plexi-glass. The central garden and recreational facility is protected from off-site noise by the perimeter structures such that noise levels are calculated to be less than 65 dBA 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 for residential construction is required by the California Building Code (CBC) for energy conservation in new residential construction. Interior noise standards will be met 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 the project commercial uses are not proposed to be occupied on a 24-hour basis, the exterior noise exposure standard for less sensitive land uses is generally is less stringent. Unless a commercial project includes a noise-sensitive use, such as outdoor dining, the potential noise exposure and noise impact is generally not considered a commercial facility siting constraint for typical project area noise levels. Since the project does not propose any outdoor commercial dining space, the proposed commercial uses are not anticipated to be significantly impacted by either existing or future noise levels. 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 clean-up operations when trash is dumped, etc. can generate noise and impact on-site and adjacent residents. Refuse collection vehicles could be restricted to daytime hours to reduce potential commercial noise activities to on- and off-site residents. Page 59 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 All residential uses require sufficient distance separation from commercial buildings to prevent HVAC mechanical equipment on building roofs from being a nuisance. If not 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 46 dB L50 and the nighttime residential ordinance standard is 45 dB L50. The 45 dB L50 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. 8 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. 9 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 have a transparent glass or plastic shield to create outdoor space that achieves the 65 dB CNEL or less. b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. 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, Page 60 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 volcanic eruptions, sea waves, or landslides) or man-made (e.g., explosions, the action of heavy machinery, or heavy vehicles such as trains). 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 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 81 VdB at 50 feet from the source. With typical vibrational energy spreading loss, the vibration annoyance standard of 72 VdB is met at 56 feet. Effects of vibration perception such as rattling windows could only occur at the nearest residential structures, though Page 61 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 vibration resulting from project construction would not exceed cosmetic damage threshold of 100 VdB. Large bulldozers are not anticipated to be operating directly adjacent to the shared property line with the adjacent residents. Final grading at and near the property east and south property line should be performed with small bulldozers, which are shown above to have a 30 VdB or less vibration potential. To ensure adequate vibration annoyance protection, the following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce construction activity vibration impacts to less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure No. 10 Small bulldozers only shall be permitted to operate within 56 feet of the nearest adjacent residential structures. 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 11. 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 19 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, Page 62 RV A Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA)At 50 Feet Equipment 60 70 80 90 100 110 Compactor Ibller Front Loader I -- Backhoe • Tractor Grader • Scraper l 1 Paver ■# Truck Concrete Mixer mow Concrete Pump �. Crane (Movable) I i Crane (Derrick) Pump Generator Compressor Pneumatic Wrench Jackhammer fbck Drill Pile Drivers(Peak Levels) Vibrator Saw LEGEND 60 70 80 90 100 110 Noise Level Sources: 'Handbook of Noise Control," /F�ane` by T n Harris 1979 " "Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment by Federal Transit Administration,1995 Typical Noise Level Source:Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. N Figure 19 (!) Construction Noise Levels City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 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. kv Less Than `:. Potentially Significant Less Than j Significant With Significant No Environmental issues impact Mitigation Impact 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 infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? __ c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? 3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes to replace the existing commercial buildings and residential units on the site with a mixed use building consisting of retail space and 46 apartments. The 46 apartments include 30 two bedroom apartments, 15 three bedroom apartments, and 1 one bedroom apartment. Based on the type of units proposed, it is anticipated that many of the future project residents are existing Rosemead residents and currently live in Rosemead. Any existing Rosemead residents that move to and relocate from their existing residence in Rosemead 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 is not anticipated to increase significantly. 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 the demolition of three existing residences in the southern portion of the site. In addition, the two-story commercial building at the northwest corner of the site has apartments on the second floor. This two-story building will be demolished by the project and the residents will be displaced and required to find suitable replacement housing in Rosemead, or other areas. The displacement of the families that currently reside on the site will not require the construction of replacement housing because comparable replacement housing is available in Rosemead. The project, once constructed, could provide suitable housing for the families that will be displaced by the project. The City of Rosemead Housing Department provides various forms of housing assistance and is available to assist any project residents that are displaced. The City Page 64 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 Housing Department can assist to provide replacement rental housing, senior housing, down payment assistance, and other assistance to find suitable replacement housing in Rosemead. 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 families that will be displaced by the project without the need to construct suitable replacement housing. The apartments that are proposed by the project could provide replacement housing for the displaced families once the apartments are constructed. The project would have less-than-significant impacts to the displaced family. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With- Significant No Environmental Issues Impact, Mitigation p Im P act 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 T impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of thepublic serices: a) Fire Protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Police Protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 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 at the site 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. 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 With Mitigation. The project is in the Garvey School District. The development of 46 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 Page 65 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 residences. 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 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. 11 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 With Mitigation. The project is required to provide 6,900 square feet of common outdoor open space. The project proposes approximately 9,560 square feet of common open space in the form of the central courtyard, outdoor recreation area and landscaping, or 2,660 square feet more common open space than required. The project is also required to provide 2,760 square feet of private open space and the project proposes 5,857 square feet, or 3,097 more square feet of private open space in the form of balconies and private decks than required by the Municipal Code. The private open space that is proposed by the project includes a common garden area that is proposed for the southeast corner of the first floor and includes outdoor seating space and a central fountain for use by the residents. The private open space also includes the private balconies for each apartment. Therefore, the project will exceed the amount of public and private open space that is required for the site. It is anticipated that any 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 of $880 per apartment as required by 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. 12 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. Page 66 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 ,' , Less Than `' -' *.-` Potentially . Significant Les s Than S ig n i fica nt With Significant ficant No Environmental Issues x2 Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.14 Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which ❑ ❑ ❑ might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 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 Zapopan Park, a neighborhood park that is less than a quarter mile north of the site. 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 that is available for use by 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 to provide any public park or recreational facilities and payment of the required park fee will be used by the City to provide public recreational facilities that can be used by the project 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 any existing city recreational facilities that could have a physical effect on the environment. The project will not have any recreational facility construction impacts. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Tha ',Significant With Significan o--. -Environmen ssues ' - Impact Mitigation Impact ,Impac 13.15 Transportation/Traffic Would the project: Page 67 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 Ar Less Than I Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impaciti 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 El El El the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative El CI transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 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? —— ❑ __ ❑ ® ❑ 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 619 average daily vehicle trips, including 39 AM peak hour trips and 59 PM peak hour trips as shown in Table 16. The project is proposed to be constructed in a single phase and completed mid-2017. Baseline 2017 traffic volumes, the estimated opening year of the project, were developed by factoring existing 2014 volumes by an ambient growth rate of 1% 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 PM peak hour, the project internal capture rate is estimated to be 6.8%. However, for the worst case condition, no internal trip capture was considered in the traffic analysis. Although the project site is served by public transit and proposes on-site bike stalls and is within walking distance Page 68 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 Table 16 Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Split Split ITE Land Land Use Unit Code Quantity Rate Rate In Out Rate In Out 1. Multi-Family Residential DU 220 46 6.65 0.51 20% 80% 0.62 65% 35% 2. Commercial - Retail _ SF 820 5,730 42.70 0.96 62% 38% 3.71 48% 52% 3. Commercial - Office SF 710 6,130 11.03 1.56 88% 12% 1.49 17% 83% 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 46 306 23 5 18 29 19 10 2. Commercial - Retail 5,730 245 6 4 2 21 10 11 3. Commercial -Office 6,130 68 10 9 1 9 2 7 Total 619 18 21 31 28 Page 69 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 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 10 area intersections as shown in Figure 20. The ten studied intersections include: 1. San Gabriel at 1-10 Westbound Ramps (stop controlled); 2. San Gabriel Boulevard at 1-10 Eastbound Ramps (stop controlled); 3. San Gabriel Boulevard at Hellman Avenue (signalized); 4. San Gabriel Boulevard at Garvey Avenue (signalized); 5. Delta Avenue at Garvey Avenue (signalized); 6. Walnut Grove Avenue at 1-10 Westbound Ramps (stop controlled); 7. Walnut Grove Avenue at Hellman Avenue (signalized); 8. 1-10 Eastbound off-ramp at Hellman Avenue (signalized); 9. Walnut Grove Avenue at Garvey Avenue (signalized); and 10. Walnut Grove Avenue at Fern Avenue (signalized). Trip Distribution and Assignment Figure 21 shows the distribution and assignment of the estimated traffic by the project. As shown, 10% of the project traffic is assigned to/from both the east and west via the 1-10 Freeway with 20% each assigned to/from the east and west via Garvey Avenue. Ten percent (10%) and 15% of the estimated project traffic is assigned to/from the north and south, respectively, along San Gabriel Boulevard. Five percent (5%) of the project traffic each is assigned to/from the north and south via Walnut Grove Avenue and 5% to/from Delta Avenue to the south. 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 22 and 23 for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. To evaluate the levels of service at the 10 study area intersections with Existing 2014 and Baseline 2017 with project conditions, the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method was used to evaluate the existing and future levels of service (LOS) for signalized intersections and the LOS for unsignalized intersection was determined by the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) operations method. 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. All of the studied stop-controlled intersections are located within the 1-10 Freeway interchange corridor and operated by Caltrans. The HCM operations method is consistent with Caltrans requirements for unsignalized intersection analysis. The 2000 HCM operations level of service method is based on worst-case delay for the controlled approaches. However, Caltrans uses average control delay as the basis of LOS and generally significantly lower than worst-case delay. Therefore, the delay and LOS associated with both values are shown for the studied unsignalized intersections. Page 70 P\AA Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA 4 4 1 \ 0 /----- 0 AO` 4 Q -, 4 5 O % LOFTUS DR •I� ( i: \\ }t U U) W < m ® J o" �n w OLNEY ST TMO WAY 1 m I SA(ON AVlilt 0 �.— If f� / ��OLNEY ST r/// \ I'//// ARTSON ST itug / 40 1 O .._ 0 2U HELLMAN AVE() 2U w 2U OO,ip ® i_ -. \1 ONE-WAY V : 4U•< I/ \ W DOROTHY ST 5 0 OC. 0 2 EMERSON PL r = / 3 1 it ^ 1 < ' a < < /// 1 • •4D •4U WHITMORE ST & < i PARK ST I u3 re 1Q GARVEY AVE 4D �E s 4D 0 �' LEGEND A / �1 � ® — STUDY INTERSECTION •4D 5 � 2 — NO. OF THROUGH LANES N . < lo 4U = w < D — DIVIDED ROADWAY Li' o U — UNDIVIDED ROADWAY I/ — STOP CONTROLLED APPROACH NEWMARIC' AVE I •2U FERN AVE -N- 0 — SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION FERN AVE I U 10 \ A Source.VA Consulting, Inc. Figure 20 Existing Study Area Traffic Controls and Intersection Geometrics PMA Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA 10% t < t 5% -1 1 `0 < F < /PO o. 0 < w LOFTUS DR g z c" 5 ° 5 3 m ST SAXON AVE �' OLNEY 1 0% , /� OLNEY ST 1 0%t-+ NE /-----> C) N. ARTSON ST I Yc Jo \Wi Ill HELLMAN AVE Q OO < O < g d U V 8 m ° N Ei d DOROTHY ST - g < 0 ) i U, EMERSON PL `, < < < WHITMORE ST o ° m m PARK ST < W w 20% 20% ♦� 0 GARVEY AVE O ♦► j"irFECT 9 /< < < . .1 .y, . p_ 2 .., n z = 57 LTA t 5% a / U NEYMAARK/ AVE D FERN AVE t 15% FERN AVE C) -N A Source:VA Consulting Inc. Figure 21 Project Trip Distribution PVA Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA N W > Y U �Qk � a � g � � 0 * �oErus at C)/- -i - C 0 AVE II �.. I TWO WAY 2 �I TM�WAY s_OLNEY 5 W \ • / 10 E 1r w ARTSON ST < Or n O O HELLMAN AVE©7 0� (/� 4 — { 2 10 r 7 2 1I.NE W 6 W ml cj .,N.......... ry \\N.:7:14.1,—__// \N‘......._ t Z it )OROTNY ST < If i �' 5 0 n1 O (i)E.3 I \\ < � Z EMERSON PL ` g ; ` ` : 3 < 'C 'S' WHI... ST e ~ °0 0 a y a -'0 } /er 7 •PARK ST �' ( .1 10 w PROJECT v ._, -----, 0O GARVEY AVE • © •g� 9 a d 1 I / i LEGEND r < �----/ ® STUDY INTERSECTION ^ � - � � 2 NO. OF THROUGH LANES 2 • • 2 D — DIVIDED ROADWAY LL s ` t tTs 2 U — UNDIVIDED ROADWAY NEWMARKI AVE \ T — STOP CONTROLLED APPROACH FERN AVE �o : 'N' 18 — SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION FERN AVE Source:VA Consulting, Inc. Figure 22 Project AM Peak Hour Turning Movement and Roadway Link Volumes PNA Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA W C G ` ` O M M O jb °'� O. Q < 0 % LOFfUS DR 1 el + SI 1 U Z ' U W B m I SAXON AVE " �, i �TNK) WAY 3 �I T®AY I OLNEY Si 1 ////( e / JJJ ZO ` E TMM/ p / tOT ___...,9 ARTSON ST I[9) a Yc o a o i 12 © F g, o � � HELLMAN AVE illi 3 �4 17 112 3 �I�®AY 12 cj 9 �� "1 �� \_' °R al < CC )OROTHY Sr < s z W 0 0 .1 ca ; U, a z EMERSON PL uz`i ` 3 < a : 3 6 �— 6 WHITMORE ST e N < t 'C m m x 9 PARK ST " I < 12 • to W SITE CT + a GARVEY AVE Q • 0 4 < .a 23 / / LEGEND - STUDY INTERSECTION 3 2 — NO. OF THROUGH LANES •` • 2 D — DIVIDED ROADWAY 3 g U - UNDIVIDED ROADWAY NEWARK AVE \ T — STOP CONTROLLED APPROACH FERN AVE dFli 'N' ®O — SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION FERN AVE I • Source:VA Consulting,Inc. Figure 23 Project PM Peak Hour Turning Movement and Roadway Link Volumes City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration . Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 Table 17 shows the results of intersection level of service analysis for the study area intersections with the existing 2014 conditions and Table 18 shows the results of the intersection level of service analysis for the 2017 Baseline conditions. Table 17 Existing (2014) Level of Service at Study Area Intersections -Without Project Existing(2014) Signalized Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS I ICU LOS 3.San Gabriel Blvd/Hellman Ave 0.78 C 0.75 C 4.San Gabriel Blvd/Garvey Ave 0.79 C 0.91 5.Delta Ave/Garvey Ave 0.56 A 0.58 A 7.Walnut Grove Ave/Hellman Ave 0.77 C 0.84 D 8.1-10 EB Ramps/Hellman Ave 0.63 B 0.63 B 9.Walnut Grove Ave/Garvey Ave 0.73 C 0.82 D 10.Walnut Grove Ave/Fern Ave 0.50 A 0.52 A Existing(2014) Unsignalized Intersections Type of Delay AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay(SecJVeh) LOS I Delay(Sec:/Veh) LOS Average 1.7 A 3.7 A 1a.San Gabriel Blvd/1-10 WB Ramps EBR(HCM-Sec/Delay) ................__... ._._.............. ....__..__._._..__.. ... ....... Worst Case 16.6 C 17.8 C Average 2.1 A 4.2 A lb.San Gabriel Blvd/1-10 WB Ramps WBR(HCM-Sec/Delay) Worst Case 14.8 B 24.6 C Average 1.5 A 2.7 A 2a.San Gabriel Blvd/I-10EB Ramps EBR(HCM-Sec/Delay) -- -- ---- -- -- - --- -' - '-- Worst Case 14.4 B 17.1 C Average 3.2 A 7.4 A 2b.San Gabriel Blvd/1-10EB Ramps WBR(HCM-Sec/Delay) --- ------ -- - - - - - - - -- - Worst Case 15.7 C 30.7 D 6.Walnut Grove Ave/1-10 WB Ramps(HCM-Sec/Delay) Average 13.0. B 22.4 C _..e -_ _. ...22.... Worst Case 99.6 174.8 As shown in Table 17, all study area intersections currently operate at Level of Service D or better during AM and PM peak hours, with the exception of two intersections. The San Gabriel Boulevard at Garvey Avenue intersection operates at LOS E in the PM peak hour and the Caltrans 1-10 westbound ramps at Walnut Grove Avenue operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. However, the PM peak hour ICU value at the San Gabriel Boulevard and Garvey Avenue intersection is 0.91 and only exceeds the limit for LOS D by 0.01. The LOS F at the 1-10 westbound ramps at Walnut Grove Avenue is a worst-case movement associated with the eastbound left-turn from the westbound loop off-ramp, which is a non-project related traffic movement. The average delay at the 1-10 westbound ramps at Walnut Grove Avenue intersection is 13.0 seconds per vehicle with LOS B during the AM peak hour, and 22.4 seconds per vehicle with LOS C during the PM peak hour. Page 75 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 Table 18 Baseline (2017) Level of Service at Study Area Intersections ExistinE(2014) Baseline(2017) Signalized Intersections AM Peak Hour I PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1 ICU LOS 3.San Gabriel Blvd/Hellman Ave 0.78 C 0.75 C 0.80 C 0.78 C VY 4.San Gabriel Blvd/Garvey Ave 0.79 C 0.91 'f i , 0.84 D 0.95 { ,�6 ':_ 5.Delta Ave/Garvey Ave 0.56 A 0.58 A 0,59 A 0.63 B 7.Walnut Grove Ave/Hellman Ave 0.77 C 0.84 D 0.78 C 0.86 D 8.1-10 EB Ramps/Hellman Ave 0.63 B 0.63 B 0.60 A 0.65 B 9.Walnut Grove Ave/Garvey Ave 0.73 C 0.82 D 0.75 C 0.88 D 10.Walnut Grove Ave/Fern Ave 0.50 A 0.52 A 0.52 A 0.55 A Existing(2014) Baseline(2017) Uns gnalized Intersections Type of Delay AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour . PM Peak Hour Delay(Sec./Veh) LOS Delay:(Se0✓ve6). LOS peiay(SeCJVeb) LOS i Delay(SOO.Neh) LOS Average 1.7 A 3.7 A 1.9 A 4.3 A la.San Gabriel Blvd/1-10 WB Ramps EBR(HCM-Sec/Delay) Worst Case 16.6 C 17.8 C 17.9 C 19.8 C Average 2.1 A 4.2 A 2.1 A 4.5 A 1 b.San Gabriel Blvd/1-10 WB Ramps WBR(HCM-Sec/Delay) Worst Case 14.8 B 24.6 C 15.3 C 26.9 D Average 1.5 A 2.7 A 1.5 A 2.9 A 2a.San Gabriel Blvd/1-10 EB Ramps EBB(HCM-Sec/Delay) _.... _..... ........... ............. . ........ .. ........... ._.....__ .... ._...... ._ ..., _....._.. _ .... Worst Case 14.4 B 17.1 C 15.0 B 18.4 C Average 3.2 A 7.4 A 3.3 A 8.5 A 2b.San Gabriel Blvd/1-10 EB Ramps WBR(HCM-Sec/Delay) Worst Case 15.7 C 30.7 D 16.3 C 35.3 Average 13.0 B 22.4 C 16.8 C 28.8 D 6.Walnut Grove Ave/1-10 WB Ramps(HCM-Sec/Delay) u 1. �. kf�i' u Worst Case 99.6 Yhk„� ,;. 174.8 r+ )),1)t i). 129.3 Wit gal_ 225.8 P „ Page 76 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 Table 18 shows that the LOS for the study area intersections for the baseline year of 2017 is the same as the 2014 conditions, with the exception of the 1-10 freeway eastbound loop off- ramp to San Gabriel Boulevard (NB), which is a non-project movement. The LOS for this specific movement is calculated to decline to LOS E from the existing LOS D in the PM peak hour. However, the calculated worst-case delay for this movement exceeds the threshold for LOS D by only 0.3 seconds. Based on the Caltrans average delay analysis guidelines, the PM peak hour LOS is A with 8.5 seconds delay per vehicle. All other studied intersections will continue to operate at the same acceptable LOS as the current 2014 conditions during both peak hours. Baseline 2017 with Protect Conditions Table 19 shows the results of intersection level of service analysis for the Baseline 2017 opening year with the project. As shown, all of the studied intersections will continue to operate at LOS D, or better, with the exception of the San Gabriel Boulevard/Garvey Avenue intersection that will operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. However, there is very little change in the PM peak hour LOS at this intersection by the project compared to the no project scenario for the year 2017. The Rosemead General Plan Circulation Element identifies improvements to the San Gabriel Boulevard/Garvey Avenue intersection that will add one through lane in the eastbound and westbound directions in the future. Figure 24 shows the roadways surrounding the project are calculated to operate below their respective capacity based on 24-hour volumes for the baseline year of 2017 with the project, with the exception of San Gabriel Boulevard and Walnut Grove Avenue at the 1-10 interchanges. However, as previously noted, the actual daily roadway capacities at these locations are anticipated to be somewhat higher than the capacities used in the volume to capacity intersection analysis due to the unrestricted ramp turning movements. 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 studied non-signalized study area intersections for both the existing 2014 with the project condition and the baseline 2017 with project condition. The Walnut Grove Avenue at the Caltrans 1-10 westbound off-ramp signal was satisfied for both the AM and PM peak hours for the existing 2014 conditions and for all subsequent scenarios. The conclusion of this traffic signal warrants indicates more rigorous 4 hour and 8 hour signal warrants may be justified for the existing condition at this intersection. However, project traffic will not impact this intersection. 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. Page 77 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 Table 19 Baseline (2017)with Project Level of Service at Study Area Intersections Baseline(2017) Baseline_plus Project(2017) Signalized Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak.Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 3.San Gabriel Blvd/Hellman Ave 0.80 C 0.78 C 0.80 C 0.78 C 4.San Gabriel Blvd/Garvey Ave 0.84 D 0.95 - ? 0.84 D 0.96 i�t`�:; " V' , 5.Delta Ave/Garvey Ave 0.59 A 0.63 B 0.61 B 0.65 B 7.Walnut Grove Ave/Hellman Ave 0.78 C 0.86 D 0.78 C 0.86 D 8.1-10 EB Ramps/Hellman Ave 0.60 A 0.65 B 0.66 B 0.65 B 9.Walnut Grove Ave/Garvey Ave 0.75 C 0.88 D 0.75 C 0.89 D 10.Walnut Grove Ave/Fern Ave 0.52 A 0.55 A 0.52 A 0.55 A 4.San Gabriel Blvd/Garvey Ave-Future CIP Imps(Add 1 EB/WB thru lane) 0.75 C 0.87 D 0.75 C 0.89 D Baseline(2017) Baseline plus Project:(2017) Unsignalized Intersections Type of Delay AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay(Sec.Neh) LOS I Delay(Sec./Veh)_ LOS Delay(Sec./Veh) LOS I Delay(Sec.Neh) LOS Average 1.9 A 4.3 A 1.9 A 4.3 A la.San Gabriel Blvd/1-10 WB Ramps EBR(HCM-Sec/Delay) Worst Case 17.9 C 19.8 C 17.9 C 19.9 C Average 2.1 A 4.5 A 2.1 A 4.5 A 1 b.San Gabriel Blvd/1-10 WB Ramps WBR(HCM-Sec/Delay) Worst Case 15.3 C 26.9 D 15.3 C 27.0 D Average 1.5 A 2.9 A._..._...... -. 2.2 ........... A 2.9 A 2a.San Gabriel Blvd/1-10 EB Ramps EBR(HCM-Sec/Delay) Worst Case 15.0 B 18.4 C 15.0 C 18.6 C Average 3.3 A 8.5 A 3.3 A 8.6 A 2b.San Gabriel Blvd/1-10 EB Ramps WBR(HCM-Sec/Delay) Worst Case 16.3 C 35.3 16.4 C 35/ ,,tt r. Average 16.8 C 28.8 D 16.8 C 28.9 D 6.Walnut Grove Ave/1-10 WB Ramps(HCM-Sec/Delay) Worst Case 129.3 �� { • 225.8 129.2n> 225.6 Page 78 NV Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA , Y < g 40,776 0 0 k ; cl tx LOFTUS DR U (1.0 , C" ` W Q , m wz SAXON AVE cn W OLNEY ST OLNEY ST ../1111111.111MI AWL 47 IFIFF ARTSON ST / J i o 30,547 (HELLMAN AVE© 41 Q© (102) 32,883 Y (0.82) o < Y W N e % CC DOROTHY ST o El LI I— m Y 3 z c / 3 I EMERSON PL g �y' ..yc `' a (0.75) 5 WHITMORE ST o °a: ? m m PARK ST Y 1 29,347 W PPROJECT © (0.73) GARVEY AVE© •SITE O 9 26,838 ` / E < (0.67) z W 3,564 < Y 19,889 a 5 (0.71) o i cl (0.66) W NEWARK' AVE 2,124 (0.42) FERN AVE FERN AVE 10 -N- ti Source:VA Consulting, Inc. Figure 24 Baseline 2017 With Project Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes and Volume to Capacity Ratios City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 b) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.15 "a)" above, the project is estimated to generate 619 daily vehicle trips. The traffic report utilized 2017 as the traffic analysis baseline based on the date the project is scheduled to be completed and operational. The 2017 baseline traffic volumes were developed by factoring the existing 2014 traffic volumes with an ambient growth rate of 1% and traffic from four cumulative development projects in the project area. The 2017 cumulative traffic volumes were used to determine the potential project traffic impact to the area transportation system. The 2017 traffic volumes shown previously in Figures 22 and 23 take into the account the 1% estimated growth in area traffic and traffic from the four 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 four 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. The project site is served by Metro bus lines 70 and 770 and Rosemead Explorer fixed-route shuttle service. There are existing bus stops on the northeast and southwest corners of the intersection of Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue adjacent to the project with concrete bus pads and bus shelters. There are no bus stops along the project frontage on Garvey Avenue. The project will not impact the existing bus stops adjacent to the site. The project does not propose to construct or install any new bus stops along the project frontage on Garvey Avenue. Project residents and retail tenants and customers will use the two existing bus shelters adjacent to the site. The two existing bus shelters will encourage residents, retail and office employees, and customers to use public transportation to travel to and from the project. In addition, the project proposes 14 bicycle stalls on the ground level parking as required by the RCMUDO zone overlay for a viable alternative for the use of motor vehicles. The project will not have any significant conflicts or impacts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The project will have a positive impact by provided the required bicycle parking stalls as required by the City. 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 two driveways from Delta Avenue including a central 25-foot wide driveway approximately mid-way along the project frontage and a 26-foot wide driveway near the south end of the site. Both driveways provide ingress and egress to the 48 ground- level parking spaces serving the retail/office uses, leasing office, and loading zone, and a security gate controlled ramp leading to the basement-level for resident parking. Both project driveways provide full vehicle access. The project driveways will not have any significant vehicle queuing impacts on Delta Avenue. The traffic volumes at the project driveways will have less than an average of 30 vehicles per driveway during the peak hours. There is approximately 150 feet from the back of the crosswalk on Delta Avenue at Garvey Avenue to the north side of the northerly driveway to allow adequate vehicle stacking. Once Page 80 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 the project is constructed, the vehicles that currently park along the project frontage on Delta Avenue could impact the sight of motorists that are exiting the project onto Delta Avenue. All project driveways must meet City driveway standards for adequate site access and site distance. 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. 13 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 and site distance. On-Site Circulation The proposed project driveways and parking aisles are appropriately sized and configured for the project volumes and must meet City of Rosemead design standards before a building permit will be issued. In addition, sight-distance requirements at the project driveways must meet City design standards before issuance of a building permit. The height of the entry at the northerly driveway from Delta Avenue to the subterranean parking and the ramp at the east side of the project to the subterranean level will 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. 14 All delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering the site from Delta Avenue shall have a maximum height of 8'6". 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. 15 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 two separate ingress/egress driveways to the site from Delta Avenue. The southerly driveway provides at-grade site access and subterranean parking access at the east side of the project. The northerly driveway from Delta Avenue provides ingress/egress directly to the subterranean parking. Both driveways provide site access for emergency vehicles. 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 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 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 146 parking spaces, including 48 residential spaces and 98 commercial spaces for the commercial use. The total parking count also includes Page 81 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 spaces for handicap and delivery truck parking. The City parking code requires a total of 140 spaces, including handicap and delivery trucks. The project exceeds the number of City required parking spaces. The project also proposes a total of 14 bicycle stalls in the subterranean parking level to encourage the use of bicycles by project residents and the commercial uses. As required by RMC 17.74.050 B.3., the proposed 14 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. ZV1,13 ,,- a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional ❑ ❑ ❑ Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ facilities, the construction of which could — — cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the --- —� wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it ❑ ® ❑ ❑ has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid ❑ ❑ ❑ waste? 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 Page 82 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 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 due to more proposed development that the existing uses on the property. The project is estimated to consume approximately 11,155 gallons of water per day and 10,971 gallons of wastewater per day as shown in Tables 20 and 21, 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 20 Estimated Project Water Consumption R- .- .1 46 u s 160 .. . .: :•-� �. . ..' Retail 11,860 se. ft. 320 •allons/da /1,000 se. ft. 3,795 •allons/da Total 11,155 gallons/day Table 21 Estimated Project Wastewater Generation Residential 46 units 156 gallons/day/unit 7,176 gallons/day Retail 11,860 sq. ft. 320 gallons/day/1,000 sq. ft. 3,795 gallons/day Total 10,971 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 3/4 of an inch of rainfall of any rainfall event will be retained and discharged to a planter in the landscaping along the southern project boundary. The planter area will treat the first 3/4 inch of rainfall and allow percolation into the local groundwater. The project will be required to retain on-site all increased surface water due to the project with no increase in the amount of water generated from the site. Therefore, the project will not require the construction of any storm water facilities and have a less-than-significant impact to storm drain facilities. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Water will be consumed by the retail stores, project residents and landscape irrigation. 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. 22 City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering. 23 County of Los Angeles Sanitation District No. 15, Service Charge Loadings,July 1,2014-June 30, 2014. Page 83 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 e) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project will generate more wastewater to the local sewer collection system than the current on-site uses. The project site is currently served by an 8-inch sewer line in Garvey Avenue and the sewer line has capacity 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. 16 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. f) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate more solid waste from the site than the current uses due to an increase in the amount of proposed development. 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. g) No Impact. The project will comply with all applicable solid waste regulations and have no solid waste regulation impact. :igi.(itt_-i- 'J11 :-1(21,1■rtark,i „r> I } a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ❑ ❑ ❑ animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a ❑ ❑ project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Page 84 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 ... Less Than i Potentially Significant Less Than { Sigrtufmcant With Significant Na ;Envigonmental;.lssues _ s Impact Mitigation Impact°_ ImPactil c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial 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 85 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden Plaza-Design Review 14-03 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 Garden Plaza, City of Rosemead, California, October 31, 2014. 4. Giroux & Associates, Noise Impact Analysis, Garvey Garden Plaza, City of Rosemead, California, December 3, 2014. 5. VA Consulting, Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed Use Development Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Rosemead, California, February 2015. 6. Robin Environmental Management, Phase I Environmental Assessment Report, 8404-8416 Garvey Avenue and 2736-2748 Delta Avenue, Rosemead California, April 24, 2012. 7. Pacific Geotech Inc., Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, 8408 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead California, February 14, 2011. 8. Jong Chen Engineering, Preliminary Hydrology Report, Proposed Commercial Building Garvey Garden Plaza at 8408 Garvey Avenue, October 4, 2014. Page 86