Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CC - Item 5A - Public Hearing on General Plan Amendment 16-01 Tentative Tract Map 74095 - 21 Unit Residential Planned Development
City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 2 of 13 STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the City Council: 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; 2. Adopt Resolution 2017-12 with findings subject to eighty (80) conditions; and 3. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and file the Notice of Determination for the project. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The City of Rosemead acting as a Lead Agency, has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed mixed use project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Initial Study has been undertaken to determine if the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study was prepared and completed by MIG, 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 significant environmental impacts, 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 not considered a project of statewide, regional or area- wide significance and would not affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was distributed for a 30-day public review and comment period from February 3, 2017 to March 6, 2017. PROPERTY HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION The subject site is a former sports field of Don Bosco Technical Institute totaling approximately two acres. On September 21, 2015, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map 73496, for the creation of the subject parcel. 001111111111•0_ _.-. . City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 3 of 13 44 4 / ,/ •41*-p- rkic.,. c`le,N€ _2 ccam@go 4,4 IIII 1101PAL_NINIp 13 NA 4iii 4,, &WNW 41.1bw (L)., .x., 34, , . -S12 7 • -91 71110rioNtio ,13.,.: -- 0 ‘44 ... ,.,..., Air":1;.f .0..... . '•0 • . )'o, I Nipi 1:3 417.11,4 12 .. it.2 Do Bose' • 1 ..c:).-' aT chnical / Atop .r stitutez. Atelp Ge i 4111111pe2 4. .. . Alr /7 #41';"C4b , * J 1440,IrVammo 0., • all°IA "M"111171/IIIIII*^41;iLl". -'''' OR , , f,,Aii, Air #4kI Ai. AIDA Assessor's Parcel Map . , . , , • t, • . , P. . lealliii0e i ,..,... . r , ,..,. ,u, .4..4.. . .... , , ... irvvi ------------------.. ‘,. •-t. ' • --., . ,-...r. mi.nt.....: -,„:il„ . , ,i • ..... , . 214.,,'A! 11.'''',:,*414, 1 ! i'` M1A "..^ • ..,, *...; 4'..' 2a:,„' a, 446''".\•--`.,,.4, _ ,'-.-=',..1.,..."•.'' . A.:)"46.r„ S-4„,, .--(-:„..,•,, .., ';. ; :.• t (6...,":-'''''' --. - 1 ' VI•,ti .1 l'i'/-' . .-'. :••%4,i •- Aegr.e,• 4.).y1.1,x.r.4,..... • •,,,,,t.k' . 'ye• .4....!.'..:' .,..ill;......,.... #,,, ^• 04" .. .4 .. 7_a ••• -.,....,,t..-y -1 .1,4, 4‘".' .4'. At "., : , .,- ct.. , , .,,„,, , .r...,.,• , ,,,s,,,,,,, 4 1 k .‘ .It's s • !'"1;'0"Is ‘. k,',,'"" . ,, .,4 ;, .,;t., ;, .i,,.,4 ,6i; 4 s.4 iv Its"4.4-• IL,. ,,,. N,..,..„. , ,4 v,•`-...a... • 4 r• ' • ' -4.- • ' . 1$*- 4 ,..4%, ,. .• - "Y4 . 4 e k t's W- N '' - Existing Site Photo SITE & SURROUNDING LAND USES The site is designated in the General Plan for Public Facilities, and on the Zoning map it is designated for P-D (Planned Development). The site is surrounded by the following land uses: City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 4 of 13 North General Plan Designation: High Density Residential and Unincorporated Area of Los Angeles Zoning: P-D (Planned Development) and Unincorporated Area of Los Angeles Land Use: Residential and Unincorporated Area of Los Angeles South General Plan Designation: City of Montebello Zoning: City of Montebello Land Use: City of Montebello East General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Land Use: Residential West General Plan Designation: Public Facilities and Low Density Residential Zoning: P-D(Planned Development)and R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Land Use: Church and Residential PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project includes the construction of 21 two-story single-family dwelling units and associated parking, open space, and landscaping. The project will provide 42 private garage parking spaces (two private garage spaces per unit). The applicant is also proposing 11 guest parking spaces along private Drive A. The project site is located at the eastern terminus of Orange Street. Vehicular access to the project site will be provided via an extension of Orange Street., which will be privately maintained. Internal circulation will be provided via proposed Private Drives A, B, and C. General Plan Amendment 16-01 Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.020, amendment to the City's General Plan may be initiated by the Planning Commission or the City Council, whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice justifies such action. General Plan Amendment 16-01 will amend the land use designation of the subject site from Public Facilities to Medium Density Residential (0-12 units per acre). Tentative Tract Map 74095 Section 66474 et seq of the Subdivision Map Act describes the grounds for approving a subdivision map. In addition, Rosemead Municipal Code Section 16.08 provides subdivision regulations, which adopt Los Angeles County subdivision regulations by reference. Tentative Tract Map 74095 is a condominium subdivision to create 21 legal condo parcels for the development of 21 single-family dwelling units. City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 5 of 13 Planned Development Review Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.24.010(C) sets forth the procedures and requirements for Planned Development Review. The Planned Development district is intended to provide for residential developments that are characterized by innovative use and design concepts. The subject site was a part of a larger planned development for the Don Bosco Technical Institute, however, the site was parceled off in 2016 by virtue of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Parcel Map 73496. The applicant is proposing a planned development for a residential development consisting of 21 condo lots for the development of 21 single-family dwelling units. Zone Variance Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.140.010, the purpose of a Variance is to give the Planning Commission authority to allow an exception to certain development standards prescribed in the Zoning Code when practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, or results inconsistent with the general purposes of the Zoning Code occur by reason of a strict interpretation and enforcement of any of the provisions of this Zoning Code. The applicant is requesting a variance from Rosemead Municipal Code Table 17.24.030.2, which requires the front yard setback (adjoining residential zone) to be the 20 feet. The applicant is proposing ten feet as this would be the side yard for the three homes that will abut the interior of the west wall of the project. In other words, the manner in which the project is planned will cause the "front" of the property for Municipal Code purposes to in fact be the side of each of the three parcels as developed. Development Standards Staff has verified that the proposed development would be in compliance with the applicable development standards of the Rosemead Zoning Code, as demonstrated in the following table: Development Feature Required Proposed Total Lot Size of Development 43,560 s.f.(minimum) 87,571 s.f. Site Front Setback(Adjoining 20 feet(minimum) 10 feet(Requesting Variance) Residential Zone) Side Street Setback None 17 feet Rear Setback 10 feet(minimum) 10-12 feet Height None 30 feet or less Two Spaces per dwelling unit in an enclosed garage( 21 two-car garages and 11 Parking 21 garages required) guest parking spaces along the private street City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 6 of 13 Proposed Floor Plan The applicant is proposing three floor plan types. All three floor plans are two-story. Plan 1 totals 1,706 square feet and includes a living room, kitchen, dining room, coat room, three bedrooms with closets, three bathrooms, a laundry room, private open space, and a two-car garage. Plan 2 totals 2,072 square feet and includes a living room, kitchen, dining room, four bedrooms with closets, three bathrooms, a laundry room, private open space, and a two-car garage. Plan 3 totals 2,352 square feet and includes a living room, kitchen, dining room, four bedrooms with closets, three bathrooms, a laundry room, private open space, and a two-car garage. Proposed Architecture As shown on the architectural plans, marked Exhibit "H," there are four (4) different residential designs proposed for the development with three color schemes, each following a Spanish architectural style, characterized by a concrete Spanish tile roof, smooth textured stucco, clay pipe roof vents, corbels, square or arched windows, wood shutters, and decorative wrought iron embellishments. According to the colored renderings, which will be available to view at the City Council Meeting, the specific colors and materials proposed for each scheme are as follows: Scheme 1: The color and material of the main body of the units will be beige smooth textured stucco. The trims will be painted in a light shade of brown. Accent colors include sage green and brown. All iron embellishments will be painted black. The roofing material will be a Reddish-brown concrete Spanish tile roof. Scheme 2: The color and material of the main body of the units will be off-white smooth textured stucco. The trims will be painted brown. Accent colors include maroon and burgundy. All iron embellishments will be painted black. The roofing material will be a Reddish-brown concrete Spanish tile roof. Scheme 3: The color and material of the main body of the units will be off-white smooth textured stucco. The trims will be painted brown. Accent colors include tan and turquoise. All iron embellishments will be painted black. The roofing material will be a Reddish-brown concrete Spanish tile roof. Proposed Landscaping and Fencing The development will consist of a total of 19,908 square feet of common open space (11,556 square feet of landscape area and 8,352 square feet of hardscape area). Each unit will have a private back yard ranging in size from 606 square feet to 1,281 square feet. In total, the applicant is proposing 18,287 square feet of private open space. A conceptual landscape plan has been attached as Exhibit "H". New landscaping is proposed throughout the site. The applicant is also l City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 7 of 13 proposing a private pocket park within the development which includes enhanced pedestrian paving, entry pilasters, open turf area, benches, a pergola, and trees. The applicant will be required to submit a detailed landscape and irrigation plan to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of any Building Permits. In addition, staff has added a condition of approval requiring the applicant to incorporate additional privacy landscaping in the rear yards of Lots 19-21 and the side yards of Lots 1,4, and 7. According to the Wall and Fence Plan in Exhibit "H," the applicant is proposing new wall and fence along the eastern, western, and southern property lines. The new wall and fence will include slump stone, wrought iron, and/or vinyl material. Staff has added a condition of approval requiring the applicant to construct a new wall/fence along the north property line. Parking and Circulation The project site is located at the eastern terminus of Orange Street. Vehicular access to the project site will be provided from Orange Street. Internal circulation will be provided via proposed Private Drives A, B, and C. There are 21 two-car garages proposed for the 21 single- family dwelling units. The applicant is also proposing 11 guest parking spaces along private Drive A. Traffic A traffic impact study prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc. dated October 12, 2016, to assess project-related traffic impacts. The Study concluded that the portion of Lawrence Avenue utilized by the project is projected to provide adequate capacity for existing plus project traffic conditions, and the future traffic volumes are considered acceptable for a street that fronts residential land use. The City Engineer and 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. Lighting The outdoor lighting concept is to provide levels of lighting sufficient to meet safety and orientation needs. Lighting within the public areas of the development will be warm colored and unobtrusive. The proposed internal roadways will be lit by 14-foot high pole lights. The pocket park area will be lit by 42-inch high bollard lights. Light sources will be high pressure sodium, metal halide, or LED. Light sources will be concealed and directed downward. Lighting will not be visible from a public viewpoint off site. The development also proposes light fixtures on the exterior of each single-family dwelling unit. Comment Letter Received Staff has received one from the Evergreen Baptist Church on the proposed project. A copy of the letter is attached as Attachment"G". In this letter, Pastor Wu raises three concerns relating to ...sommomr7 City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 8 of 13 construction, traffic flow and access on Orange Street, and the visibility, privacy, and security of the church. Staff has incorporated specific conditions (Conditions of Approval No. 20, 21, and 61) relating to the church's concerns to ensure all concerns are alleviated. MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS General Plan Amendment Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.060, amendments to the General Plan may be approved only if all the following findings are first made: A. The amendment is consistent with all other provisions of the General Plan; The proposed amendment will change the land use designation of the subject parcel from Public Facilities to Medium Density Residential. The subject site is currently zoned P-D on the Zoning Map. According to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table, the P-D zone is a corresponding zone district to the Medium Density Residential land use designation. B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and The existing land use designation of the subject site is Public Facilities. The subject site is currently designated as Public Facilities as it was a former sports field belonging to Don Bosco Technical Institute. The proposed amendment would change the land use designation to Medium Density residential for the construction of 21 single-family residential units. The subject site is adjacent to single-family residences, therefore will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document is intended to be used by the City to evaluate the project's environmental impacts, if any, to less than a significant level. To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses mitigation measures. C. The affected site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle access, and public services and utilities and is served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate, to ensure that the proposed use(s) and/or development will not endanger,jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the property or improvements in City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 9 of 13 the vicinity in which the property is located. The subject site is adjacent to single-family residences, therefore, the amendment to the Medium Density Residential land use designation for the construction of 21 single-family dwelling units will be physically suitable for the subject site. The subject site is currently designated as Public Facilities as it was a former sports field belonging to Don Bosco Technical Institute. In addition, a traffic impact study was completed for the project to assess project-related traffic impacts. The Study concluded that the portion of Lawrence Avenue utilized by the project is projected to provide adequate capacity for existing plus project traffic conditions, and the future traffic volumes are considered acceptable for a street that fronts residential land use. The City Engineer and 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. Tentative Tract Map 74095 Section 66474 et seq of the Subdivision Map Act describes the grounds for approving a subdivision map. In addition, Rosemead Municipal Code Section 16.08.130 provides subdivision regulations, which adopt Los Angeles County subdivision regulations by reference. The following are findings that must be made in order to approve a tentative tract map: A. The map will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to the property, or improvements in the immediate vicinity. Tentative Tract Map 74095 is a condominium subdivision to create 21 legal condo parcels for the development of 21 single-family dwelling units. The subject site is adjacent to single-family residences, therefore will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document is intended to be used by the City to evaluate the project's environmental impacts, if any, to less than a significant level. To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses mitigation measures. City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 10 of 13 B. The proposed division will not be contrary to any official plan, policy or standards adopted by the City. Tentative Tract Map 74095 is a condominium subdivision to create 21 legal condo parcels for the development of 21 single-family dwelling units. The subject site is adjacent to single-family residences and will not be contrary to any official plan, policy, or standards adopted by the City. The P-D zone is designated to accommodate various types of development such as single-family residential developments. C. Each proposed parcel conforms in area and dimension to the City codes. Tentative Tract Map 74095 is a condominium subdivision to create 21 legal condo parcels for the development of 21 single-family dwelling units. The proposed planned development conforms with the area and dimension to the City codes. D. All streets, alleys, and driveways proposed to serve the property have been dedicated and that such streets, alleys, and driveways are of sufficient design to provide adequate access and circulation for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The City Engineer has reviewed this proposed subdivision relative to the adjacent right- of-way. Vehicular access to the project site will be provided from via an extension of Orange Street., which will be privately maintained. Based on this review, it is determined that the design and construction of the project would preserve public safety and provide adequate access and circulation for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. All necessary public improvements will be made prior to the proposed construction. These improvements will be constructed within the Orange Street right-of-way when developed. E. Alley easements and covenants required for the approval of the Tentative Map or plot have been duly executed and recorded. No easements or covenants are required for the proposed development as the streets will be privately owned. Planned Development Review Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.24.040(E), Modification of the Development Plan. Changes in the use shown in the Development Plan shall be considered in like manner as changes in the Zoning Map. City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 11 of 13 Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.060, amendments to the Official Zoning Map may be approved only if all the following findings are first made: A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; The subject site is currently zoned P-D on the Zoning Map. According to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table, the P-D zone is a corresponding zone district to the Medium Density Residential land use designation. For this reason, the proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan. The subject site is not located in a specific plan area. B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and The subject site is zoned P-D. The P-D zone is designated to accommodate various types of development such as single-family residential developments. The subject site was a part of a larger planned development for the Don Bosco Technical Institute, however, was parceled off in 2016. The subject site is adjacent to single-family residences, therefore, the development of 21 single-family residential units will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document is intended to be used by the City to evaluate the project's environmental impacts, if any, to less than a significant level. To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses mitigation measures. C. The affected site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle access, and public services and utilities and is served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate, to ensure that the proposed use(s) and/or development will not endanger,jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located. The existing site is zoned P-D. The P-D zone is designated to accommodate various types of development such as single-family residential developments. The subject site was a part of a larger planned development for the Don Bosco Technical Institute, however, was parceled off in 2016. The subject site is physically suitable for a residential planned development as it is adjacent to single-family residences. City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 12 of 13 In addition, a traffic impact study was completed for the project. The Study to assess project-related traffic impacts. The Study concluded that the portion of Lawrence Avenue utilized by the project is projected to provide adequate capacity for existing plus project traffic conditions, and the future traffic volumes are considered acceptable for a street that fronts residential land use. The City Engineer and 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. Zone Variance Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.140.040, a Variance may be granted only after a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Per Rosemead Municipal Code, Section all of the following findings shall be made by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the approval of a Variance: A. There are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (such as location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features, etc.) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning district; The subject site was a former sports field belonging to Don Bosco Technical Institute. There are special circumstances and conditions applicable to the subject property that would not apply generally to other residential planned developments in the vicinity under the P-D zone. Single-family residential lots in the vicinity that would require front yard setbacks abut and/or face public streets. The subject site is not bounded by any public street and is accessed only through the existing terminus of Orange Street. In addition, when developed, the front yard setback of subject site will become the side yard of the three single-family residential lots. B. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning district; Strict compliance with the Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning district as the development is not bounded by any public street. The front yard line is adjacent to the rear yards of the adjoining residential properties. When developed, the front yard setback will become the side yard of the three affected single-family residential lots. This would deprive the subject property of parking and open space privileges that typically would be enjoyed by other condominium communities serviced by private streets within the P-D zone. iN. City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 13 of 13 C. Approving the Variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; and Since the subject site is not bounded by any public street and will be serviced by private streets, approving the Variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located. D. The requested Variance would not allow a use or activity that is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel. The subject site is zoned P-D. The P-D zone is designated to accommodate various types of development such as single-family residential developments. Upon approval of the General Plan Amendment, the subject property may be developed for residential use subject to the requirements for single-lot condominium communities serviced by private streets under the P-D zone FISCAL IMPACT - None STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT—None PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a 300' radius public hearing notice to twenty-three (23) property owners, publication in the Rosemead Reader on March 16, 2017, and postings of the notice at the six (6) public locations and on the subject site. Prepared by: Submitted by: i11I '�t �U�cL40,0 Valenzuela 'OIL a. Michelle Ramirez City Planner Community Development erector Attachment A: Resolution No. 2017-12 with Exhibit"A"(Conditions of Approval) Attachment B: Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment D: Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 6, 2017 Attachment E: Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-03 Attachment F: Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes dated March 6, 2017 Attachment G: Letter from Pastor Wu Attachment H: Site/Floor/Elevation Plans A141' M F ' O CIVIC PRIDE IIM j /NCCPORArED Attachment A Resolution No. 2017-12 with Exhibit "A" (Conditions of Approval) RESOLUTION 2017-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 16-01, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 74095, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 16-01, AND ZONE VARIANCE 16-02 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 21-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 1152 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD IN A P-D ZONE (APN: 5275-015-042). WHEREAS, on March 15, 2016, Orange Rosemead Investments, LLC submitted entitlement applications for the construction of 21-unit residential planned development; and WHEREAS, 1151 San Gabriel Boulevard is located in a P-D zone; and WHEREAS, Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.060 provides the purpose and criteria for a general plan amendment; and WHEREAS, Section 66474 et seq of the Subdivision Map Act and Rosemead Municipal Code Section 16.08.130 provides the criteria for a tentative tract map; and WHEREAS, Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.24.040(E) provides the criteria for a planned development; and WHEREAS, Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.140.040 provides the criteria for a zone variance; and WHEREAS, in December 2016, an Initial Environmental Study for the proposed project 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 February 2, 2017, thirty seven (37) notices were sent to property owners within a 300-feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in six (6) public locations, on-site, 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 public hearing for General Plan Amendment 16-01, Tentative Tract Map 74095, Planned Development Review 16-01, and Zone Variance 16-02, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to General Plan Amendment 16-01, Tentative Tract Map 74095, Planned Development Review 16-01, and Zone Variance 16-02; and 1 WHEREAS, on March 6, 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead, recommended that the City Council consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration as the environmental clearance for General Plan Amendment 16-01,Tentative Tract Map 74095,Planned Development Review 16-01, and Zone Variance 16-02; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2017, thirty-seven (37) notices were sent to property owners within a 300-feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in six (6) public locations, on-site, and published in the Rosemead Reader, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time, and location of the public hearing for General Plan Amendment 16-01, Tentative Tract Map 74095, Planned Development Review 16-01, and Zone Variance 16- 02,pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on March 28, 2017, to consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of General Plan Amendment 16-01, Tentative Tract Map 74095, Planned Development Review 16-01, and Zone Variance 16-02; and WHEREAS,the City Council fully studied the proposed General Plan Amendment 16-01, Tentative Tract Map 74095, Planned Development Review 16-01, and Zone Variance 16-02, and Mitigated Negative Declaration,environmental findings,and considered all public comments;and WHEREAS, the City Council, having final approval authority over this project, has reviewed and considered all comments received during the public review period prior to the approval of this project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD HEREBY FINDS,DECLARES,AND RECOMMENDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby makes a finding of adequacy with the Mitigated Negative Declaration and HEREBY ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration, as the environmental clearance for General Plan Amendment 16-01,Tentative Tract Map 74095,Planned Development Review 16-01, and Zone Variance 16-02. SECTION 2. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving General Plan Amendment 16-01 in accordance with Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.060 as follows: A. The amendment is consistent with all other provisions of the General Plan; FINDING: The proposed amendment will change the land use designation of the subject parcel from Public Facilities to Medium Density Residential. The subject site is currently zoned P-D on the Zoning Map. According to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table, the P-D zone is a corresponding zone district to the Medium Density Residential land use designation. 2 B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience,or welfare of the City; and FINDING: The existing land use designation of the subject site is Public Facilities. The subject site is currently designated as Public Facilities as it was a former sports field belonging to Don Bosco Technical Institute. The proposed amendment would change the land use designation to Medium Density residential for the construction of 21 single-family residential units. The subject site is adjacent to single-family residences, therefore will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document is intended to be used by the City to evaluate the project's environmental impacts, if any, to less than a significant level. To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses mitigation measures. C. The affected site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape,size,topography,and the provision of public and emergency vehicle access, and public services and utilities and is served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate, to ensure that the proposed use(s) and/or development will not endanger,jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located. FINDING: The subject site is adjacent to single-family residences, therefore, the amendment to the Medium Density Residential land use designation for the construction of 21 single-family dwelling units will be physically suitable for the subject site. The subject site is currently designated as Public Facilities as it was a former sports field belonging to Don Bosco Technical Institute. In addition, a traffic impact study was completed for the project to assess project-related traffic impacts. The Study concluded that the portion of Lawrence Avenue utilized by the project is projected to provide adequate capacity for existing plus project traffic conditions,and the future traffic volumes are considered acceptable for a street that fronts residential land use. The City Engineer and 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. SECTION 3. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Tentative Tract Map 74095 in accordance with Section 66474 et seq of the Subdivision Map Act and Rosemead Municipal Code Section 16.08.130 as follows: A. The map will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to the property, or improvements in the immediate vicinity. FINDING: Tentative Tract Map 74095 is a condominium subdivision to create 21 legal condo parcels for the development of 21 single-family dwelling units. The subject site is adjacent 3 to single-family residences, therefore will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document is intended to be used by the City to evaluate the project's environmental impacts, if any, to less than a significant level. To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMRP) specifically addresses mitigation measures B. The proposed division will not be contrary to any official plan,policy or standards adopted by the City. FINDING: Tentative Tract Map 74095 is a condominium subdivision to create 21 legal condo parcels for the development of 21 single-family dwelling units. The subject site is adjacent to single-family residences and will not be contrary to any official plan, policy, or standards adopted by the City. The P-D zone is designated to accommodate various types of development such as single-family residential developments. C. Each proposed parcel conforms in area and dimension to the City codes. FINDING: Tentative Tract Map 74095 is a condominium subdivision to create 21 legal condo parcels for the development of 21 single-family dwelling units. The proposed planned development conforms with the area and dimension to the City codes. D. All streets, alleys, and driveways proposed to serve the property have been dedicated and that such streets, alleys, and driveways are of sufficient design to provide adequate access and circulation for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. FINDING: The City Engineer has reviewed this proposed subdivision relative to the adjacent right-of-way. Vehicular access to the project site will be provided from via an extension of Orange Street., which will be privately maintained. Based on this review, it is determined that the design and construction of the project would preserve public safety and provide adequate access and circulation for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. All necessary public improvements will be made prior to the proposed construction. These improvements will be constructed within the Orange Street right-of-way when developed. E. Alley easements and covenants required for the approval of the Tentative Map or plot have been duly executed and recorded. FINDING: No easements or covenants are required for the proposed development as the streets will be privately owned. SECTION 4. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Planned Development Review 16-01 in accordance with Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.24.040(E) and 17.152.060 as follows: 4 A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; FINDING: The subject site is currently zoned P-D on the Zoning Map. According to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table, the P-D zone is a corresponding zone district to the Medium Density Residential land use designation. For this reason, the proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan. The subject site is not located in a specific plan area. B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and FINDING: The subject site is zoned P-D. The P-D zone is designated to accommodate various types of development such as single-family residential developments. The subject site was a part of a larger planned development for the Don Bosco Technical Institute, however, was parceled off in 2016. The subject site is adjacent to single-family residences, therefore, the development of 21 single-family residential units will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,convenience,or welfare of the City. The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document is intended to be used by the City to evaluate the project's environmental impacts, if any, to less than a significant level. To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMRP) specifically addresses mitigation measures. C. The affected site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle access, and public services and utilities and is served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate, to ensure that the proposed use(s)and/or development will not endanger,jeopardize,or otherwise constitute a hazard to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located. FINDING: The existing site is zoned P-D. The P-D zone is designated to accommodate various types of development such as single-family residential developments. The subject site was a part of a larger planned development for the Don Bosco Technical Institute, however, was parceled off in 2016. The subject site is physically suitable for a residential planned development as it is adjacent to single-family residences. In addition, a traffic impact study was completed for the project to assess project-related traffic impacts. The Study concluded that the portion of Lawrence Avenue utilized by the project is projected to provide adequate capacity for existing plus project traffic conditions,and the future traffic volumes are considered acceptable for a street that fronts residential land use. The City 5 Engineer and 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. SECTION 5. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Zone Variance 16-02 in accordance with Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.140.040 as follows: A. There are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (such as location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features, etc.) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning district; FINDING: The subject site was a former sports field belonging to Don Bosco Technical Institute. There are special circumstances and conditions applicable to the subject property that would not apply generally to other residential planned developments in the vicinity under the P-D zone. Single-family residential lots in the vicinity that would require front yard setbacks abut and/or face public streets. The subject site is not bounded by any public street and is accessed only through the existing terminus of Orange Street. In addition,when developed,the front yard setback of subject site will become the side yard of the three single-family residential lots. B. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning district; FINDING: Strict compliance with the Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning district as the development is not bounded by any public street. The front yard line is adjacent to the rear yards of the adjoining residential properties. When developed, the front yard setback will become the side yard of the three affected single-family residential lots. This would deprive the subject property of parking and open space privileges that typically would be enjoyed by other condominium communities serviced by private streets within the P-D zone. C. Approving the Variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; and FINDING: Since the subject site is not bounded by any public street and will be serviced by private streets, approving the Variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located. D. The requested Variance would not allow a use or activity that is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel. FINDING: The subject site is zoned P-D. The P-D zone is designated to accommodate various types of development such as single-family residential developments. Upon approval of the General Plan Amendment, the subject property may be developed for residential use subject 6 to the requirements for single-lot condominium communities serviced by private streets under the P-D zone. SECTION 6. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES General Plan Amendment 16- 01, Tentative Tract Map 74095, Planned Development Review 16-01, and Zone Variance 16-02 for the construction of a 21-unit residential planned development, subject to the Conditions of Approval. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and hereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 28th day of March, 2017. Sandra Armenta, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: Rachel Richman, City Attorney Marc Donohue, City Clerk 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Marc Donohue, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing City Council Resolution, No. 2017-10, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, at a special meeting thereof held on the 28th day of March, 2017, by the following vote,to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Marc Donohue, City Clerk 8 EXHIBIT"A" (RESOLUTION NO.2017-12) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 16-01,TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 74095,PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 16-01,AND ZONE VARIANCE 16-02 1151 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD (APN: 5275-015-042) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL March 28, 2017 Standard Conditions of Approvals 1. General Plan Amendment 16-01,Tentative Tract Map 74095, Planned Development Review 16-01, and Zone Variance 16-02 ("Project") are approved for the construction of a new 21- unit residential planned development, in accordance with the preliminary plans marked Exhibit "C", dated September 7, 2016. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division. 2. The following conditions must be complied to the satisfaction of the Planning Division prior to final approval of the associated plans, building permits, occupancy permits, or any other appropriate request. 3. The conditions listed on this exhibit shall be copied directly onto any development plans subsequently submitted to the Planning and Building Divisions. 4. Approval of Project shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant(s)have filed with the City of Rosemead("City")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 Planning Commission approval date. 5. Project is approved for a period of one(1)year.The applicant(s)shall commence the approved project or request an extension within 30 calendar days prior to expiration. The one (1) year initial approval period shall be effective from the Planning Commission approval date. For the purpose of this petition, project commencement shall be defined as beginning the permitting process with the Planning and Building Divisions, so long as the project is not abandoned. If Project has been unused, abandoned, or discontinued for a period of one (1) year, it shall become null and void. 6. The Planning Commission hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and/or approve minor modifications to the project and to these conditions of approval. 7. Project 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 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 9 right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or approved under the Rosemead Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed on Project. 8. The applicant(s) 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(s) 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. Prior to issuance of building permits, any required school fees shall be paid. The applicant shall provide the City with written verification of compliance from the applicable school districts. 11. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least six(6)inches tall with a minimum character width of 3/4 inch, 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 Community Development Director, or his/her designee, prior to installation. 12. The Building and Safety Division, Planning Division, and Engineering Division shall have access to the project site at any time during construction to monitor progress. 13. All requirements of the Building and Safety Division, Planning Division, and Engineering Division shall be complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction. 14. All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow prevention devices, fire valves, A/C condensers, furnaces, 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. 15. All new roof-top appurtenances and equipment shall be adequately screened from view to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. Such equipment shall not exceed the height of the parapet wall. There shall be no mechanical equipment located on the sides of the building. 16. The parking area,including handicapped spaces,shall be paved and re-painted periodically to City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. In accordance with the Rosemead Municipal Code, all designated parking stalls shall be double striped. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear,visible,and orderly manner to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 17. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti-free state. Any graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four(24)hours. 10 18. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. Project Specific Conditions of Approval 19. The on-site public hearing notice posting shall be removed within 10-days of Project approval. 20. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any federal holiday. The applicant shall abide by the noise control sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code. 21. A final wall plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All walls and/or fences height shall comply with the requirements in the Rosemead Municipal Code and shall match or complement the residential buildings in color, material, and design. In addition to the proposed fencing, the applicant shall incorporate a new wall/fence along the north property line (Modified by the Planning Commission on March 6, 2017). 22. 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 landscape and irrigation plan shall comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and with the Guidelines for Implementation of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and include a sprinkler system with automatic timers and moisture sensors. Additional privacy landscaping shall be incorporated into the rear yards of Lots 19, 20, and 21 and the side yards of Lots 1,4, and 7. 23. All parking spaces comply with the currently applicable section of the Rosemead Municipal Code. All covered parking spaces shall be free and clear with no obstruction. 24. 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 security of site and equipment, 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. 25. A construction notice shall be mailed to residents within a 300' radius from the project site to inform them of the commencement of construction. 26. Any exterior lighting shall be fully shielded and directed downwards as to not project over the property lines of the subject site. 11 27. Prior to issuance of any building permit related to this project, the Applicant shall prepare Covenant Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) or other similar recorded instrument indicating how and who will maintain proposed common areas. The CC&R's shall be prepared by the Applicant and approved by the City Attorney and shall include the following statements: "This statement is intended to notify all prospective property owners of certain limitations on construction to residential dwellings contained in this planned development project. Any necessary modifications or additions must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and approved or denied by the Community Development Director or his/her designee at his/her discretion". The CC&R's will cover all aspects of property maintenance of the common areas,including but not limited to driveways,fencing,landscaping,lighting,parking spaces, open space and recreational areas. All applicable City Attorney fees shall be at the responsibility of the applicant. 28. The applicant shall include provisions in the CC&R's to provide maintenance of all building improvements, on-grade parking and landscaping, and maintenance of the driveway, in a manner satisfactory to the Planning Division, and in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. 29. The subdivider shall include provisions in the CC&R's to require regular trash pickup service at least once a week for the residential condominium trash bins. 30. Planning Division approval of sign plans must be obtained prior to obtaining building permits and/or installation for any signs. 31. The applicant shall contact the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - KIZH Nation prior to project groundbreaking and shall permit a certified Native American Monitor from the tribe to be present on groundbreaking day to ensure that all cultural resources which may be affected are protected(Added by the Planning Commission on March 6,2017). Engineering Conditions of Approval GENERAL 32. A Topographic survey indicating the proposed tentative tract map should be submitted for approval. This should indicate right of way dimensions, existing sidewalk dimensions, street dimensions,utilities, etc. 33. A Topographic survey of Orange Street including right of way dimensions, existing street dimensions, utilities, etc. shall be submitted including proposed street improvements. A separate map shall be submitted with street improvements. 34. Details shown on the tentative map are not necessarily approved. Any details which are inconsistent with requirements of ordinances, general conditions of approval, or City Engineer's policies must be specifically approved in the final map or improvement plan approvals. 12 35. A final tract map prepared by,or under the direction of a Registered Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying, or a Licensed Land Surveyor, must be processed through the City Engineer's office prior to being filed with the County Recorder. 36. A preliminary subdivision guarantee is required showing all fee interest holders and encumbrances. An updated title report shall be provided before the final tract map is released for filing with the County Recorder. 37. The final tract map shall be based on a field survey, and monuments shall be set to permanently mark parcel map boundaries, street center lines and lot boundaries to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The basis of bearing used for the field survey required for the final map shall include two survey well monuments found or set. The City Engineer may waive this requirement upon petition should this be impractical.Well monuments shall be set in accordance with standard plan No. S08-001, if required. 38. Final tract map shall be filed with the County Recorder and one (1) Mylar copy of filed map shall be submitted to the City Engineer's office. Prior to the release of the final map by the City, a refundable deposit in the amount of$1,000 shall be submitted by the developer to the City, which will be refunded upon receipt of the Mylar copy of the filed map. 39. Comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 40. Approval for filling of this land division is contingent upon approval of plans and specifications mentioned below. If the improvements are not installed prior to the filing of this division, the developer must submit an Undertaking Agreement and a Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bond in the amount estimated by the City Engineer guaranteeing the installation of the improvements. 41. The City reserves the right to impose any new plan check and/or permit fees approved by City Council subsequent to tentative approval of this map. 42. 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. 43. Prior to performing any grading, obtain a permit from the Engineering Department. Submit grading and drainage plans per 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. 13 44. Prior to the recordation of the final map, grading and drainage plans must be approved to provide for contributory drainage from adjoining properties as approved by the City Engineer, including dedication of the necessary easements. 45. A grading and drainage plan must provide for each lot having an independent drainage system to the public street, to a public drainage facility, or by means of an approved drainage easement. No cross lot drainage to be allowed. 46. 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. 47. 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. 48. Prepare and submit storm water plans prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer. 49. 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. 50. The project is greater than one acre; therefore, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention 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. 51. Applicant should contact Public Works Department at 626-569-2151 for plan checking fees. ROAD 52. New drive approaches shall be constructed at least 3' from any above-ground obstructions to the top of"x" or the obstruction shall be relocated. New drive approaches shall be limited to the frontage of the unit(Modified by the Planning Commission on March 6,2017). 53. All work proposed within the public right-of-way shall require permits from the Public Works Department. 54. Install new sidewalk on Orange Street at southerly side of the street. 55. Remove and replace existing curb ramp at the NE and SE corner of Lawrence Avenue and Orange Street per ADA compliance. 14 56. Provide a minimum of twenty-six (26) feet access way to Orange street with six (6) inches curbs at each side at the entrance of the development with not parking at both sides. 57. The southern curb along Orange Street shall be realigned to make the five (5) feet offset required to provide a suitable transition to the access road. 58. Install minimum six(6) 36-inches box parkway tree along Orange Street. 59. Existing roadway shall be overlaid after improvements. 60. Install 2-inches AC Overlay on Orange Street. 61. Prepare and submit offsite improvements plans prepare by California State Registered Civil Engineer. SEWER 62. Approval of this land division is contingent upon providing a separate house sewer lateral to serve each lot of the land division. 63. 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. 64. All existing laterals to be abandoned shall be capped at the public right of way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Building Official of the City of Rosemead. 65. Prepare and submit sewer construction plans prepared by California State Registered Civil Engineer. UTILITIES 66. All power, telephone and cable television shall be underground. 67. Any utilities that are in conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's expense. 68. An existing power pole located at the end of Orange Street shall be relocated as necessary (Modified by the Planning Commission on March 6, 2017). 15 69. Prior to the filing of the final map,there shall also be filed with the City Engineer,a statement from the water purveyor indicating subdivider compliance with the Fire Chiefs fire flow requirements. 70. Fire Department approval letter shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior final approval. Mitigation Measure Conditions Cultural Resources 71. Conduct Archaeological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards, to conduct an Archaeological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities.The training session shall be carried out by a cultural resources professional with expertise in archaeology, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards.The training session will include a handout and will focus on how to identify archaeological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures to be followed in such an event, the duties of archaeological monitors, and, the general steps a qualified professional archaeologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary. 72. Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Archaeological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities,ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated.A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be established around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue until a qualified archaeologist has examined the newly discovered artifact(s)and has evaluated the area of the find.Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area.All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist,who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards. Should the newly discovered artifacts be determined to be prehistoric, Native American Tribes/Individuals should be contacted and consulted and Native American construction monitoring should be initiated. The Applicant and City shall coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. The plan may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to address treatment of the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. 73. Conduct Periodic Archeological Resources Spot Checks during grading and earth-moving activities in Younger Alluvial Sediments. The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards to conduct periodic Archaeological Spot Checks beginning at depths below two(2)feet to determine if construction excavations have exposed or have a high probability to expose archaeological resources.After the initial Archaeological Spot Check, further periodic checks will be conducted at the discretion of the qualified 16 archaeologist. If the qualified archaeologist determines that construction excavations have exposed or have a high probability to expose archaeological artifacts construction monitoring for Archaeological Resources will be required. The Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional archaeologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards. The archaeological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non-fill younger Pleistocene alluvial sediments. Multiple earth- moving construction activities may require multiple archaeological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources,the materials being excavated(native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project archaeologist. 74. Prepare Report Upon Completion of Monitoring Services. The archaeological monitor, under the direction of a qualified professional archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards, shall prepare a final report at the conclusion of archaeological monitoring. The report shall be submitted to the Applicant, the South Central Costal Information Center, the City, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. The report shall include a description of resources unearthed, if any, evaluation of the resources with respect to the California Register and CEQA, and treatment of the resources. 75. Conduct Paleontological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The Applicant shall retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, shall conduct a Paleontological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training will include a handout and will focus on how to identify paleontological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event;the duties of paleontological monitors;notification and other procedures to follow upon discovery of resources; and, the general steps a qualified professional paleontologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary. 76. Conduct Periodic Paleontological Spot Checks during grading and earth-moving activities. The Applicant shall retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, shall conduct periodic Paleontological Spot Checks beginning at depths below six(6)feet to determine if construction excavations have extended into the Miocene Puente Formation or into Pleistocene older alluvial deposits. After the initial Paleontological Spot Check, further periodic checks will be conducted at the discretion of the qualified paleontologist. If the qualified paleontologist determines that construction excavations have extended into the Puente Formation or into older Pleistocene alluvial deposits,construction monitoring for Paleontological Resources will be required. The Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontological monitor, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional paleontologist, who meets the 17 qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The paleontological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into the Puente Formation or into older Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require multiple paleontological monitors.The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities,proximity to known paleontological resources and/or unique geological features, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of paleontological resources and/or unique geological features encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the qualified professional paleontologist. 77. Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Paleontological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that paleontological resources and or unique geological features are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be established around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue until appropriate paleontological treatment plan has been approved by the Applicant and the City. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. The Applicant and City shall coordinate with a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Treatment may include implementation of paleontological salvage excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis or preservation in place. At the paleontologist's discretion and to reduce construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor shall assist in removing rock samples for initial processing. 78. Prepare Report Upon Completion of Monitoring Services. Upon completion of the above activities, the professional paleontologist shall prepare a report summarizing the results of • the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, as well as a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report shall be submitted to the Applicant, the City, the Natural History Museums of Los Angeles County, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. 79. Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Notify County Coroner If Human Remains Are Encountered. If human remains are unearthed during implementation of the Proposed Project,the City of Rosemead and the Applicant shall comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The City of Rosemead and the Applicant shall immediately notify the County Coroner and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). After the MLD has inspected the remains and the site,they have 48 hours to recommend to the landowner the treatment and/or disposal, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated funerary objects. Upon the reburial of the human remains, the MLD shall file a 18 record of the reburial with the NAHC and the project archaeologist shall file a record of the reburial with the CHRIS-SCCIC. If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision(k)of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. Noise 80. The following measures are required to ensure that project-related short-term construction noise levels are reduced to less-than-significant levels. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, a noise mitigation plan verifying that compliance with the following measures would reduce construction noise to within the allowable levels of 65 dBA for residential uses. Should construction noise exceed allowable levels after implementation of the following measures,the use of sound curtains or other noise barriers shall be required.The noise mitigation plan shall identify the type and location of sound curtains or other noise barriers to be utilized to reduce construction noise to within allowable levels. • Stationary construction noise sources such as generators or pumps must be located at least 100 feet from sensitive land uses,as feasible,or at maximum distance when necessary to complete work near sensitive land uses. This mitigation measure must be implemented throughout construction and may be periodically monitored by the Community Development Director, or designee during routine inspections. • Construction staging areas must be located as far from noise sensitive land uses as feasible. This mitigation measure must be implemented throughout construction and may be periodically monitored by the Community Development Director or designee during routine inspections. • Throughout construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with included noise attenuating devices and are properly maintained. This mitigation measure shall be periodically monitored by the Community Development Director,or designee during routine inspections. • Idling equipment must be turned off when not in use. This mitigation measure may be periodically monitored by the Community Development Director, or designee during routine inspections. • Equipment must be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging. This mitigation measure may be periodically monitored by the Community Development Director, or designee during routine inspections. 19 Los Angeles County Fire Department Conditions of Approval dint. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT�' FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION Land Development Unit 5823 Rickenbacker Road Commerce, CA 90040 Telephone (323) 890-4243, Fax (323) 890-9783 PROJECT: TTM 74095 MAP DATE: Not Provided LOCATION: 1151 San Gabriel, Rosemead THE FIRE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS CLEARANCE OF THIS PROJECT TO PROCEED TO PUBLIC HEARING AS PRESENTLY SUBMITTED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. FINAL MAP REQUIREMENTS 1. Access as noted on the Tentative and the Exhibit Maps shall comply with Title 21 (County of Los Angeles Subdivision Code) and Section 503 of the Title 32 (County of Los Angeles Fire Code),which requires an all-weather access surface to be clear to sky. 2. A copy of the Final Map shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to recordation. 3. The private access within the development shall be indicated as"Private Driveway"on the Final Map. The required fire apparatus access,the fire lanes and turnarounds, shall be labeled as "Fire Lane"on the Final Map. Any proposed parking area. walkway, or other amenities within the private driveway shall be outside the required fire lane. Clearly delineate on the Final Map and submit to the Fire Department for approval. 4. Provide written verification stating the required fire hydrant has been installed or bonded for in lieu of installation prior to Final Map clearance. a. Submit a minimum of three (3)copies of the water plans indicating the new fire hydrant locations to the Fire Department's Land Development Unit for review. The required public fire hydrants shall be installed prior to construction of the proposed homes. Upon completion verification of fire flow and installation shall be submitted to the County of Los Angeles Fire Department for review and clearance. 5. A reciprocal access agreement is required for all private driveways within this development. Submit documentation to the Fire Department for review prior to Final Map clearance. Reviewed by: Claudia Soiza Date: September 19, 2016 Page 1 of 4 -4 1 ■: NQ COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION Land Development Unit 5823 Rickenbacker Road Commerce. CA 90040 Telephone (323) 890-4243, Fax (323) 890-9783 PROJECT: TTM 74095 MAP DATE: Not Provided LOCATION: 1151 San Gabriel, Rosemead CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—ACCESS 1. All on-site Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be labeled as"Private Driveway and Fire Lane"on the site plan along with the widths clearly depicted on the plan. Labeling is necessary to assure the access availability for Fire Department use. The designation allows for appropriate signage prohibiting parking. a. Parking is not permitted on Private Streets/ Driveways "A" (in the locations less than 36 feet), "B"& "C". b. Parking is permitted on Private Street/Driveway"A" in the designated area where the roadway width of 36 feet. 2. Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be installed and maintained in a serviceable manner prior to, and during the time of construction. Fire Code 501.4 3. All fire lanes shall be clear of all encroachments, and shall be maintained in accordance with the Title 32, County of Los Angeles Fire Code. 4. The Fire Apparatus Access Roads and designated fire lanes shall be measured from flow line to flow line. 5. Provide a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, exclusive of shoulders and an unobstructed vertical clearance "clear to sky" Fire Apparatus Access Roads to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. Fire Code 503.1.1 & 503.2.1 a. Parking is permitted in the designated parking area on Private Street Driveway"A". Provide a minimum width of 36 feet for parallel parking on both sides of the Fire Apparatus Access Road. 6. The required 20 foot wide driving surface shall be increased to 26 feet when fire hydrants are required. The 26-foot width shall be maintained for a minimum of 25 linear feet on each side of the hydrant location. Reviewed by: Claudia Soiza Date: September 19, 2016 Page 2 of 4 21 r • :•,AUa. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT „w_ y FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION Land Development Unit 5823 Rickenbacker Road Commerce, CA 90040 Telephone (323) 890-4243, Fax (323) 890-9783 PROJECT: TTM 74095 MAP DATE: Not Provided LOCATION: 1151 San Gabriel, Rosemead 7. The dimensions of the approved Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be maintained as originally approved by the fire code official. Fire Code 503.2.2.1 8. Dead-end Fire Apparatus Access Roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved Fire Department turnaround. Fire Code 503.2.5 9. Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be provided with a 32 foot centerline turning radius. Fire Code 503.2.4 10 Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing 75,000 pounds, and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Fire apparatus access roads having a grade of 10 percent or greater shall have a paved or concrete surface. Fire Code 503.2.3 11. Provide approved signs or other approved notices or markings that include the words "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE". Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads, to clearly indicate the entrance to such road, or prohibit the obstruction thereof and at intervals, as required by the Fire Inspector. Fire Code 503.3 12. Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall not be obstructed in any manner, including by the parking of vehicles, or the use of traffic calming devices, including but not limited to, speed bumps or speed humps. The minimum widths and clearances established in Section 503.2.1 shall be maintained at all times. Fire Code 503.4 13. Traffic Calming Devices, including but not limited to, speed bumps and speed humps, shall be prohibited unless approved by the fire code official. Fire Code 503.4.1 14. Approved building address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification shall be provided and maintained so as to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. The numbers shall contrast with their background, be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters, and be a minimum of 4 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch. Fire Code 505.1 Reviewed by: Claudia Soiza Date: September 19, 2016 Page 3 of 4 22 sy COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION n 14 Land Development Unit 5823 Rickenbacker Road Commerce, CA 90040 Telephone (323) 890-4243, Fax (323) 890-9783 PROJECT: TTM 74095 MAP DATE: Not Provided LOCATION: 1151 San Gabriel, Rosemead CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—WATER SYSTEM 1. All fire hydrants shall measure 6"x 4"x 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal, and shall be installed in accordance with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department Regulation 8. 2. All required PUBLIC fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to beginning construction. Fire Code 501.4 3. The required fire for the public fire hydrants for single family residential homes less than a total square footage of 3600 feet is 1250 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure for 2 hours with one public fire hydrant flowing. Any single family residential home 3601 square feet or greater shall comply too Table B105.1 of the Fire Code in Appendix B. 4. Install one (1) public fire as noted on the tentative tract map & site plan by the Fire Department. 5. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system is required for the proposed buildings within this development. Submit design plans to the Fire Department Sprinkler Plan Check Unit for review and approval prior to installation. For any questions regarding the report, please contact FPEA Claudia Soiza at (323) 890-4243 or at Claudia.soizaCa fire.lacountv.cov Reviewed by: Claudia Soiza Date: September 19, 2016 Page 4 of 4 23 ‘13 M4 1 O CIVIC PRIDE N/ '17 ,�.____ ATEO \ps9 Attachment B Mitigated Negative Declaration y Lawrence and Orange Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for: City of Rosemead Planning Division 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 S E M p � 9 CIVIC PRIDE= NCDRPORATEO X959 Prepared by: MIG, Inc. 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 110 Riverside, California 92507 M I G December 2016 -This document is designed for double-sided printing - Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 - Purpose of CEQA 1 1.2- Public Comments 2 1.3- Availability of Materials 3 2 Project Description 5 2.1 - Project Title 5 2.2- Lead Agency Name and Address 5 2.3- Contact Person and Phone Number 5 2.4- Project Location 5 2.5- Project Sponsor's Name and Address 5 2.6- General Plan Land Use Designation 5 2.7- Zoning District 5 2.8- Project Description 6 2.9- Surrounding Land Uses 7 2.10- Environmental Setting 7 2.11 - Required Approvals 8 2.12- Other Public Agency Whose Approval is Required 8 3 Determination 21 3.1 - Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 21 3.2- Determination 21 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 23 4.1 - Aesthetics 23 4.2- Agriculture and Forest Resources 26 4.3- Air Quality 28 4.4- Biological Resources 33 4.5- Cultural Resources 36 4.6- Geology and Soils 41 4.7- Greenhouse Gas Emissions 44 4.8- Hazards and Hazardous Materials 49 4.9- Hydrology and Water Quality 53 4.10- Land Use and Planning 57 4.11 - Mineral Resources 58 4.12- Noise 59 4.13- Population and Housing 65 4.14- Public Services 66 4.15- Recreation 68 4.16- Transportation and Traffic 69 4.17- Tribal Cultural Resources 72 4.18- Utilities and Service Systems 74 4.19- Mandatory Findings of Significance 78 5 Mitigation Summary 83 6 References 87 6.1 - List of Preparers 87 6.2- Persons and Organizations Consulted 87 6.3- References 88 Lawrence and Orange(13533) Appendix Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment Appendix B Phase I Cultural Resources Technical Report Appendix C Geotechnical Investigation Appendix D Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix E Noise Study Appendix F Traffic Impact Study List of Tables Table 1 Surrounding Land Uses 7 Table 2 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status 29 Table 3 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions(lbs/day) 30 Table 4 Project Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 30 Table 5 Two Acre Localized Significance Threshold Analysis 32 Table 6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 45 Table 7 Scoping Plan Consistency Summary 47 Table 8 Ambient Noise Levels 61 Table 9 Construction Noise Impacts 61 Table 10 Roadway Noise Levels 63 Table 11 Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria 63 Table 12 Vibration Annoyance Potential Threshold Criteria 64 Table 13 Construction Vibration Impacts 64 Table 14 Project Trip Generation 70 Table 15 Residential Street Capacity 70 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 Regional Context and Vicinity Map 9 Exhibit 2 Site Plan 11 Exhibit 3 Perspective 12 Exhibit 4 Landscape Plan 15 Exhibit 5 Wall and Fence Plan 17 Exhibit 6 Site Photos 19 Lawrence and Orange(13533) ii 1 Introduction The City of Rosemead (Lead Agency) received applications for a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Review, Tentative Tract Map, and Zone Variance by LaTerra Development, LLC. (Project Proponent) for the development of a 21- unit residential development on a two-acre portion of the Don Bosco Technical Institute at the cul-de-sac of Orange Street in the city of Rosemead. The approval of the application constitutes a project that is subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 1970 (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations§§ 15000, et. seq.). This Initial Study was prepared to assess the short-term, long-term, and cumulative environmental impacts that could result from the proposed project. This report was prepared to comply with CEQA Guidelines § 15063, which sets forth the required contents of an Initial Study. These include: • A description of the project, including the location of the project(See Section 2): • Identification of the environmental setting(See Section 2.11); • Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other methods, provided that entries on the checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries (See Section 4); • Discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any(See Section 4); • Examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls (See Section 4.10); and • The name(s)of the person(s)who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study(See Section 5). 1.1 — Purpose of CEQA CEQA§21000 of the California Public Resources Code provides as follows: The Legislature finds and declares as follows: a) The maintenance of a quality environment for the people of this state now and in the future is a matter of statewide concern. b) It is necessary to provide a high-quality environment that at all times is healthful and pleasing to the senses and intellect of man. c) There is a need to understand the relationship between the maintenance of high-quality ecological systems and the general welfare of the people of the state, including their enjoyment of the natural resources of the state. d) The capacity of the environment is limited, and it is the intent of the Legislature that the government of the state take immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the state and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds being reached. e) Every citizen has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment. f) The interrelationship of policies and practices in the management of natural resources and waste disposal requires systematic and concerted efforts by public and private interests to enhance environmental quality and to control environmental pollution. g) It is the intent of the Legislature that all agencies of the state government which regulate activities of private individuals, corporations, and public agencies which are found to affect the quality of the environment, shall regulate such activities so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian. The Legislature further finds and declares that it is the policy of the state to: Lawrence and Orange(13533) 1 Introduction h) Develop and maintain a high-quality environment now and in the future, and take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the state. i) Take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise. j) Prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man's activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels. and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the major periods of California history. k) Ensure that the long-term protection of the environment, consistent with the provision of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian, shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions. I) Create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony to fulfill the social and economic requirements of present and future generations. m) Require governmental agencies at all levels to develop standards and procedures necessary to protect environmental quality. n) Require governmental agencies at all levels to consider qualitative factors as well as economic and technical factors and long-term benefits and costs, in addition to short-term benefits and costs and to consider alternatives to proposed actions affecting the environment. A concise statement of legislative policy, with respect to public agency consideration of projects for some form of approval, is found in CEQA§21002, quoted below: The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects. and that the procedures required by this division are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects. The Legislature further finds and declares that in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof. 1.2— Public Comments Comments from all agencies and individuals are invited regarding the information contained in this Initial Study. Such comments should explain any perceived deficiencies in the assessment of impacts, identify the information that is purportedly lacking in the Initial Study or indicate where the information may be found. All comments on the Initial Study are to be submitted to: Lily T. Valenzuela, City Planner City of Rosemead Planning Division 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 626-569-2142 Following a 30-day period of circulation and review of the Initial Study, all comments will be considered by the City of Rosemead prior to adoption. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 2 Introduction 1.3— Availability of Materials All materials related to the preparation of this Initial Study are available for public review. To request an appointment to review these materials, please contact: Lily T. Valenzuela, City Planner City of Rosemead Planning Division 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 626-569-2142 Lawrence and Orange(13533) 3 Introduction Lawrence and Orange(13533) 4 • 2 Project Description 2.1- Project Title Lawrence and Orange 2.2- Lead Agency Name and Address City of Rosemead Planning Division 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 626-569-2142 2.3- Contact Person and Phone Number Lily T. Valenzuela, City Planner 626-569-2142 2.4- Project Location The project site is located in the city of Rosemead, Los Angeles County. California (See Exhibit 1, Regional Context and Vicinity Map). The project site is bounded by residential use and Orange Street to the west and institutional uses to the north, east, and south. • Latitude 34° 02' 29.06" North, Longitude 118° 05'21.01"West • APN 5275-015-027&-028 • 1151 San Gabriel Boulevard, Rosemead, California 91770 2.5- Project Sponsor's Name and Address LaTerra Development, LLC 1880 Century Park East, Suite 714 Los Angeles, California 90067 2.6- General Plan Land Use Designation The project site is designated Public Facilities by the City of Rosemead General Plan Land Use Element. The Public Facilities designation applies to land uses that are operated and maintained for public benefit including educational facilities, parks, utilities, and buildings or areas that support government activities. This designation also includes quasi-public uses such as private utilities easements, private schools, and institutional activities. 2.7- Zoning District The City of Rosemead's Zoning Ordinance designates the project site as Planned Development (P-D). The P-D District is intended to provide for residential, commercial, industrial, or institutional developments that are characterized by innovative use and design concepts. This zone provides for a new development to offer amenities, quality, design excellence and other similar benefits to the community and not be inhibited by strict numerical development standards. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 5 Project Description 2.8— Project Description The proposed project is located on approximately two acres. The project site is a former sports field for Don Bosco Technical Institute and does not contain any pavement or structures that will require demolition. The project includes the construction of 21 two-story single family residential units and associated parking and landscaping (see Exhibit 2, Site Plan). The project includes three plan types. Seven Plan 1 units will consist of three bedrooms and 2.5 baths in 1.706 square feet at a maximum height of 26.5 feet. Seven Plan 2 units will consist of four bedrooms and three baths in 2,072 square feet at a maximum height of 26 feet. Seven Plan 3 units will consist of four bedrooms and three baths in 2,352 square feet at a maximum height of 27 feet. The project will provide 42 private garage parking spaces (two private garage spaces per unit), 12 private driveway spaces (Units 1 through 6 at the northern corner of the site will have private driveways that will accommodate two cars each), and 11 open parking spaces for a total of 65 parking spaces. Architecturally. the proposed units will be comprised primarily of stucco in shades of light gray or beige and concrete S-tile roofs in brown. Windows will be framed with stucco trim in brown to provide contrast and visual interest. Each unit will have sectional garage doors in varying shades of brown. Each unit will have decorative tile vents, decorative shutters, and limited metal railings(see Exhibit 3, Perspective). The project site is located at the eastern terminus of Orange Street. Vehicular access to the project site will be provided from Orange Street. Internal circulation will be provided via proposed Private Drives A, B, and C. Open Space and Landscaping The project will consist of 11.556 square feet of public landscape area and 8.352 square feet of public hardscape area for a total of 19,908 square feet of common open space for the development (see Exhibit 4, Landscape Plan). Public landscaping along internal roadways and front yards include use of shrub areas. turf, and street trees. A pocket park at the southern portion of the project site will include enhanced pedestrian paving, entry pilasters, open turf area, benches, a pergola, and trees. In addition to the public open space provided, each unit will have a private back yard totaling approximately 18,287 square feet of private open space. Lighting The outdoor lighting concept is to provide levels of lighting sufficient to meet safety and orientation needs. Public area lighting will be warm colored and unobtrusive. The proposed internal roadways will be lit by 14-foot high pole lights. The pocket park area will be lit by 42-inch high bollard lights. Light sources will be high pressure sodium, metal halide, or LED. Light sources will be concealed and directed so that light does not fall outside of the area being lit. Lighting will not be visible from a public viewpoint off site. Walls and Fencing Walls and fences are proposed along the project perimeter and within the project to provide privacy and separation (see Exhibit 5, Wall and Fence Plan). The existing slump block wall with fence located at the northern perimeter of the project site will remain. A six-foot high slump block wall on a maximum three-foot high retaining wall is proposed at the eastern perimeter of the site, a tubular steel fence is proposed at the southern perimeter of the site, and a six-foot high slump block wall on a maximum one-to six-foot high retaining wall is proposed at the western perimeter of the project site. Privacy walls separating public areas from private back yards will be provided via five- to six-foot high slump block walls. Five- to eight- foot high vinyl privacy fences are proposed to separate private side yards from the road and between residences. Five- to eight-foot high privacy fences on maximum 1.5- to five-foot high retaining walls will be provided between residences where back yards are adjacent. Project Phasing and Construction Scheduling Based on default construction phasing information provided by the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), construction of the project will take approximately one year to complete. Construction is anticipated to require the import of approximately 1,054 cubic yards of soil. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 6 Project Description Grading and Drainage Accounting for soil expansion, shrinkage, and compaction, approximately 1,054 cubic yards of soil will be imported to the site. The project site was formerly used as a sports field and is vacant. Stormwater will be collected via proposed on-site catch basins located at the northwest, central and southeast portions of the project site. Stormwater will then be conveyed via a proposed 18-inch storm drain to be constructed in a proposed private utility easement southeast beneath the adjacent parking lot for St. Joseph's Salesian Youth Renewal Retreat Center for connection to existing facilities at Arroyo Drive. Utilities The proposed project will connect to existing water, sanitary sewer, and gas facilities. Water service is provided by the San Gabriel Valley Water Company. Proposed four-inch domestic water facilities will be constructed beneath the project site and connect to existing facilities at Orange Street. Sewer service is provided by the City of Rosemead. The project proposes to construct eight-inch sanitary sewer facilities beneath the project site to connect to existing facilities at Arroyo Drive to the southeast via the proposed private utility easement. Electricity will be provided by Southern California Edison and natural gas will be provided by the Gas Company. Utility undergrounding will be required. 2.9- Surrounding Land Uses The project site is bounded by single family residential to the west and institutional uses to the north, east, and south. Surrounding uses are summarized in Table 1 (Surrounding Land Uses). Table 1 Surrounding Land Uses Direction General Plan Designation Zoning District Existing Land Use Project Site Public Facilities Planned Development(P-D) Vacant North Public Facilities Planned Development(P-D) Evergreen Baptist Church South Public Facilities Planned Development(P-D) St. Joseph's Salesian Youth Renewal Retreat Center East Public Facilities Planned Development(P-D) Don Bosco Technical Institute West Low Density Residential Single Family Residential(R-1) Single Family Residential Residential(0-9 du/ac) (H9)* Single Family Residence(R-1)* * Parcels to the west of project site located within unincorporated Los Angeles County 2.10- Environmental Setting The project is located on a former sport's field in Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California. The project site is surrounded by residential and institutional uses and the area is completely built-out and urbanized. Regularly maintained grass is located on the site. The site is bound to the north, east, and south by institutional use and to the west by residential use and Orange Street. State Route 60 is located approximately 0.25 miles to the south. Interstate 10 is located approximately two miles to the north, Interstate 605 is located approximately 3.5 miles to the east, and Interstate 710 is located approximately 4.5 miles to the west of the project site. The project site is relatively flat with an elevation of approximately 326 feet above mean sea level. See Exhibit 6 (Site Photos)for more details on the existing conditions of the project site. • The site does not contain scenic resources. • The site is not currently being used for agricultural purposes. • On-site vegetation consists of regularly maintained turf and does not provide suitable habitat for any sensitive, or special status species. • There are no on-site water features indicative of potential riparian habitat or wetlands. • The site does not contain any historic structures. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 7 Project Description 2.11 — Required Approvals The City of Rosemead is the only land use authority for this project requiring the following approvals: • General Plan Amendment • Planned Development Review • Tentative Tract Map • Zone Variance 2.12— Other Public Agency Whose Approval is Required None Lawrence and Orange(13533) 8 A':aaw Burbank V Pasadena aar Glendale -- Marto A:usa pend,:,.. Sar pmas V , 1 La Meme Alhambra Coyma Rosemead Baldmn Park El Monte it) West Gonna Swth F. Los AngelesMenu * m East Los r coy,r Angeles Montebello 1,141,,,vr wan.rt v Haaenda Heights L•aw•rMye• N •.,�.,. HuntingtonPico Rea Whittler Rowland Iu Perk Heights SPOON Inglewood BNI c•rd.n• L•.ue.. amational South Gate - nnora ArDort Santa r. Downey spr.gs La Habra b`"raa Hawittorne � La Moan a 8'., Norwalk Campton Wwman Gardena 4100 vorba Unda FWlerton 4ce Pntra Buena Park ,r•:•... . Lakewood Cerritos .. J°"� ft, Regional ,.e,5 Iy a,.o.'DI the West e.Res,ection Cemetery Project Site • ■ The Shops of Montebello• Vicinity n I, Not to Scare http//www.mlgcom.com•951.787-9222 Exhibit 1 Regional Context and Vicinity Map M I G Lawrence and Orange City of Rosemead, California Project Description Lawrence and Orange(13533) 10 I r. C a�'� 5€itiEai� it li kiE CDc c o a. m U _ aaaaaaaaaaaaa:aaaaa� I C 0 D ,r r .4•`^ i i b b i b b i b b i b b i b b i b bib .a w O ga 70./1 I ;;ex�xetce� e4 �iee� eiek 11 s ;j ._ Y� :Q EYBr ' a ?ii S ---JU JlILuxii 1fi IT 111 1_._ ii a~; -5 e 0 0 03 G a '' c"z w a QF 1011111111 z -\. . `■rr —r lorirl iglirinre-lpir Ilim_Affiemili wl l 3,,,.... ini a b .'•� IIII 11. ��Y\_ I=ram \ri W� •�% j - a I 11[>-111111' Ellti� P L IN7 < 2 IRV A :iii rigAll '..<:] _111E __elihi! i___ I .iiill I IIIIIME. ,01 a..41 1, L _ .11:- . III" 1 Iiii.lmijamoilli"Milim poi , -L 1i 6 o A 3nia° .E 04? o ary III . r.....,..... ..—, mil 54 0 c". Ei Z N Al LI-iiJi elite_ 1 • AMC I.AII ,o r. c0...4 .r i Dim ■ ►� 1 -, . . 1 ipti-nrria, z_.. • I au � ^JIL ! ...,...,,i............=„....___.„--„,. .....ry. t.....______ (.,_ . irr==__ - _ �I F _,„ z IIII _____ ■r Q zN oSX 1 �A v •LE u ^d UN} oVTmmi . irj LLx 0# ■ ni 1 0 3 Ill 1 Lawrence and Orange(13533) 12 .ter N 0 -0 r -, > o * •�, c� - fa O `gym Q• : • M 3 Epp 05 — �o ti, .� S -/01 '• IV IR V v, p V f • i gl j •'i 00 OitaC - ., n." 4 S li ....... ...j a. I �` _— of a' - ci gi vN t W • li4 0)r - r:f: I g 1 1 > Lawrence and Orange(13533) 14 Ar E" C O 1 0 4 9iee1 44•1 a49d�11l 46_I6 S� i'T i= ^, O 0 d 1 1 1 1 f f3'!' i id af:. illW a r r r Mil ��_ 3$$$14 Sf1 II I� Q. � N 1 �� �! 3 14 C0 E P 9i 3 t,W k" t i a� 4 1 rF # ' g 111111 5I i x g11 1 i ii, t ,x 4 11 :a tun U o jd 1411 iF i ft V;{N fill' 519# r E fe Y Z 0 CL N N s i W H b C L O . Y -1 { 3 Iv jja Z 0 U I 0 'iii 'i q 1I.13 C21=gi ! 51 5 z P. z i II J J it FF W 9 F- in • - — - - - - X 'fes. II ibil no, _ • . .i , a 11. _. • . • , .•, _ii:....11. . -.. , . m , . „• , . ,,,. 1 le , , . ., ,,, . ii, . 1 . 1 .,. . . i , . ,..,,..: . ,, . 1 .111111114111111"1- , _ y-� .mow , • . ._ LL_._ _.__. -.. rt ,L..- k J -d l T --- --— .4.,,t R.'�i�. .A.A. I luLl ill Lir il 5111 • ler ems-, ,.i.,. ...:01 g. • - . ` ' _ co �- — No - o w ( of 1 44111i 2 I — $H=^ al. . f E p z a `11 Em° 4 E3 8 € i W 1 co I. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 16 f NUL, C N .0 RI a)C c o` =t .g M O 1 bti, ayj �W gr is eol Z p gii1, L U O w4 rt _ v �i_?rra C 3 z ■ ■ ■ 1 = Is — _ W • • • 1 ; • 7 • • ■ ■ fp o ■ • ■ 1 • • O O © O • • • 0 7 _ . i.,„ 0 4..0 . i _ L ; W it ; 1 • • � J� 1 11I i L.i L . . .,..: 1 .-.004:. . ,..... . lai:t r • • ---- - % j• 9 lilicitiiii......._ .. _. . • •- II1 1. Ti 71 L it : g ,-,_..-L 1 CO 1 0 N O . 1(tei — — H i ' Oi r1 Q o t W I 1 co Wo I . > yI ~ 8 B Y E e gr o E ( I 1- Lawrence and Orange(13533) 18 9 • • Vii`: ..!r,••• • . r vt } .' • • �1 • O • . . I , - _. �._•-c - • — O :. it• •, • •rgreen Baptist fur � 1 0Tech' O, O O� http!/www.migcom.com•951.787A222 Exhibit 6 Site Photos nn i Lawrence and Orange G City of Rosemead, California Lawrence and Orange(13533) 20 V 3 Determination 3.1 — Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact'as indicated by the checklist on the followinI 'a•es. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources D Geology/Soils O Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards& Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise ❑ Population I Housing ❑ Public Services Recreation 0 Transportation/Traffic ❑ Tribal Cultural Resources 0 Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of 0 Significance 3.2— Determination 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 measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Name: Lily T. Valenzuela, City Planner Date Lawrence and Orange(13533) 21 1 > Lawrence and Orange(13533) 22 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 4.1 — Aesthetics Would the project: Less Than Less Than Potentially Significant with No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated 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 buildings within ❑ ❑ 0 view from a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its 0 ❑ surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ❑ ND Impact. Scenic vistas can be impacted by development in two ways. First, a structure may be constructed that blocks the view of a vista. Second, the vista itself may be altered (i.e., development on a scenic hillside). According to the City of Rosemead General Plan EIR, the primary scenic vistas are of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the Whittier Narrows Golf Course and the La Puente Hills to the south. The proposed project is located on a site formerly used as a sports field, south of the San Bernardino Freeway (1-10) and north of the Pomona Freeway (SR-60), within a fully urbanized area visually dominated by residential and institutional land uses and surface streets. This site is not considered to be within or to comprise a portion of a scenic vista.' As discussed in the General Plan EIR, new developments that are greater in height than the existing built environment may impact views of the San Gabriel Mountains.2 The project is located within a residential area that is comprised of one- and two-story residential structures and landscaping. The proposed two- story single family units will be developed at a maximum height of 27 feet at their highest point. Because the proposed development will not result in structures greater in height than currently exists in the vicinity, development of the proposed project and accessory landscaping elements would have no effect on a scenic vista. As such, the proposed project would result in no impact with respect to view of a scenic vista. b) No Impact. The project is not adjacent to a designated state scenic highway or eligible state scenic highway as identified on the California Scenic Highway Mapping System.3 According to the General Plan EIR. there are no state scenic highways in Rosemead.'The project site is located in a previously developed, urbanized area, and contains no trees, rock outcroppings, or historically significant buildings (see Section 4.5 Cultural Resources) that would constitute a scenic resource. Therefore, no impact to scenic resources visible from a state scenic highway will occur. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project could result in a significant impact if it resulted in substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Degradation of visual Lawrence and Orange(13533) 23 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts character or quality is defined by substantial changes to the existing site appearance through construction of structures such that they are poorly designed or conflict with the site's existing surroundings. Construction of the proposed project would result in short-term impacts to the existing visual character and quality of the area. Construction activities would require the use of equipment and storage of materials within the project site. However, construction activities are temporary and would not result in any permanent visual impact. The project site is a previous sports field that contains regularly maintained turf. Project construction would result in the removal of all existing vegetation, which would result in a temporary change to the aesthetic environment. Construction of the proposed development would alter the existing visual character of the site. The proposed project is similar in use as the single family residential uses located to the west of the site. The immediate surroundings of the project site are currently occupied by residential and institutional uses. Surrounding residential buildings are generally one to two stories in height and the institutional uses consist of the Evergreen Baptist Church to the north, the Don Bosco Technical Institute to the east, and the St. Joseph's Salesian Youth Renewal Retreat Center to the south. The surrounding area is not visually distinct and does not portray a particular architectural theme or aesthetic. Upon project completion, the proposed project would consist of 21 two-story single family residential structures. Access to the site will be provided via Orange Street. The building heights will vary from 26 feet to 27 feet at their highest points from ground level, consistent with Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.12.030 which requires that no building within the R-1 Residential designation exceed two stories and 30 feet. The project is located within the Planned Development(P-D) zone, which according to Section 17.24.030, does not have a height restriction. The building would have a contemporary design, with primarily stucco finishes. The finish would be stucco with articulation in the form of differential wall depths and windows. With a modern architectural theme to include metal railings, window shutters, contrasting window trim, and smooth stucco finish on the exterior walls, the project would improve the visual character and quality of this site and reflect an improvement to its surroundings. Once constructed, the proposed project would represent a new urban feature within the primarily residential and institutional area. Because of the residential developments in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the addition of the proposed project will provide a modern architectural aesthetic in an area that is older in character and would not conflict with the existing character, but enhance it. With specified design features included, the project will have less than significant impacts on the visual character of the site and the surroundings. In addition to specified design features, the following General Plan policy will ensure that impacts to the visual character of the area will not occur: Land Use Element Policy 1.8 Require that new single-family units utilize detailed architectural articulations to promote the visual character of neighborhoods and comply with adopted single family design guidelines Resource Management Element Policies 2.3 Require new developments to incorporate creative and effective landscaping into the overall site plan of proposed projects. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Excessive or inappropriately directed lighting can adversely impact night-time views by reducing the ability to see the night sky and stars. Glare can be caused from unshielded or misdirected lighting sources. Reflective surfaces (i.e., polished metal) can also cause glare. Impacts associated with glare range from simple nuisance to potentially dangerous situations(i.e.. if glare is directed into the eyes of motorists). There are lighting sources adjacent to this site, including free-standing street lights, light fixtures on buildings, and pole- mounted lights. The proposed project includes exterior street lighting and interior lighting. Light spillover and glare will be Lawrence and Orange(13533) 24 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts avoided by requiring lights to be designed to prevent the light from shining directly onto surrounding property per the requirements of Municipal Code Section 17.88.020. Compliance with the Municipal Code standards for lighting will ensure that lighting and glare impacts are less than significant. Sources of daytime glare are typically concentrated in commercial areas and are often associated with retail uses. Glare results from development and associated parking areas that contain reflective materials such as hi-efficiency window glass. highly polished surfaces, and expanses of pavement. The proposed project would have stucco finishes and wood window shutters, which are not surfaces that cause glare. Glass windows and limited metal accents are proposed to create visual interest and represents a minor percentage of the square footage of the homes. Given the minimal use of glare-inducing materials in the design of the proposed building, reflective glare impacts would be less than significant. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 25 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 4.2— Agriculture and Forest Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources. including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project: and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of ❑ ❑ ❑ the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section ❑ ❑ ❑ 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to ❑ ❑ ❑ non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? a) No Impact. The proposed project will be located in a fully developed, urbanized area that does not contain agriculture or forest uses. The Important Farmland in California (2010) prepared by the Department of Conservation does not identify the project site as being Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.'The City of Rosemead is located in an area that is not mapped, indicating that there is no land considered as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the City. In addition, the Rosemead General Plan does not identify any areas for agriculture use. Therefore, there will be no conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use as a result of this project. No impact will occur. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 26 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts b) No Impact. No Williamson Act contracts are active for the project site.6 In addition, the project site is zoned Planned Development, which does not permit agricultural uses. Therefore, there will be no conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact will occur. c) No Impact. Public Resources Code § 12220(g) identifies forest land as land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species. including hardwoods. under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber. aesthetics. fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. The project site and surrounding properties are not currently being managed or used for forest land as identified in Public Resources Code § 12220(g). The project site has already been disturbed and used as a sports field. Therefore, development of this project will have no impact to any timberland zoning. d) No Impact. The project site is disturbed land with limited non-native vegetation; thus, there will be no loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use as a result of this project. No impact will occur. e) No Impact. The project site is a vacant site within an urban environment. The project is surrounded by residential and institutional uses. None of the surrounding sites contain existing forest uses. Development of this project will not change the existing environment in a manner that will result in the conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. No impact will occur. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 27 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 4.3— Air Quality Where available. the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ❑ 0 ❑ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or ❑ ❑ ❑ projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air ❑ ❑ RfI ❑ quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? � ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ❑ a) No Impact. A significant impact could occur if the proposed project conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the South Coast Air Basin 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. Conflicts and obstructions that hinder implementation of the AQMP can delay efforts to meet attainment deadlines for criteria pollutants and maintaining existing compliance with applicable air quality standards. Pursuant to the methodology provided in Chapter 12 of the 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, consistency with the South Coast Air Basin 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is affirmed when a project(1)does not increase the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation or cause a new violation and (2) is consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP.'Consistency review is presented below: (1) The project would result in short-term construction and long-term pollutant emissions that are less than the CEQA significance emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD, as demonstrated herein; therefore, the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of any air quality standards violation and would not cause a new air quality standard violation. (2) The CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that consistency with AQMP growth assumptions must be analyzed for new or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and significant projects. Significant projects include airports, electrical generating facilities, petroleum and gas refineries, designation of oil drilling districts, water ports, solid waste disposal sites, and off-shore drilling facilities. This project includes a General Plan Amendment and therefore requires consistency analysis with the AQMP. According to the California Department of Finance. the City of Rosemead had a population of 55,231 as of January 2016.8 The Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Lawrence and Orange(13533) 28 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Strategy (RTP/SCS) projects an estimated population of 60.800 for Rosemead by the year 2040, an increase of 5,569 residents. The proposed project will result in the addition of 21 dwelling units, resulting in an increase of 79 residents according to an average household size of 3.74 residents.9 This increase is within the growth assumptions estimated by SCAG and thus would be consistent with regional growth projections. SCAQMD utilizes SCAG growth projections in development of the AQMP. Based on the consistency analysis presented above, the proposed project will not conflict with the AQMP; no impact will occur. b) Less Than Significant Impact. A project may have a significant impact if project-related emissions would exceed federal, state, or regional standards or thresholds, or if project-related emissions would substantially contribute to existing or project air quality violations. The proposed Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin, where efforts to attain state and federal air quality standards are governed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Both the state of California (state) and the federal government have established health-based ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for seven air pollutants (known as`criteria pollutants'). These pollutants include ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), inhalable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM,c), fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM25), and lead (Pb). The state has also established AAQS for additional pollutants. The AAQS are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace within a reasonable margin of safety. Where the state and federal standards differ, California AAQS are more stringent than the national AAQS. Air pollution levels are measured at monitoring stations located throughout the air basin. Areas that are in nonattainment with respect to federal or state AAQS are required to prepare plans and implement measures that will bring the region into attainment. Table 2 (South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status) summarizes the attainment status in the project area for the criteria pollutants. Discussion of potential impacts related to short-term construction impacts and long-term area source and operational impacts are presented below. Table 2 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status Pollutant Federal State 03(1-hr) -- Nonattainment 03(8-hr) Nonattainment Nonattainment PM10 Attainment Nonattainment PM25 Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Attainment Attainment NO2 Attainment Attainment SO2 Attainment Attainment Pb Nonattainment Attainment VRP -- Unclassified SO4 -- Attainment H2S -- Unclassified Sources: ARB Construction Emissions The California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) version 2013.2.2 was utilized to estimate emissions from the proposed construction activities (see Appendix A, Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment). CalEEMod default construction phase lengths were utilized. The proposed project will take approximately one year to complete. Short-term criteria pollutant emissions will occur during site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and coating activities. Emissions will occur from use of equipment, worker, vendor, and hauling trips, and disturbance of on-site soils (fugitive dust). To determine if construction of the proposed project could result in a significant air quality impact, the Lawrence and Orange(13533) 29 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) has been utilized. It is estimated that the project will take approximately one year to complete. It is estimated that approximately 1,054 cubic yards of soil will be imported. SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits paints to 50 grams per liter (g/L) of VOC and has been accounted for in the model. Particulate matter emissions account for daily watering required by SCAQMD Rule 403 (three times per day for a 61 percent reduction in fugitive dust). Based on the results of the model, and as shown in Table 3 (Maximum Daily Construction Emissions), maximum daily emissions from the construction of the project will not exceed SCAQMD daily thresholds. Short-term construction-related impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Is not required. Table 3 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PRI() PM2.5 Summer 50.36 34.81 24.41 0.04 4.78 2.99 Winter 50.36 35.05 25.10 0.04 4.78 2.99 Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Potentially Significant? No No No No No No Operational Emissions Long-term criteria air pollutant emissions will result from the operation of the proposed project. Long-term emissions are categorized as area source emissions, energy demand emissions, and operational emissions. Operational emissions will result from automobile and other vehicle sources associated with daily trips to and from the project site. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was utilized to estimate mobile source emissions. Trip generation is based on the project traffic study prepared by Kunzman Associates.',Area source emissions are the combination of many small emission sources that include use of outdoor landscape maintenance equipment, use of consumer products such as cleaning products, and periodic repainting of the project. Energy demand emissions result from use of electricity and natural gas. Project area, energy, and mobile source emissions are included in Table 4(Project Daily Emissions (lbs/day)). Based on the results of the model, daily operational emissions associated with the proposed development will not exceed the thresholds established by SCAQMD. Table 4 Project Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Summer Area Sources 2.84 0.10 7.66 0.02 0.86 0.86 Energy Demand 0.02 0.16 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.01 Mobile Sources 0.70 2.02 8.19 0.02 1.57 0.44 Summer Total 3.56 2.29 15.92 0.04 2.44 1.31 Winter Area Sources 2.84 0.10 7.66 0.02 0.86 0.86 Energy Demand 0.02 0.16 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.01 Mobile Sources 0.72 2.13 8.03 0.02 1.57 0.44 Winter Total 3.58 2.39 15.76 0.04 2.44 1.31 SCAQMD Daily Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Potentially Significant? No No No No No No c) Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative short-term. construction-related emissions and long-term, operational emissions from the project will not contribute considerably to any potential cumulative air quality impact because short-term project and operational emissions will not exceed any SCAQMD daily threshold. As required of the proposed project, other concurrent construction projects and operations in the region will be required to implement standard air quality regulations Lawrence and Orange(13533) 30 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts and mitigation pursuant to state CEQA requirements, thus ensuring that air quality standards are not cumulatively exceeded. Impacts will be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are those segments of the population that are most susceptible to poor air quality such as children, the elderly, the sick, and athletes who perform outdoors. Land uses associated with sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, outdoor athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Specific sensitive receptors within one- quarter mile of the project site include the Don Bosco Technical Institute to the east, Potrero Heights Elementary to the northwest, and residential uses in all directions of the project site. The proposed development will not generate toxic pollutant emissions because the proposed uses do not produce such emissions. The proposed development, therefore, would have no impact on sensitive receptors related to toxic pollutant emissions. Carbon Monoxide Hotspots A carbon monoxide (CO) hotspot is an area of localized CO pollution that is caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. CO hotspots have the potential to violate State and Federal CO standards at intersections, even if the broader Basin is in attainment for Federal and State levels. The California Department of Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (Protocol) screening procedures have been utilized to determine if the proposed project could potentially result in a CO hotspot. Based on the recommendations of the Protocol, a screening analysis should be performed for the proposed project to determine if a detailed analysis will be required. The California Department of Transportation notes that because of the age of the assumptions used in the screening procedures and the obsolete nature of the modeling tools utilized to develop the screening procedures in the Protocol, they are no longer accepted. More recent screening procedures based on more current methodologies have been developed. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) developed a screening threshold in 2011 which states that any project involving an intersection experiencing 31.600 vehicles per hour or more will require detailed analysis. In addition, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District developed a screening threshold in 2010 which states that any project involving an intersection experiencing 44,000 vehicles per hour would require detailed analysis. According to the traffic study. the proposed project's operations would not involve an intersection experiencing this level of traffic; therefore, the proposed project passes the screening analysis and impacts are deemed less than significant. Based on the local analysis procedures, the proposed project would not result in a CO hotspot. Localized Significance Thresholds As part of SCAQMD's environmental justice program, attention has recently been focusing more on the localized effects of air quality. Although the region may be in attainment for a particular criteria pollutant, localized emissions from construction activities coupled with ambient pollutant levels can cause localized increases in criteria pollutant that exceed national and/or state air quality standards. Construction-related criteria pollutant emissions and potentially significant localized impacts were evaluated pursuant to the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology. This methodology provides screening tables for one through five-acre project scenarios, depending on the amount of site disturbance during a day. Maximum daily oxides of nitrogen (N0x), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PK() and PM2.5) emissions will occur during construction of the project, grading of the project site, and paving. It should be noted that the results summarized in Table 5 (Two Acre Localized Significance Threshold Analysis) include application of SCAQMD Rule 403 and requires (the utilization of applicable best management practices to minimize fugitive dust emissions. A 61 percent reduction in fugitive dust emissions is assumed based on rule requirements. Table 5 summarizes on-site emissions as compared to the local thresholds established for Source Receptor Area (SRA) 11 (South San Gabriel Valley). A 25-meter receptor distance was used to reflect the proximity of nearby residential and commercial uses to the project site. No construction phase will exceed any localized threshold as summarized in Table 5. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 31 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Table 5 Two Acre Localized Significance Threshold Analysis Construction Activity CO NOx PM1a PM2.5 Site Preparation 17.13 28.62 2.02 1.35 Grading 18.97 28.16 4.11 2.74 Building Construction 16.25 22.86 1.46 1.40 Paving 12.06 16.46 1.02 0.94 Architectural Coating 1.87 2.19 0.17 0.17 Maximum 18.97 28.62 4.11 2.74 Threshold 1,031 121 7 5 Potentially Significant? No No No No e) No Impact. According to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural operations. wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial operations (such as manufacturing uses that produce chemicals, paper, etc.). Odors are typically associated with industrial projects involving the use of chemicals, solvents, petroleum products, and other strong-smelling elements used in manufacturing processes, as well as sewage treatment facilities and landfills. The proposed development does not include any of the above noted uses or process; no impact will occur. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 32 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 4.4— Biological Resources Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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, regulations, or by the ❑ ❑ 0 California Department of Fish and Game or US 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 ❑ 0 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 native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or 0 ❑ 0 Rf ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other ❑ ❑ 0 approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Lawrence and Orange(13533) 33 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 4 No Impact. The project site is vacant with regularly maintained turf. The project site is not identified as critical habitat for threatened and endangered species." The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) maintains the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), a list of special status plant and animal species. The city of Rosemead is located within the El Monte Quadrangle. The CNDDB shows an occurrence of western pond turtle(Emys marmorata), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvilli), coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), and bank swallow (Riparia riparia) in the project vicinity.12 The western pond turtle is aquatic and generally found in ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches. The occurrence report states that the western pond turtle was observed in the Alhambra Wash-Rio Hondo junction and the Whither Narrows Dam County Park Recreational Area, approximately 0.8 miles east of the project site. The coast horned lizard frequents a wide variety of habitats, but is most common in lowlands along sandy washes and scattered low bushes. It requires chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub, desert wash, pinon &juniper woodlands, riparian scrub, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill grassland. Mapped occurrence areas are located approximately 0.8 miles northeast of the project site. Coastal California gnatcatcher is typically found coastal sage scrub in arid washes, and on mesas and slopes. The occurrence report states that mapped areas of occurrence include Whittier Narrows Recreational Area, approximately 0.5 miles south of the project site. The bank swallow is a colonial nester and nests primarily in riparian and other lowland habitats west of the desert. It requires vertical banks/cliffs with fine-textured/sandy soils near streams, rivers, lakes, and the ocean to dig a nesting hole. The project site is flat, consists of regularly maintained turf, surrounded by existing development, and there is no riparian habitat on or near the site. As a previous sports field, regularly maintained turf is located on site and is not native habitat for any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. On-site vegetation is currently disturbed through on- and off-site activities including maintenance, traffic, and the presence of humans and domestic animals, particularly cats. Considering the highly developed and urbanized character of the surrounding area and the presence of on- and off-site disturbances, designated species under federal or state law and other wildlife will not be disturbed. The proposed project will, therefore, not have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). While the project will not result in any substantial impacts to sensitive species or their habitat and the existing vegetation on site is of low quality, the project site still may support nesting of some native bird species. Generally, all birds (as listed) are protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty of 1918 and/or California Fish and Game Code §§ 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. If demolition occurs during the avian breeding season due to construction delays, CDFW recommends that nest surveys be conducted and active nests avoided and provided with a minimum buffer as determined by a biological monitor(CDFW generally recommends a minimum 300-foot nest avoidance buffer or 500 feet for all active raptor nests) in order to be compliant with federal and/or state law. In addition to federal and state regulations, the project is subject to CEQA filing fees upon filing of the Notice of Determination (NOD) upon adoption of this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The filing fee helps defray the costs of managing and projecting California's fish and wildlife resources, thus, payment of fees would help offset any incremental effects on wildlife, including nesting birds and other resources. Based on the lack of habitat on the property, the highly urbanized and developed character of the area, and activities that are incompatible with wildlife, no impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species or their habitat will occur. b-c) No Impact. The project site is vacant. The site has been substantially disturbed as a former sports field and contains turf that is maintained regularly. According to the federal National Wetlands Inventory, the project site does not contain any riparian habitat or wetlands and the proposed project would not disturb any offsite wetlands.13 There is no vegetation or on-site water features indicative of potential wetlands. No impact will occur. d) No Impact. The project site is vacant and surrounded to the north, south, east, and west by development, preventing the use of the project site and surrounding area as a wildlife corridor. The project site contains turf that is maintained regularly, in the context of a completely urbanized setting surrounded by residential and institutional use. There are no Lawrence and Orange(13533) 34 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts substantial vegetated areas or waterbodies located onsite that could serve as habitat. The project site does not provide for the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife. No impact will occur. e) No Impact. The project site is vacant and contains turf that is maintained regularly. The City of Rosemead has an adopted oak tree preservation ordinance(Municipal Code Section 17.104). This ordinance sets provisions to create favorable conditions for the preservation and propagation of oak trees due to their historical, aesthetic, and ecological benefits. The project site does not contain any oak trees.Therefore, development of the proposed project will not conflict with the City's oak tree preservation ordinance. No impact would occur. f) No Impact. The project site is not within the planning area of any Habitat Conservation Plan or a Natural Community Conservation Plan area,"or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan. No impact will occur. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 35 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 4.5— Cultural Resources Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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 dedicated cemeteries? ❑ ❑ ❑ a) No Impact. MIG conducted a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (see Appendix B) for the project. Review of the California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI), the California Historical Landmarks (CHL), the California Register, the National Register. and the California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) listings determined that no known historical resources were recorded within the Project site. In addition, no historical resources were identified during the pedestrian survey. As such, the proposed project would not cause an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and impacts to historic resources are not anticipated. No impact will result. b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located in an urbanized area that has been previously disturbed by past activities. Given that the project site has been disturbed, any cultural resources that may have existed at one time likely have been previously unearthed or disturbed. Records searches conducted as part of the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment indicated that there were no previously recorded archaeological resources within the project site and no historical resources were identified during the pedestrian survey. Despite previous disturbances of the project area that may have displaced archaeological resources on the surface, it is possible that intact archaeological resources exist at depth. As a result, Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-4 have been implemented to reduce potentially significant impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological resources that may be accidentally encountered during project implementation to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure C-1 requires that a qualified archaeologist conduct an archaeological sensitivity training for construction personnel. Mitigation Measure C-2 requires that all ground-disturbing activities be halted or diverted away from the find and that a buffer of at least 50 feet be established around the find until an appropriate treatment plan is coordinated. Mitigation Measure C-3 requires that a qualified archaeological monitor be present during all construction excavations into non-fill younger Pleistocene alluvial sediments. Mitigation Measure C-4 requires that the archaeological monitor prepare a final report at the conclusion of archaeological monitoring. With implementation of Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-4, impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures C-1 Conduct Archaeological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards, to conduct an Archaeological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training session shall be carried out by a cultural resources professional with expertise in Lawrence and Orange(13533) 36 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts archaeology, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards. The training session will include a handout and will focus on how to identify archaeological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures to be followed in such an event, the duties of archaeological monitors, and. the general steps a qualified professional archaeologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary. C-2 Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Archaeological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be established around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue until a qualified archaeologist has examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has evaluated the area of the find. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards. Should the newly discovered artifacts be determined to be prehistoric, Native American Tribes/Individuals should be contacted and consulted and Native American construction monitoring should be initiated. The Applicant and City shall coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. The plan may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to address treatment of the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. C-3 Conduct Periodic Archeological Resources Spot Checks during grading and earth-moving activities in Younger Alluvial Sediments. The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards to conduct periodic Archaeological Spot Checks beginning at depths below two (2) feet to determine if construction excavations have exposed or have a high probability to expose archaeological resources. After the initial Archaeological Spot Check, further periodic checks will be conducted at the discretion of the qualified archaeologist. If the qualified archaeologist determines that construction excavations have exposed or have a high probability to expose archaeological artifacts construction monitoring for Archaeological Resources will be required. The Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional archaeologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards. The archaeological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non-fill younger Pleistocene alluvial sediments. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require multiple archaeological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation. and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project archaeologist. C-4 Prepare Report Upon Completion of Monitoring Services. The archaeological monitor, under the direction of a qualified professional archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards, shall prepare a final report at the conclusion of archaeological monitoring. The report shall be submitted to the Applicant, the South Central Costal Information Center, the City, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. The report shall include a description of resources unearthed, if any. evaluation of the resources with respect to the California Register and CEQA, and treatment of the resources. c) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located in an urbanized area that has been previously disturbed by past activities. Given that the project site has been disturbed, any cultural resources that may have existed at one time likely have been previously unearthed or disturbed. Results of the paleontological resources records search through Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC) indicate that no vertebrate fossil localities from the NHMLAC records have been previously recorded within the project area or within a one-mile radius. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 37 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Moreover, no paleontological resources were identified by MIG during the pedestrian survey. However, there are two previously recorded fossil localities (LACM 7701-7702 and LACM 6350-6361) located within a three-mile radius of the project site and were discovered in the same Miocene Puente Formation that extends into the project area. Further, the results of the literature review and the search at the NHMLAC indicates that the Study Area is underlain by surficial deposits of older Quaternary Alluvium, derived primarily as alluvial fan deposits from the elevated terrain immediately to the south. In the Montebello Hills immediately to the south of the proposed project area there are exposures of the Pliocene Fernando Formation that probably occur at relatively shallow depth in the proposed project area. According to the geologic mapping this may be a non-marine facies of the otherwise marine Fernando Formation are all from around the Puente Hills Landfill east southeast of the proposed project area (McLeod 2016). These surface deposits are unlikely to contain significant vertebrate fossils in the uppermost layers, but are underlain by older sedimentary deposits at relatively shallow depths ranging between 6-8 feet below the surface. Deeper excavations that extend down into older sedimentary deposits, however, may well uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains. Any substantial excavations in the proposed project area, therefore. should be closely monitored to quickly and professionally collect any vertebrate fossil remains without impeding development (McLeod 2016). As a result. Mitigation Measure C-5 through C-8 have been implemented to reduce potentially significant impacts to previously undiscovered paleontological resources and/or unique geological features that may be accidentally encountered during project implementation to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure C-5 requires that a paleontological sensitivity training for construction personnel be conducted prior to commencement of excavation activities. Mitigation Measure C-6 requires that a qualified paleontologist conduct periodic paleontological spot checks to determine if excavations have extended into the Puente Formation or into older Pleistocene alluvial deposits and the presence of a paleontological monitor during all construction excavations into the Puente Formation or into older Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Mitigation Measure C-7 requires that ground-disturbing activities be halted or diverted away from the vicinity and that a buffer of at least 50 feet be established if paleontological materials are encountered until an appropriate treatment plan is coordinated. Mitigation Measure C-8 requires that a professional paleontologist prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring efforts, methodology used, and the description of fossils collected and their significance. With implementation of Mitigation Measures C-5 through C-8, impacts to paleontological resources will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures C-5 Conduct Paleontological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The Applicant shall retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, shall conduct a Paleontological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training will include a handout and will focus on how to identify paleontological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event; the duties of paleontological monitors; notification and other procedures to follow upon discovery of resources: and, the general steps a qualified professional paleontologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary. C-6 Conduct Periodic Paleontological Spot Checks during grading and earth-moving activities. The Applicant shall retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, shall conduct periodic Paleontological Spot Checks beginning at depths below six (6) feet to determine if construction excavations have extended into the Miocene Puente Formation or into Pleistocene older alluvial deposits. After the initial Paleontological Spot Check, further periodic checks will be conducted at the discretion of the qualified paleontologist. If the qualified paleontologist determines that construction excavations have extended into the Puente Formation or into older Pleistocene alluvial deposits, construction monitoring for Paleontological Resources will be required. The Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontological monitor, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The paleontological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into the Puente Formation or into older Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require multiple paleontological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known paleontological resources and/or unique geological features, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial Lawrence and Orange(13533) 38 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of paleontological resources and/or unique geological features encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the qualified professional paleontologist. C-7 Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Paleontological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that paleontological resources and or unique geological features are unearthed during ground- disturbing activities, ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be established around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue until appropriate paleontological treatment plan has been approved by the Applicant and the City. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. The Applicant and City shall coordinate with a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Treatment may include implementation of paleontological salvage excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis or preservation in place. At the paleontologist's discretion and to reduce construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor shall assist in removing rock samples for initial processing. C-8 Prepare Report Upon Completion of Monitoring Services. Upon completion of the above activities, the professional paleontologist shall prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, as well as a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report shall be submitted to the Applicant, the City, the Natural History Museums of Los Angeles County, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. d) Less than Significant Impact. No known human remains have been identified from the California Historical Resources Information System-South Central Coastal Information Center (CHRIS-SCCIC) database within a half-mile radius of the project site. No human remains were identified during the site survey of the project site. Because the project site has been disturbed, no human remains or cemeteries are anticipated to be disturbed by the proposed project. Any buried human remains would have been uncovered, collected, and/or destroyed at that time of initial development of the site. However, these findings do not preclude the existence of previously unknown human remains located below the ground surface, which may be encountered during construction excavations associated with the proposed project. Similar to the discussion regarding archaeological resources above, it is also possible to encounter buried human remains during construction given the proven prehistoric occupation of the region, the identification of multiple surface archaeological resources within a half- mile of the project site, and the favorable natural conditions that would have attracted prehistoric inhabitants to the area. As a result, mitigation measure C-9 has been implemented to reduce potentially significant impacts to previously unknown human remains that may be unexpectedly discovered during project implementation to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure C-9 requires that in the unlikely event that human remains are uncovered the contractor shall be required to halt work in the immediate area of the find and to notify the County Coroner, in accordance with Health and Safety Code § 7050.5, who must then determine whether the remains are of forensic interest. If the Coroner, with the aid of a supervising archaeologist, determines that the remains are or appear to be of a Native American, he/she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission for further investigations and proper recovery of such remains, if necessary. Impacts will be less than significant with implementation of mitigation. Mitigation Measure C-9 Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Notify County Coroner If Human Remains Are Encountered. If human remains are unearthed during implementation of the Proposed Project, the City of Rosemead and the Applicant shall comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The City of Rosemead and the Applicant shall immediately notify the County Coroner and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). After the Lawrence and Orange(13533) 39 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts MLD has inspected the remains and the site, they have 48 hours to recommend to the landowner the treatment and/or disposal, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated funerary objects. Upon the reburial of the human remains, the MLD shall file a record of the reburial with the NAHC and the project archaeologist shall file a record of the reburial with the CHRIS-SCCIC. If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94. if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 40 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 4.6- Geology and Soils Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated -- 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? 0 ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ Rr on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or 0 ❑ ❑ property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems ❑ ❑ ❑ �I where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? a.i) Less Than Significant Impact. Although the project site is located in seismically active Southern California, the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.15 One active fault has been mapped within the city, the Alhambra Wash fault, which traverses the southern portion of the City on a northwest to southeast trend, approximately 0.5 miles north of the project site.16 No active faults have been identified at the ground surface on the project site. In addition, according to Lawrence and Orange(13533) 41 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts the geotechnical engineering investigation, there are no known active faults crossing the project site (Appendix C). Impacts will be less than significant. a.ii) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will be subject to ground shaking impacts should a major earthquake in the area occur in the future. Potential impacts include injury or loss of life and property damage. The project site is subject to strong seismic ground shaking, as are virtually all properties in Southern California. The proposed building is subject to the seismic design criteria of the California Building Code (CBC). The 2013 California Building Code (California Building Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Volume 2) contains seismic safety provisions with the aim of preventing building collapse during a design earthquake, so that occupants would be able to evacuate after the earthquake. A design earthquake is one with a two percent chance of exceedance in 50 years, or an average return period of 2,475 years. Adherence to these requirements will reduce the potential of the building from collapsing during an earthquake, thereby minimizing injury and loss of life. Although structures may be damaged during earthquakes. adherence to seismic design requirements will minimize damage to property within the structure because the structure is designed not to collapse. The CBC is intended to provide minimum requirements to prevent major structural failure and loss of life. Adherence to existing regulations will reduce the risk of loss, injury, and death; impacts due to strong ground shaking will be less than significant. In addition to CBC requirements, the General Plan includes the following policy related to earthquake and fault hazards: Public Safety Element Policy 1.2 Earthquake and Fault Hazards a) Minimize the exposure of people and property to primary and secondary earthquake-related hazards. while allowing properly designed projects to be develop din appropriate locations. b) Assure that all aspects of the earthquake, fault rupture. liquefaction, and related seismic hazard evaluation process (planning, investigation, analysis, reporting, review, construction. and operations) for new development and redevelopment are conducted, and independently reviewed, by qualified professionals. a.iii) Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon that occurs when soil undergoes transformation from a solid state to a liquefied condition due to the effects of increased pore-water pressure. This typically occurs where susceptible soils (particularly the medium sand to silt range) are located over a high groundwater table. Affected soils lose all strength during liquefaction and foundation failure can occur. According to the geotechnical investigation and the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, the project site is not subject to liquefaction.''This indicates that the area has not been subject to historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical, and groundwater conditions do not indicate a potential for permanent ground displacement such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code § 2693(c) would be required. The site is underlain by older alluvium consisting of predominately stiff clayey soils. Relatively loose silty and/or sandy soils are not anticipated at the site. The site exhibits a very low seismic settlement potential and liquefaction would not be significant to the proposed development. Impacts due to seismically induced liquefaction will be less than significant. a.iv) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, the project site is located in an urbanized area that is relatively flat and there is no potential for landslides on the project site.13 Impacts to the proposed project site will be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Topsoil is used to cover surface areas for the establishment and maintenance of vegetation due to its high concentrations of organic matter and microorganisms. Little native topsoil is likely to occur on the site because it is a former sports field with regularly maintained turf. The project has the potential to expose surficial soils to wind and water erosion during construction activities. Wind erosion will be minimized through soil stabilization measures required by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), such as daily watering. Water erosion will be prevented through the City's standard erosion control practices (Municipal Code Section 13.16.030) Lawrence and Orange(13533) 42 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts required pursuant to the California Building Code and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), such as silt fencing or sandbags. Following project construction, the site would be covered completely by paving, structures, and landscaping. Impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to liquefaction and landslides are discussed above in Sections 4.6.a and 4.6.b. Lateral spreading is the downslope movement of surface sediment due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. The downslope movement is due to gravity and earthquake shaking combined. Such movement can occur on slope gradients of as little as one degree. Lateral spreading typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures. Lateral spreading of the ground surface during a seismic activity usually occurs along the weak shear zones within a liquefiable soil layer and has been observed to generally take place toward a free face (i.e. retaining wall, slope, or channel) and to lesser extent on ground surfaces with a very gentle slope. Due to the absence of any channel within or near the subject site, and the subsurface soil conditions that are not conducive to liquefaction, the potential for lateral spread occurring on the project site is considered to be negligible. According to the geotechnical investigation, on-site materials will result in moderate shrinkage and subsidence. Design of site grading has taken potential shrinkage into account and will result in net fill of 1,054 cubic yards of soil. The project is required to be constructed in accordance with the CBC. The CBC includes a requirement that any City- approved recommendations contained in the soils report (Appendix C) be made conditions of the building permit. Compliance with existing CBC regulations would limit hazard impacts arising from unstable soils to less than significant levels. d) No Impact. The CBC requires special design considerations for foundations of structures built on soils with expansion indices greater than 20. According to the geotechnical investigation, the project site has low potential for expansion. The project is required to be constructed in accordance with the CBC. The CBC includes a requirement that any City-approved recommendations contained in the soils report be made conditions of the building permit. Compliance with existing CBC regulations would limit hazard impacts arising from unstable soils to less than significant levels. Design of site grading has taken potential expansion into account and will result in net fill of 1,054 cubic yards of soil. No impact will occur. e) No Impact. The project proposes to connect to the existing municipal sewer system under Arroyo Drive. The project will connect to this system and will not require use of septic tanks. No impact will occur. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 43 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 4.7— Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either j directly or indirectly,that may have a ❑ o - ❑ significant impact on the environment? l f b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse ❑ ❑ ❑ gases? a) Less Than Significant Impact. Climate change is the distinct change in measures of climate for a long period of time.'9 Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of greenhouse gas emissions all over the world. Natural changes in climate can be caused by indirect processes such as changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun or direct changes within the climate system itself (e.g.. changes in ocean circulation). Human activities can affect the atmosphere through emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and changes to the planet's surface. Human activities that produce GHGs are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas for heating and electricity, gasoline and diesel for transportation): methane from landfill wastes and raising livestock, deforestation activities: and some agricultural practices. Greenhouse gases differ from other emissions in that they contribute to the "greenhouse effect." The greenhouse effect is a natural occurrence that helps regulate the temperature of the planet. The majority of radiation from the Sun hits the Earth's surface and warms it. The surface in turn radiates heat back towards the atmosphere, known as infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping back into space and re-radiate it in all directions. This process is essential to supporting life on Earth because it warms the planet by approximately 60° Fahrenheit. Emissions from human activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 250 years ago) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the gases in the atmosphere that trap heat, thereby contributing to an average increase in the Earth's temperature. Greenhouse gases occur naturally and from human activities. Greenhouse gases produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). perfluorocarbons(PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride(SF5). Since 1750, it is estimated that the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have increased over 36 percent, 148 percent, and 18 percent, respectively, primarily due to human activity. Emissions of greenhouse gases affect the atmosphere directly by changing its chemical composition while changes to the land surface indirectly affect the atmosphere by changing the way the Earth absorbs gases from the atmosphere. Operation emissions associated with the proposed project would include GHG emissions from mobile sources (transportation), energy, water use and treatment, and waste disposal. GHG emissions from electricity use are indirect GHG emissions from the energy (purchased energy) that is produced offsite. Construction activities are short term and cease to emit greenhouse gases upon completion, unlike operational emissions that are continuous year after year until operation of the use ceases. Because of this difference, SCAQMD recommends amortizing construction emissions over a 30-year operational lifetime. This normalizes construction emissions so that they can be grouped with operational emissions in order to generate a precise project-based GHG inventory. GHG emissions for the project were quantified utilizing the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) version 2013.2.2 to determine if the project could have a cumulatively considerable impact related to greenhouse gas emissions Lawrence and Orange(13533) 44 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts (see Appendix A, Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment), and summarized in Table 6 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory). The emissions inventory accounts for GHG emissions from construction activities, operational activities, and existing emissions. Table 6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory GHG Emissions(MT/YR) Source CO2 CH4 N20 TOTAL* Construction Total 28.0.02 0.05 0.00 281.14 30-Year Amortization 9.33 0.00 I 0.00 9.37 0.erafional Total 380.88 1 0.36 0.00 389.17 Project Construction +Operational Total 390.21 0.36 0.00 398.54 Total Emissions 398.54 Proposed SCAQMD Screening Threshold 3,000 Exceeds Screening Threshold? No Source:MIG 2016 'MTCO2E/YR Note:Slight variations may occur due to rounding.Construction emissions amortized over 30 years. A numerical threshold for determining the significance of greenhouse gas emissions in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) has not officially been adopted by the SCAQMD. As an interim threshold based on guidance provided in the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change white paper, a non-zero threshold based on Approach 2 of the handbook will be used.20 Threshold 2.5 (Unit-Based Thresholds Based on Market Capture) establishes a numerical threshold based on capture of approximately 90 percent of emissions from future development. The latest threshold developed by SCAQMD using this method is 3,000 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E) per year for residential and commercial projects.21 This threshold is based on the review of 711 CEQA projects. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed project will not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2E threshold with implementation of existing standards and regulations;therefore, impacts will be less than significant. b) No Impact. ARB's Scoping Plan identifies strategies to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions in support of AB32. Many of the strategies identified in the Scoping Plan are not applicable at the project level, such as long-term technological improvements to reduce emissions from vehicles. Some measures are applicable and supported by the project, such as energy efficiency. Finally, while some measures are not directly applicable, the project will not conflict with their implementation. Reduction measures are grouped into 18 action categories, as follows: 1. California Cap-and-Trade Program Linked to Western Climate Initiative Partner Jurisdictions. Implement a broad-based California cap-and-trade program to provide a firm limit on emissions. Link the California cap—and- trade program with other Western Climate Initiative Partner programs to create a regional market system to achieve greater environmental and economic benefits for California.22 Ensure California's program meets all applicable AB 32 requirements for market-based mechanisms. 2. California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards. Implement adopted Pavley standards and planned second phase of the program. Align zero-emission vehicle, alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle technology programs with long-term climate change goals. 3. Energy Efficiency. Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards, and pursue additional efficiency efforts including new technologies, and new policy and implementation mechanisms. Pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California (including both investor-owned and publicly owned utilities). Lawrence and Orange(13533) 45 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 4. Renewables Portfolio Standards.Achieve 33 percent renewable energy mix statewide. 5. Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Develop and adopt the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. 6. Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Targets. Develop regional greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. 7. Vehicle Efficiency Measures. Implement light-duty vehicle efficiency measures. 8. Goods Movement. Implement adopted regulations for the use of shore power for ships at berth. Improve efficiency in goods movement activities. 9. Million Solar Roofs Program. Install 3,000 megawatts of solar-electric capacity under California's existing solar programs. 10. Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.Adopt medium- (MD) and heavy-duty (HD) vehicle efficiencies. Aerodynamic efficiency measures for HD trucks pulling trailers 53-feet or longer that include improvements in trailer aerodynamics and use of rolling resistance tires were adopted in 2008 and went into effect in 2010.23 Future, yet to be determined improvements. includes hybridization of MD and HD trucks. 11. Industrial Emissions. Require assessment of large industrial sources to determine whether individual sources within a facility can cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide other pollution reduction co- benefits. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fugitive emissions from oil and gas extraction and gas transmission. Adopt and implement regulations to control fugitive methane emissions and reduce flaring at refineries. 12. High Speed Rail. Support implementation of a high speed rail system. 13. Green Building Strategy. Expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California's new and existing inventory of buildings. 14. High Global Warming Potential Gases. Adopt measures to reduce high warming global potential gases. 15. Recycling and Waste. Reduce methane emissions at landfills. Increase waste diversion, composting and other beneficial uses of organic materials, and mandate commercial recycling. Move toward zero-waste. 16. Sustainable Forests. Preserve forest sequestration and encourage the use of forest biomass for sustainable energy generation. The 2020 target for carbon sequestration is 5 million MTCO2E/YR. 17. Water. Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. 18. Agriculture. In the near-term, encourage investment in manure digesters and at the five-year Scoping Plan update determine if the program should be made mandatory by 2020. Table 7 (Scoping Plan Consistency Summary) summarizes the project's consistency with the State Scoping Plan. As summarized, the project will not conflict with any of the provisions of the Scoping Plan and in fact supports four of the action categories through energy efficiency,water conservation, recycling, and landscaping. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 46 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Table 7 Scoping Plan Consistency Summary Action Supporting Consistency Measures Not Applicable.These programs involve capping Cap-and-Trade Program emissions from electricity generation, industrial facilities, and broad scoped fuels. Caps do not affect commercial projects. Not Applicable.This is a statewide measure Light Duty Vehicle Standards T-1 establishing vehicle emissions standards. E-1 Consistent. The project will include a variety of building, E- Energy Efficiency CR-1 water, and solid waste efficiencies consistent with 2013 CR-2 CALGREEN requirements. Renewables Portfolio Standard E-3 Not Applicable. Establishes the minimum statewide renewable energy mix. Low Carbon Fuel Standard T-2 Not Applicable. Establishes reduced carbon intensity of transportation fuels. Not Applicable.The project will not result in substantial Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse 3 emissions of greenhouse gas emissions; therefore, Gas Targets transportation related emissions reductions are not required. Not Applicable. Identifies measures such as minimum Vehicle Efficiency Measures T-4 tire-fuel efficiency, lower friction oil, and reduction in air conditioning use. T-5 Not applicable. Identifies measures to improve goods movement efficiencies such as advanced combustion Goods Movement strategies,friction reduction, waste heat recovery. and T-6 electrification of accessories. Million Solar Roofs Program E-4 Not Applicable. Sets goal for use of solar systems throughout the state. T-7 Medium-& Heavy Duty Vehicles Not applicable. Medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks and trailers will not operate from the proposed project. T-8 I-1 1-2 Not Applicable. These measures are applicable to large Industrial Emissions 1-3 industrial facilities (> 500,000 MTCOE2/YR) and other 1-4 intensive uses such as refineries. 1-5 High Speed Rail T-9 Not Applicable. Supports increased mobility choice. Consistent.The project will include a variety of building, Green Building Strategy GB-1 water, and solid waste efficiencies consistent with 2013 CALGREEN requirements. High Global Warming Potential Gases H-1 Not Applicable. The proposed project is not a H-2 substantial source of high GWP emissions and will Lawrence and Orange(13533) 47 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts H-3 comply with any future changes in air conditioning, fire H-4 protection suppressant, and other requirements. H-5 H-6 H-7 RW-1 Consistent.The project will be required to recycle a Recycling and Waste RW-2 minimum of 50 percent from construction activities and RW-3 operations per state requirements. Sustainable Forests F-1 Not Applicable.The project site is not forested and the project will not result in the loss of any forest land. W-1 W-2 Water W-3 Consistent. The project will include use of low-flow W-4 fixtures and efficient landscaping per state requirements. W-5 W-6 Agriculture A-1 Not Applicable.The project is not an agricultural use. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 48 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 4.8— Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions R ❑ involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile ❑ ❑ 0 of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section — 65962.5 and, as a result. would it create a 0 0 0 significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport 0 or public use airport. would the project result 0 0 in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety 0 hazard for people residing or working in the 0 0 project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency 0 response plan or emergency evacuation ❑ ❑ plan? Lawrence and Orange(13533) 49 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent ❑ ❑ to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project could result in a significant hazard to the public if the project includes the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or places housing near a facility which routinely transports, uses, or disposes of hazardous materials. The proposed project is located within a residential and institutional area within the City and is surrounded by residential and institutional uses. The proposed project would not place housing near any hazardous materials facilities. The routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials is primarily associated with industrial uses which require such materials for manufacturing operations or produce hazardous wastes as by-products of production applications. The proposed project does not propose or facilitate any activity involving significant use, routine transport. or disposal of hazardous substances. Construction of the proposed project will require the use and transport of hazardous materials such as asphalt, paints, and other solvents. Construction activities could also produce hazardous wastes associated with the use of such products. Construction of the proposed development requires ordinary construction activities and will not require a substantial or uncommon amount of hazardous materials to complete. All hazardous materials are required to be utilized and transported in accordance with their labeling pursuant to federal and state law. Routine construction practices include good housekeeping measures to prevent/contain/clean-up spills and contamination from fuels, solvents, concrete wastes and other waste materials. Impacts will be less than significant. With regard to project operation, widely used hazardous materials common at residential uses include paints and other solvents, cleaners, and pesticides. The remnants of these and other products are disposed of as household hazardous waste (HHW)that includes used dead batteries. electronic wastes, and other wastes that are prohibited or discouraged from being disposed of at local landfills. Use of common household hazardous materials and their disposal does not present a substantial health risk to the community. Impacts associated with the routine transport, use of hazardous materials or wastes will be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (Appendix D) dated June 22, 2015. No recognized environmental condition (REC). controlled recognized environmental condition (CREC), or historical recognized environmental condition (HREC) were identified by Partner during the course of the site assessment. The following environmental issues, referring to environmental concerns that do not qualify as RECs were identified. • Based on the regulatory database report and historical sources reviewed, a gasoline underground storage tank (UST) was situated on the Don Bosco School parent parcel property. approximately 200 feet east and down- gradient of the project site. According to information obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB's) GeoTracker website, evidence of a release was discovered in 1993 during tank removal operations. Remediation was conducted through removal of free product as well as groundwater monitoring up to at least 2008. The site is listed as being eligible for low-threat case closure as of May 2014. According to a September 4, 2014 letter of correspondence, the RWQCB indicated that final closure/no further action letter will be issued upon receipt of a final well abandonment report. According to an October 21, 2009 Groundwater Well Monitoring Report, groundwater samples were analyzed. All constituents were reported as non-detect (ND). The report also reported Lawrence and Orange(13533) 50 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts that 14 previous sampling events dating back to March 2003 also revealed measured constituents to be at ND levels. Groundwater flow is reported to the north-northeast. Based on the most recent groundwater monitoring data, the delineated contamination plume and relative distance from the project site, and the measured direction of groundwater flow, the release from a parent parcel is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern for the project site. • The off-site property, identified as Chevron Station No. 94784 at 1761 Paramount Boulevard. is located approximately 670 feet to the west of the project site, and situated hydrologically cross-gradient. This site reported a release of gasoline in 1987. which reportedly impacted soil and groundwater. The release occurred as a result of a release from an underground storage tank (UST) and was reported to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LADPW) in 1987 and to the current lead agency, the RWQCB in 2002. The responsible party is Chevron Inc. According to information reviewed on the RWQCB's online GeoTracker database, an off-site groundwater monitoring well (MW-4) was installed approximately 100 feet east of this site (approximately 500 feet west of the project site)to characterize down-gradient groundwater conditions. Soil sampling from the installation of the well reported benzene and petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline at 30 feet below ground surface (bgs). Samples collected above and below 30 bgs were ND for all constituents of concern. Groundwater is noted to flow to the northeast, cross-gradient to the project site. Based on the relative distance from the project site, the direction of groundwater flow, the identification of a responsible party, and the regulatory oversight, this off-site release is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern in connection with the project site. The Phase I ESA reveals no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the project site. Based on the conclusions of the Phase I ESA, no further investigation of the project site has been recommended. Impacts will be less than significant. c) No Impact. There are two schools located within one-quarter mile of the project site. Potrero Heights Elementary School is located approximately 0.25 miles to the northwest of the project site. The project site is currently part of the Don Bosco Technical Institute, located to the east of the project site. Operation of the proposed project will not generate any hazardous emissions and storage. handling, production or disposal of acutely hazardous materials is not required or proposed for any aspect of this project. No impact will occur. d) No Impact. The proposed project is not located on a site listed on the state Cortese List, a compilation of various sites throughout the state that have been compromised due to soil or groundwater contamination from past uses.24 Based upon review of the Cortese List,the project site is not: • listed as a hazardous waste and substance site by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC),25 • listed as a leaking underground storage tank(LUFT)site by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB),2° • listed as a hazardous solid waste disposal site by the SWRCB,27 • currently subject to a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) or a Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) as issued by the SWRCB,78 or • developed with a hazardous waste facility subject to corrective action by the DTSC.29 e-f) No Impact. There are no public airports, private airstrips, or heliports within two miles of the project site.30 No impact related to airport operations will occur. g) Less Than Significant Impact. Per state Fire and Building Codes, sufficient space will have to be provided around the buildings for emergency personnel and equipment access and emergency evacuation. All project elements, including landscaping, would be sited with sufficient clearance from existing and proposed structures so as not to interfere with emergency access to and evacuation from the facility. The project is required to comply with the California Fire Code as adopted by the Rosemead Municipal Code (Section 8.24.010). The site plan includes one ingress/egress access point via a driveway on Orange Street at the northwestern corner of the project site. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 51 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts The project driveway will allow emergency access and evacuation from the site, and would be constructed to California Fire Code specifications. The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan because no permanent public street or lane closures are proposed. Construction work in the street associated with the buildings would be limited to lateral utility connections would be limited to nominal potential traffic diversion. Project impacts will be less than significant. h) No Impact. The Project site is not located within a fire hazard zone, as identified on the latest Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE).3" There are no wildland conditions in the urbanized area where the project site is located. No impact would occur. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 52 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 4.9— Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ❑ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g.,the ❑ ❑ /� production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ 0 ❑ 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 stormwater drainage systems or provide ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? U ❑ 0 g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or ❑ ❑ 0 other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect ❑ ❑ ❑ flood flows? Lawrence and Orange(13533) 53 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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? 0 El a) Less Than Significant Impact. A project normally would have an impact on surface water quality if discharges associated with the project would create pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined in Water Code § 13050, or that cause regulatory standards to be violated as defined in the applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit or Water Quality Control Plan for the receiving water body. For the purpose of this specific issue, a significant impact could occur if the project would discharge water that does not meet the quality standards of the agencies which regulate surface water quality and water discharge into stormwater drainage systems. Significant impacts could also occur if the project does not comply with all applicable regulations with regard to surface water quality as governed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). These regulations include preparation of a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) to reduce potential post-construction water quality impacts (Rosemead Municipal Code Section 13.16.030). Construction Impacts Three general sources of potential short-term. construction-related stormwater pollution associated with the proposed project include: 1) the handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants; 2) the maintenance and operation of construction equipment: and 3) earth-moving activities which, when not controlled, may generate soil erosion via storm runoff or mechanical equipment. All new development projects equal to one acre or more are subject to Los Angeles County NPDES Permit No. CAS004001. The proposed project would disturb approximately two acres of land and therefore will be subject to NPDES permit requirements during construction activities. In addition, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 13.16.030, all construction projects equal to or greater than one acre and less than five acres shall prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). All construction projects must apply Best Management Practices (BMPs) that include drainage controls such as detention ponds, dikes, filter berms, and downdrains to prevent runoff, and utilizing plastic covering to prevent erosion. Compliance with City discharge requirements would ensure that the construction of the proposed project will not violate any water quality standards or discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Impacts will be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations. Operational Impacts Proposed construction will increase impervious areas as the site currently does not consist of any impervious surfaces. The approximately two-acre site, consisting of turf, will be replaced with 21 single family residential structures and associated paving and landscaping. Runoff from the developed site will result in increased potential water contamination from urban pollutants that are commonly found in surface parking lots, ornamental landscape planters and from atmospheric buildup on rooftops. The proposed project will be subject to post-construction BMPs to address increases in impervious surfaces, methods to decrease incremental increases in off-site stormwater flows, and methods for decreasing pollutant loading in off- site discharges. A key design criterion is to treat the first 3/4-inch rainstorm flows. since the first rains typically carry the most concentrated levels of pollution that have built up since the last storm. Common post-construction BMPs include retaining stormwater on-site to filter back into the groundwater. The proposed development will not generate hazardous wastewater that would require any special waste discharge permits. All wastewater associated with the building's interior plumbing system will be discharged into the local sewer system for treatment at the regional wastewater treatment plant. Although the Lawrence and Orange(13533) 54 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts amount of impervious surfaces will be greater than existing conditions, runoff will be captured by various on-site catch basins and conveyed through a proposed on-site storm drainage system which includes water treatment prior to being discharged into the municipal storm drain at Arroyo Drive. Impacts will be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations. b) Less Than Significant Impact. If the project removes an existing groundwater recharge area or substantially reduces runoff that results in groundwater recharge such that existing wells would no longer be able to operate, a potentially significant impact could occur. The project site is located in the Main San Gabriel Basin (Main Basin). Groundwater elevations within the Basin vary in response to seasonal rainfall patterns. Since 1993, the water levels for the Baldwin Park Key Well have varied from an elevation high of 272 feet to a historic low of 195.5 feet.32 Project-related grading would not reach these depths and no disturbance of groundwater is anticipated. The proposed building footprint area would increase impervious surface coverage on the site, thereby reducing the total amount of infiltration onsite. According to the Rosemead General Plan EIR, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) artificially recharges the groundwater supply aquifers underlying the County by spreading imported water, local runoff, and recycled water at their 27 spreading facilities. The project site is not one of these spreading facilities. Because this site is not managed for groundwater supplies, this change in infiltration would not have a significant effect on groundwater table level. Impacts will be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Potentially significant impacts to the existing drainage pattern of the site or area could occur if development of the project results in substantial on- or off-site erosion or siltation. According to the geotechnical investigation prepared for the project site, the site sheet flows southeast toward the southeast corner. Stormwater will be collected via proposed on-site catch basins located at the northwest, central and southeast portions of the project site. Stormwater will then be conveyed via a proposed 18-inch storm drain to be constructed in a proposed private utility easement southeast beneath the adjacent parking lot for St. Joseph's Salesian Youth Renewal Retreat Center for connection to existing facilities at Arroyo Drive. Therefore, the drainage pattern will not be substantially altered in a manner than will cause increases in erosion off-site. Erosion and siltation reduction measures would be implemented during construction. At the completion of construction, the project would consist of impervious surfaces and would therefore not be prone to substantial erosion. No streams cross the project site; thus, the project would not alter any stream course. Impacts will be less than significant. d-e) Less Than Significant Impact. No streams traverse the project site; thus, the project would not result in the alteration of any stream course. During construction, the project applicant would be required to comply with drainage and runoff guidelines pursuant to Municipal Code Section 13.16.030. With regard to project operation, construction of the proposed project would increase the net area of impermeable surfaces on the site; therefore, increased discharges to the City's existing storm drain system will likely occur. Stormwater will be collected via proposed on-site catch basins located at the northwest, central and southeast portions of the project site. Stormwater will then be conveyed via a proposed 18-inch storm drain to be constructed in a proposed private utility easement southeast beneath the adjacent parking lot for St. Joseph's Salesian Youth Renewal Retreat Center for connection to existing facilities at Arroyo Drive. Permits to connect to the existing storm drainage system will be obtained prior to construction. All drainage plans are subject to City review and approval. Therefore, the increase in discharges will not impact local storm drain capacity. The project is not an industrial use and therefore will not result in substantial pollutant loading such that treatment control BMPs would be required to protect downstream water quality. Impacts will be less than significant. f) No Impact. The project does not propose any uses that will have the potential to otherwise degrade water quality beyond those issues discussed in Section 4.9 herein. No impacts will occur. g) No Impact. According to flood maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the General Plan EIR. no part of Rosemead lies within a 100-year flood zone.33 No impact will occur. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 55 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts h) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not Iccated within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The project site is identified as Zone X, defined by FEMA as areas outside the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain.34 Therefore, no rising of a flood plain will occur. i) No Impact. The Rosemead General Plan EIR indicates that there is potential for flooding due to dam failure at Whittier Narrows Dam, Santa Fe River Dam/Reservoir, and the Garvey Dam/Reservoir.35 The project site is not located within the dam inundation areas and will not be in danger of flood if the Whittier Narrows Dam. Santa Fe River Dam, or the Garvey Dam were to fail. There will be no impact. j) No Impact. As discussed in the Rosemead General Plan EIR, the City is not exposed to tsunami hazards due to its inland location. In addition, no large water bodies exist in the City that would present seiche hazards. The potential for mudflows is unlikely given the site's distance from hillside and mountainous terrain. No impact will occur. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 56 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 4.10- Land Use and Planning Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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 o o ❑ coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ �I conservation plan? a) No Impact. The proposed project is surrounded by residential and institutional uses. There are residential uses to the west, a place of worship to the north, Don Bosco Technical Institute to the east, and St. Joseph's Salesian Youth Renewal Retreat Center to the south of the project site. The proposed project is consistent and compatible with the surrounding land uses and will not divide an established community. The project does not propose construction of any roadway, flood control channel, or other structure that would physically divide any portion of the community. Therefore, no impact will occur. b) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is designated as Public Facilities in the City's General Plan and is zoned Planned Development(P-D). The project includes a General Plan Amendment to amend the site's General Plan land use designation to Medium Density Residential. In addition, the project includes a Zoning Variance to allow deviation from the front setback requirement of 20 feet for three of the proposed units whose side yards abut the interior of the west wall of the project. Municipal Code Chapter 17.24 identifies standards that apply to uses designated as Planned Development. The minimum lot area for the P-D Zone is one acre. The project site is two acres. The proposed project will include 21 residential units and will be consistent with development standards as listed in the zoning code for the Planned Development zoning designation. The General Plan Medium Density Residential land use designation allow for densities of up to 12 units per acre. The proposed project consists of 21 units on two acres, resulting in a density of 10.5 units per acre which is consistent with the maximum density allowed by the General Plan. The proposed project does not conflict with the intent or implementation of these designations. Furthermore, the proposed project will maintain the integrity of the surrounding residential and institutional area in terms of density, use, and design. The project does not include any feature that would circumvent any mitigating policies in the General Plan. Impacts will be less than significant. c) No Impact. As discussed in Section 4.4.f above, the proposed project site and surrounding areas are not part of any habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.As such, no impact will occur. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 57 4.11 — Mineral Resources Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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 El ❑ ❑ plan or other land use plan? a-b) No Impact. The project site is located in a completely urbanized area. There are no mineral extraction or process facilities on or near the site. No mineral resources are known to exist within the vicinity. The City does not delineate any important mineral resources in its General Plan or in any other plan.36 No impact will occur. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 58 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 4.12— Noise Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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 groundborne vibration or ❑ ❑ ❑ groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above ❑ ❑ ❑ levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ❑ RIP ❑ ❑ above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project ❑ ❑ ❑ expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to ❑ ❑ 0 excessive noise levels? Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. Sound (and therefore noise) consists of energy waves that people receive and interpret. Sound pressure levels are described in logarithmic units of ratios of sound pressures to a reference pressure. squared. These units are called bels. In order to provide a finer description of sound. a bel is subdivided into ten decibels, abbreviated dB. To account for the range of sound that human hearing perceives, a modified scale is utilized known as the A-weighted decibel (dBA). Since decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. For example, if one automobile produces a sound pressure level of 70 dBA when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dBA. In fact, they would combine to produce 73 dBA. This same principle can be applied to other traffic quantities as well. In other words, doubling the traffic volume on a street or the speed of the traffic will increase the traffic noise level by 3 dBA. Conversely, halving the traffic volume or speed will reduce the traffic noise level by 3 dBA. A 3 dBA change in sound is the beginning at which humans generally notice a barely perceptible change in sound and a 5 dBA change is generally readily perceptible.37 Lawrence and Orange(13533) 59 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Noise consists of pitch, loudness, and duration; therefore, a variety of methods for measuring noise have been developed. According to the California General Plan Guidelines for Noise Elements, the following are common metrics for measuring noise:38 LEO (Equivalent Energy Noise Level): The sound level corresponding to a steady-state sound level containing the same total energy as a time-varying signal over given sample periods. LEO is typically computed over 1-. 8-, and 24-hour sample periods. CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00pm to 10:00pm and after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night from 10:00pm to 7:00am. LDN (Day-Night Average Level): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day. obtained after the addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night after 10:00pm and before 7:00am. CNEL and LDN are utilized for describing ambient noise levels because they account for all noise sources over an extended period of time and account for the heightened sensitivity of people to noise during the night. LEO is better utilized for describing specific and consistent sources because of the shorter reference period. City of Rosemead Municipal Code Noise Standards Pursuant to Section 8.36.060 (Noise Standards) of the Rosemead Municipal Code, allowable daytime (between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM) noise levels are as follows: • Residential Zone—60 dBA • Commercial Zone—65 dBA • Industrial Zone—70 dBA Construction Noise Levels Pursuant to Section 8.36.030(A)(3) (Exemptions), noise associated with construction, repair. modeling, or grading taking place between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays, including Saturday or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday and not exceeding 65 dBA at a residential property line is exempt from noise standards. A Noise Study was prepared by MIG and included as Appendix E. Existing Noise Environment Short-term noise measurements at the project site were conducted to identify the ambient noise in the project vicinity. An American National Standards Institute (ANSI Section S14 1979, Type 1) Larson Davis model LxT sound level meter was used to monitor existing ambient noise levels in the project area. The noise meter was programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in A-weighted form. The microphone height was set at five feet. One 15-minute daytime noise measurement was taken between 1:28 PM and 1:43 PM on Wednesday September 28, 2016. Ambient noise levels are a composite of noise from all sources, near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. The ambient noise level is presented in Table 8 (Ambient Noise Levels). Lawrence and Orange(13533) 60 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Table 8 Ambient Noise Levels Measurement Existing Ambient Noise Levels Time Period Period Description Leq Lmax Lmin 1:28 PM—1:43 PM 15 minutes Eastern terminus of Orange Street 52.3 62.0 48.9 Source:MIG 2016 a, c. d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Rosemead Municipal Code (Section 8.36.060) sets allowable levels for a variety of land uses.30 Exterior noise exposure for residential use is allowable up to 60 dBA. The Rosemead General Plan Noise Element land use compatibility standards sets a normally acceptable noise level of 60 dBA for school and church uses. Ambient noise in the project vicinity would generally be defined by traffic Lawrence Avenue, Orange Street. and activity at Don Bosco Technical Institute. Construction Noise Levels Construction noise levels were estimated for nearby receptors using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). Temporary noise increases will be greatest during the site preparation phase of construction. The model indicates that the use of construction equipment such as graders, scrapers, and tractors could expose the church located approximately 140 feet to the north of the center of the project site to worst case noise levels of 76.1 dBA L,,,ax. Table 9 (Construction Noise Impacts) below summarizes the maximum noise levels at each of the studied receivers. Pursuant to the Rosemead Municipal Code, a noise level of 60 dBA is allowable for residential uses and pursuant to General Plan land use compatibility guidelines, a noise level of 60 dBA is normally acceptable for church and school uses. Pursuant to Section 8.36.030(A)(3) (Exemptions), construction work conducted between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays, including Saturday or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday is exempt, provided that noise levels do not exceed 65 dBA at residential property lines. As shown in Table 9, the residential uses to the west of the project site could be exposed to construction noise levels in excess of 65 dBA. Therefore, Mitigation Measure N-1 has been incorporated to minimize general construction noise impacts to neighboring uses. Table 9 Construction Noise Impacts Site Building Architectural Receptor Preparation Grading Construction Paving Coating 1 —Evergreen Baptist Church (N) 76.1 76.1 76.1 76.1 68.7 2—Don Bosco Institute Classrooms(E) 63.9 63.9 63.9 63.9 56.5 3—St. Joseph's Youth Retreat(S) 74.4 74.4 74.4 74.4 67.0 4—Residential (W) 74.4 74.4 74.4 74.4 67.0 Source:MIG 2016 In order to ensure that construction noise is minimized at nearby receptors, Mitigation Measure N-1 will be incorporated to minimize noise associated with general construction activities. Mitigation Measure N-1 requires the use of engineered controls include retrofitting equipment with improved exhaust and intake muffling, disengaging equipment fans, and installation of sound panels around equipment engines to be verified by the preparation of a noise mitigation plan once specific construction programing and equipment is identified. These types of controls can feasibly achieve noise level reductions of approximately 10 dBA.40 41 Should the noise mitigation plan find that the use of engineered controls will not sufficiently reduce construction noise, the noise mitigation plan shall identify the type and location of sound curtains or other noise barriers to be utilized to reduce construction noise and neighboring uses. Sound curtains and other noise barriers can be used for general construction noise and achieve reductions of up to 20 dBA.42 Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1, construction noise will feasibly be reduced to unsubstantial levels. Mitigation Measure N-1 The following measures are required to ensure that project-related short-term construction noise levels are reduced to less-than-significant levels. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, a noise mitigation plan verifying that Lawrence and Orange(13533) 61 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts compliance with the following measures would reduce construction noise to within the allowable levels of 65 dBA for residential uses. Should construction noise exceed allowable levels after implementation of the following measures, the use of sound curtains or other noise barriers shall be required. The noise mitigation plan shall identify the type and location of sound curtains or other noise barriers to be utilized to reduce construction noise to within allowable levels. • Stationary construction noise sources such as generators or pumps must be located at least 100 feet from sensitive land uses, as feasible, or at maximum distance when necessary to complete work near sensitive land uses. This mitigation measure must be implemented throughout construction and may be periodically monitored by the Community Development Director, or designee during routine inspections. • Construction staging areas must be located as far from noise sensitive land uses as feasible. This mitigation measure must be implemented throughout construction and may be periodically monitored by the Community Development Director or designee during routine inspections. • Throughout construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with included noise attenuating devices and are properly maintained. This mitigation measure shall be periodically monitored by the Community Development Director, or designee during routine inspections. • Idling equipment must be turned off when not in use. This mitigation measure may be periodically monitored by the Community Development Director, or designee during routine inspections. • Equipment must be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging. This mitigation measure may be periodically monitored by the Community Development Director, or designee during routine inspections. Operational Noise levels Traffic noise along Lawrence Avenue was calculated utilizing Existing and Existing Plus Project traffic volumes provided by the project traffic study prepared by Kunzman Associates (Appendix F). A substantial increase in ambient noise is an increase that is barely perceptible (3 dBA). Operationally, the proposed project will result in periodic landscaping and other occasional noise generating activities such as conversation and vehicle noise. These activities are common in residential uses and do not represent a substantial increase in periodic noise in consideration that the project site is located in a residential area. Residential uses along Lawrence Avenue are generally located approximately 50 feet from the roadway centerline. The Existing and Existing Plus Project noise levels at 50 feet from roadway centerlines were calculated using TNM Version 2.5. The Existing Without Project and Plus Project traffic noise for residential uses along Lawrence are summarized in Table 10 (Roadway Noise Levels). Without and Plus Projected traffic noise levels do not exceed allowable exterior noise levels at all residential receptors. The proposed project will not result in increases in traffic noise that will cause noise standards to be exceeded. Therefore, no substantial impacts will result. In addition, increases in traffic due to the proposed project will not result in a perceptible noise increase at any of the studied roadway segments. No substantial impacts will occur. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 62 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Table 10 Roadway Noise Levels Without Plus Project Project Roadway Segment dBA CNEL Difference Significant? Lawrence Between Arroyo Drive and Orange Street 57.7 58.5 +0.8 No Avenue Between Orange Street and San Gabriel Boulevard 57.4 58.1 +0.7 No Source:MIG 2016 b) Less Than Significant Impact. Vibration is the movement of mass over time. It is described in terms of frequency and amplitude and unlike sound: there is no standard way of measuring and reporting amplitude. Vibration can be described in units of velocity (inches per second) or discussed in decibel (dB) units in order to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Vibration impacts to buildings are generally discussed in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV) that describes particle movement over time (in terms of physical displacement of mass). For purposes of this analysis, PPV will be used to describe all vibration for ease of reading and comparison. Vibration can impact people, structures, and sensitive equipment.',The primary concern related to vibration and people is the potential to annoy those working and residing in the area. Vibration with high enough amplitudes can damage structures (such as crack plaster or destroy windows). Groundborne vibration can also disrupt the use of sensitive medical and scientific instruments such as electron microscopes. Common sources of vibration within communities include construction activities and railroads. Operation of the proposed mixed-use development does not include uses that cause vibration. Groundborne vibration generated by construction projects is usually highest during pile driving, rock blasting, soil compacting,jack hammering, and demolition-related activities. Next to pile driving, grading activity has the greatest potential for vibration impacts if large bulldozers, large trucks, or other heavy equipment are used. The construction of the proposed Project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. According to the Caltrans vibration manual, large bulldozers, vibratory rollers (used to compact earth), and loaded trucks utilized during grading activities can produce vibration, and depending on the level of vibration, could cause annoyance at uses within the project vicinity or damage structures. Caltrans has developed a screening tool to determine of vibration from construction equipment is substantial enough to impact surrounding uses. The Caltrans vibration manual establishes thresholds for vibration impacts on buildings and humans. These thresholds are summarized in Tables 11 (Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria) and 12 (Vibration Annoyance Potential Threshold Criteria). Table 11 Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Structural Integrity Maximum PPV(in/sec) Transient Continuous Historic and some older buildings 0.50 0.25 Older residential structures 0.50 0.30 New residential structures 1.00 0.50 Modern industrial and commercial structures 2.00 0.50 Source: Caltrans 2013 Lawrence and Orange(13533) 63 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Table 12 Vibration Annoyance Potential Threshold Criteria Human Response PPV Threshold(in/sec) Transient Continuous Barely perceptible 0.035 0.012 Distinctly perceptible 0.24 0.035 Strongly perceptible 0.90 0.10 Severely perceptible 2.00 0.40 Source: Caltrans 2013 Construction activities that use vibratory rollers and bulldozers are repetitive sources of vibration; therefore, the continuous threshold is used. Residential uses are located to the north and west of the project site and commercial uses are located to the north, east, and south. As a worst case scenario, the historic and some older buildings threshold is used. Based on the threshold criteria summarized in Tables 11 and 12, vibration from use of heavy construction equipment for the proposed project would be below the thresholds to cause damage to nearby structures at the receptors shown in Table 13 (Construction Vibration Impacts). Construction of the project does not require rock blasting, pile driving, or the use of a jack hammer, but will use a vibratory roller, and small bulldozer, and loaded trucks. All of the receptors will experience barely perceptible vibration from the use of a small bulldozer and loaded truck. Receptors #1, #3, and #4 will experience less than distinctly perceptible vibration from the use of a vibratory roller. However, a vibratory roller will only be utilized during the paving phase, which will be completed within a maximum of ten days. Furthermore, pursuant to the Rosemead Municipal Code. these construction activities will be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM Mondays through Friday, including Saturday or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. Therefore, the project will not result in excessive, strongly perceptible vibration. With regard to long-term operational impacts, activities associated with the project will not result in any excessive vibration- related impacts to adjacent or on-site properties. Table 13 Construction Vibration Impacts Receptors Distance Equipment PPVref (feet) PPV 1 —Evergreen Baptist Church (N) Vibratory Roller 0.21 140 0.0224 2—Don Bosco Institute Classrooms(E) Vibratory Roller 0.21 570 0.0036 3—St. Joseph's Youth Retreat(S) Vibratory Roller 0.21 170 0.0174 4—Residential (W) Vibratory Roller 0.21 170 0.0174 1 —Evergreen Baptist Church (N) Small Bulldozer 0.003 140 0.0003 2—Don Bosco Institute Classrooms(E) Small Bulldozer 0.003 570 0.0001 3—St.Joseph's Youth Retreat(S) Small Bulldozer 0.003 170 0.0002 4—Residential (W) Small Bulldozer 0.003 170 0.0002 1 —Evergreen Baptist Church (N) Loaded Truck 0.076 140 0.0081 2—Don Bosco Institute Classrooms(E) Loaded Truck 0.076 570 0.0013 3—St. Joseph's Youth Retreat(S) Loaded Truck 0.076 170 0.0063 4—Residential (W) Loaded Truck 0.076 170 0.0063 Source:MIG 2016 e,f) No Impact. The project site is not located within two miles of a public or private use airport or heliport.44 Therefore, no impacts will occur. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 64 r Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 4.13- Population and Housing Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of oL 12r replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement 0 0 housing elsewhere? a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of 21 single family residential units. According to the California Department of Finance. the City of Rosemead had a population of 55,231 as of January 2016.46 The Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) projects an estimated population of 60,800 for Rosemead by the year 2040, an increase of 5,569 residents. The proposed project will result in the addition of 21 dwelling units, resulting in an increase of 79 residents according to an average household size of 3.74 residents.46 Increases in population are within the growth assumptions estimated by SCAG and thus will not be substantially growth inducing. No new expanded infrastructure is proposed that could accommodate additional growth in the area that is not already possible with existing infrastructure. Impacts will be less than significant. b) No Impact. The project site is a former sports field for the Don Bosco Technical Institute and does not contain residential uses. The proposed project will not displace any residential units necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact will occur. c) No Impact. Displacement, in the context of housing, can generally be defined as persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence.'There no residences existing on site and no residents will be displaced with project development. The development of the project is consistent with the character of the project area. No impact will occur. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 65 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 4.14- Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Fire protection? ❑ vie El b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? ❑ e) Other public facilities? 0 a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Los Angeles County Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency medical response services in the City of Rosemead. The City is located in the East Region Bureau of the Department's jurisdiction and is served by Battalion 10. There are two stations located within Rosemead: Station No. 4 (2644 North San Gabriel Boulevard), located approximately 1.2 miles north of the project site and Station No. 42 (9319 East Valley Boulevard), located approximately three miles northeast of the project site. According to the General Plan EIR, the Department sets a goal for an average response time of five minutes for Basic Life Support (BLS) responses and eight minutes for Advanced Life Support(ALS) responses based on the national standard for urban areas. The Los Angeles County Fire Department provides technical fire prevention activities by checking building construction plans to make sure all proposed buildings meet appropriate safety codes prior to construction. Fire inspectors perform plan review on all proposed fire sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, and restaurant hood extinguishing system installation. The proposed project will include the development of residential uses within a built out area. The project will not have a significant impact on fire response times because the project is located within the existing service area. No new or expanded fire protection facilities would be required as a result of this project. Furthermore, the proposed project does not propose to use substantially hazardous materials or engage in hazardous activities that will require new or modified fire protection equipment to meet potential emergency demand. Impacts related to expansion of fire protection services will be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department(LASD) provides police protection services in the City of Rosemead. Service is administered from the Temple Station in the Region I patrol area. According to the General Plan EIR, as of 2008, the Temple Station dedicates 23 deputies, one sergeant, and one lieutenant to the City of Rosemead. The Station's response time goals are four to five minutes for emergency calls, eight to nine minutes for priority calls, and 30 to 40 minutes for routine calls. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 66 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts The proposed development will not result in any unique or more extensive crime problems that cannot be handled with the existing level of police resources. The proposed project is located within the Temple Station service area. No new or expanded police facilities would need to be constructed as a result of this project. Impacts related to expansion of police protection services will be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact.As a residential development. there is a potential for households with school-age children locating in this development. Pursuant to the Leroy F. Green School Facilities Act of 1998 (Education Code §§ 17070.10, et seq.), the project proponent will be required to pay developer fees to the Montebello Unified School District before the City issues building permits pursuant to Education Code § 17620, at the then current rate charged to residential development projects. This fee will help support provision of school services for the community as a whole. Pursuant to Government Code § 65995, payment of developer fees constitutes adequate mitigation for any project-related impacts to school facilities. Impacts to the school facilities will be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Demand for park and recreational facilities are generally the direct result of residential development. Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.170.040 requires that new developments pay development impact fee (DIF) which includes payment for park facilities. According to the General Plan EIR, the City currently maintains a total of 43.25 acres at the following park and recreation facilities: • Angelus Park—Approximately 0.9 miles north of the project site • Garvey Park—Approximately 1.8 miles northwest of the project site • Garvey Recreation Center—Approximately 1.8 miles northwest of the project site • Guess Park—Approximately 3.2 miles north of the project site • Klingerman Park—Approximately 1.1 miles northeast of the project site • • Olney Park—Approximately 2.2 miles northeast of the project site • Rosemead Center—Approximately 2.7 miles northeast of the project site • Rosemead Park—Approximately 3.1 miles northeast of the project site • Sally Tanner Park—Approximately 3.4 miles north of the project site • Jess Gonzalez Sports Complex—Approximately 1.0 miles northeast of the project site • Triangle Park—Approximately 0.4 miles east of the project site • Zapopan Park—Approximately 1.5 miles north of the project site The proposed project will provide common open space which includes a pocket park with an open turf area and benches. This pocket park in combination with public landscaping and open space along internal roadways and private back yards will provide approximately 38,195 square feet of public and private open space. As a result, no substantial increase in demand for park and recreation facilities is anticipated as recreational opportunities will be provided on-site and the Applicant will be required to pay park fees per the Municipal Code. Impacts will be less than significant. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of the development of 21 single family residential units and will include common public and private open space. The project will not result in an increase in residents that will generate additional demand for public facilities such as libraries or hospitals. Development of the proposed project will not require expansion of any other public services such as libraries or hospitals. The proposed development will not significantly increase the demand of such services.A less than significant impact will occur. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 67 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 4.15— Recreation Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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? a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not significantly increase use of existing recreational facilities because the project will provide common public open space and private back yard areas for its residents on site. Therefore, the use of public facilities will be unlikely. Additionally, the project is subject to park fees to support existing and future public recreation efforts. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated and no mitigation measures are needed. b) No Impact. The project includes 19,908 square feet of common public open space and landscaping and approximately 18,287 square feet of private back yard area for a total of approximately 38,195 square feet of public and private open space. The proposed project will not include the construction or expansion of existing outdoor recreational facilities. Therefore, there will be no adverse physical effect on the environment caused by expansion or construction of outdoor recreational facilities. No impact will occur. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 68 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 4.16— Transportation and Traffic Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No • Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant ❑ ❑ ✓ ❑ components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures,or other standards ❑ ❑ ❑ I established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible ❑ ❑ ❑ uses(e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ RIP ❑ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease ❑ ❑ ❑ the performance or safety of such facilities? a) Less than Significant Impact. A traffic impact study was conducted by Kunzman Associates dated October 12, 2016, (Appendix F) to assess project-related traffic impacts. The traffic analysis presents existing traffic generation at the project site and trip generation from the proposed project using the methodology outlined in Appendix F. Senate Bill 743 requires the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to Level of Lawrence and Orange(13533) 69 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Service (LOS) for evaluating transportation impacts. The proposed updates to the CEQA Guidelines are currently in the process of being finalized. The draft proposal presents a fundamental shift in the way transportation impacts will be assessed in the future by replacing the commonly used LOS metric with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the primary metric for transportation impacts across the state. The amended CEQA Guidelines are expected to go into effect in late 2016/early 2017, at which point there will be a two-year opt-in period for adherence to the new CEQA Guidelines. In the meantime, the LOS metric used in current traffic impact analyses is acceptable for evaluation of CEQA transportation impacts. The traffic impact analysis analyzed roadway segment capacity for Lawrence Avenue. Because the City of Rosemead and the County of Los Angeles do not have daily capacity standards for residential streets, the "rule-of-thumb" roadway capacity for local street with residential frontage, 1,600 vehicles per day, was utilized. The County of Los Angeles requires the preparation of further traffic analysis if peak hour trips exceed 50 trips. The project trip generation will not exceed 50 peak hour trips. Therefore, a no further traffic analysis is required for this project. Existing average daily trips (ADT) for Lawrence Avenue on two segments were obtained by Kunzman Associates in September 2016. Existing ADT is summarized in Table 15 (Residential Street Capacity). As shown in Table 15, Lawrence Avenue provides adequate capacity for existing traffic conditions. Project Traffic Trip Generation The project trip generation estimates were based on trip rates defined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (g" Edition). Traffic volumes, shown in Table 14 (Project Trip Generation), consist of the total trips generated for the proposed residential use. The proposed project will generate approximately 200 daily weekday trips including 16 trips during the AM peak hour and 21 trips during the PM peak hour. Table 14 Project Trip Generation Weekday AM Peak PM Peak Land Use Intensity Daily Total Hour Hour Single Family Residential 21 DU 200 16 21 Source:Kunzman Associates,2016 Existing Without and Plus Project roadway capacity is shown in Table 15 (Residential Street Capacity). As shown in Table 15, future traffic volumes are considered acceptable for a street that fronts residential land use. Impacts are less than significant. Mitigation is not required. Table 15 Residential Street Capacity Average Daily Traffic Volumes Acceptable Existing Traffic Roadway Segment Existing Project Plus Project Volume? Lawrence Between Arroyo Drive and Orang Street 567 110 677 Yes Avenue Between Orange Street and San Gabriel Boulevard 536 90 626 Yes Source:Kunzman Associates,2016 b) No Impact. Pursuant to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Congestion Management Plan (CMP), any project that adds 150 or more peak hour vehicle trips to freeway segments or 50 or more peak hour vehicle trips to roadway segments must be examined for impact of CMP roadways and intersections. The proposed project trip distributions would result in 16 trips in the AM peak hour and 21 trips in the PM peak hour. This is below the 150 and 50 peak hour trips Lawrence and Orange(13533) 70 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts thresholds which would require a freeway segment and roadway analysis. The project would not, therefore, conflict with an applicable congestion management program or level of service standard established by the congestion management agency. No impact would occur. c) No Impact.A significant impact would occur if the proposed project caused a change in air traffic patterns that would result in a substantial safety risk.The project site is not located within an airport land use plan and does not include any structures that would change air traffic patterns or uses that would generate air traffic. Therefore, no impacts related to a change in air traffic patterns would occur. d) No Impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project substantially increased an existing hazardous design feature or introduced incompatible uses to the existing traffic pattern. Access to the project site is proposed via Orange Street. The design of the proposed project would comply with all applicable City regulations. Furthermore, the proposed project does not involve changes in the alignment of Orange Street and the proposed single family use is consistent with existing single family uses adjacent to the project site on the west. This project would not result in a traffic safety hazard due to any design features. e) Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the design of the proposed project would not satisfy emergency access requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Department or in any other way threaten the ability of emergency vehicles to access and serve the project site or adjacent uses.The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. As discussed above, access to the project site is proposed via Orange Street. The width, 26 feet, is sufficient to provide access to fire and emergency vehicles and is consistent with the California Fire Code requiring a minimum of 20 feet. All access features are subject to and must satisfy the City of Rosemead design requirements, including the Fire Department's requirements.This project would not result in adverse impacts with regard to emergency access. f) Less than Significant Impact. Public bus transit service in the project vicinity is currently provided by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Transit Route 176 along Paramount Boulevard to the south of San Gabriel Boulevard and San Gabriel Boulevard to the north. Route 176 serves the San Gabriel Valley from Highland Park east through South Pasadena, San Marino, Alhambra, San Gabriel, Temple City, El Monte, Rosemead, and Montebello. The proposed project will not conflict with or decrease the performance or safety of these services. Impacts will be less than significant. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 71 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 4.17— Tribal Cultural Resources Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site. feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a Cultural Native American tribe, and that is: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Rr ❑ ❑ Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c)of ❑ �!1 ❑ ❑ Public Resource Code Section 5024.1,the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. a-b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Assembly Bill (AB) 52 specifies that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change to a defined Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) may result in a significant effect on the environment. AB 52 requires tribes interested in development projects within a traditionally and culturally affiliated geographic area to notify a lead agency of such interest and to request notification of future projects subject to CEQA prior to determining if a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a project. The lead agency is then required to notify the tribe within 14 days of deeming a development application subject to CEQA complete to notify the requesting tribe as an invitation to consult on the project. AB 52 identifies examples of mitigation measures that will avoid or minimize impacts to TCR. The bill makes the above provisions applicable to projects that have a notice of preparation or a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration circulated on or after July 1, 2015. AB 52 amends Sections 5097.94 and adds Sections 21073, 21074, 2108.3.1., 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09. 21084.2, and 21084.3 to the California Public Resources Code(PRC), relating to Native Americans. The results of the records research compiled from the CHRIS-SCCIC, the Sacred Lands File Search (commissioned through the NAHC). follow-up Native American Scoping. and the pedestrian field survey failed to indicate known TCR within the project boundaries or within a one-mile radius of the project area as specified in Public Resources Code (PRC): 210741, 5020.1(k), or 5024. Although there was no indication of known TCRs within the project site or within a one-half radius of the project area, archival research indicates that there are Native American resources including encampments in close proximity of the Rio Hondo River(1.5 miles to the east) and the Whittier Narrows Flood Plain (1.3 miles to the southeast) of the project site. AB 52(Gatto, 2014) is clear in stating that it is the responsibility of the Public Agency(e.g. Lead Agency)to consult with Native American tribes early in the CEQA process to allow tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the appropriate level of environment review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to TCRs, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process (see PRC Section 2108.3.2). Specifically, government- Lawrence and Orange(13533) 72 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts to-government consultation may provide "tribal knowledge" of the project area that can be used in identifying TCRs that cannot be obtained through other investigative means. Despite the heavy disturbances of the project area that may have displaced or submerged archaeological resources relating to TCR's on the surface and due to the close proximity of Coyote Pass(Native American trail) and the foothills located to the west of the project site (known Native American encampments), it is possible that intact tribal cultural resources exist at depth. Due to this uncertainty, Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-4 have been incorporated to address any previously undiscovered archaeological resources relating to TCR's encountered during project implementation. Incorporation of mitigation will ensure that potential impacts to buried TCRs are less than significant through requirements for evaluation. salvage, curation, and reporting. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 73 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 4.18— Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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 ❑ ❑ �j ❑ 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 I 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project could affect Regional Water Quality Control Board treatment standards by increasing wastewater production such that expansion of existing facilities or construction of new facilities would be required. Exceeding the RWQCB treatment standards could result in contamination of surface or groundwater with pollutants such as pathogens and nitrates. New development in the City is required to install wastewater infrastructure concurrent with project development. The City contracts with the Los Angeles County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District (LACCSMD) for maintenance of local sewer lines that collect wastewater generated in the City. All wastewater generated by the interior plumbing system of the proposed project would be discharged into the local sewer main and conveyed for treatment at the Sanitation Districts of Los Lawrence and Orange(13533) 74 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Angeles County's Reclamation Plants. Wastewater from the area is generally treated at the County's Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP), located in the City of Carson, although it may also be treated by plants located closer to the project site. Wastewater flows will consist of typical residential wastewater discharges and will not require new methods or equipment for treatment that are not currently permitted for the Plant. The JWPCP has a capacity of treating 400 million gallons/day (mgd). Wastewater flows associated with the proposed project would consist of the same kinds of substances typically generated by residential uses and no modifications to any existing wastewater treatment systems or construction of any new ones would be needed to treat this project's wastewater. Estimated wastewater generated by the proposed development is approximately 4,889 gallons per day (gpd) (wastewater is estimated to be 80 percent of total water use). This volume is within the remaining capacity of the JWPCP's 400 mgd total treatment capacity. This project would thus have a less-than-significant impact on the ability of the JWPCP to operate within its established wastewater treatment requirements, which are enforced via the facility's NPDES permit authorized by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact related to wastewater treatment requirements of the LARWQCB. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The San Gabriel Valley Water Company (SGVWC) will supply water to the project. The SGVWC provides public utility water service to all or portions of the Cities of Arcadia. Baldwin Park, El Monte, Industry, Irwindale, La Puente, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, San Gabriel, Santa Fe Springs. South El Monte, West Covina, Whittier, and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County including Hacienda Heights and South San Gabriel. One hundred percent of the SGVWC service area water supply is produced from groundwater with the majority from the Main San Gabriel Basin (Main Basin). Water Code § 10910-10915 require the preparation of a water supply assessment (WSA) demonstrating sufficient water supplies for any subdivision that involves the construction of more than 500 dwelling units, or the equivalent thereof. As the project is below the established thresholds, no WSA is required. Although there is no limit on the quantity of water that may be extracted from the Main Basin, the SGVWC must not pump more than its allowed pumping right of 20,384.9 acre feet per year(AFY). If SGVWC pumps more than the allowed amount of water. SGVWC must pay assessments levied by the Main San Gabriel Watermaster to purchase replacement water to recharge the Main Basin, lease another pumper's share of the Operating Safe Yield, or SGVWC may choose to pre- purchase supplemental MWD water from Upper District for its Individual Producer Cyclic Storage Account.48 SGVWC pumps groundwater from the Central Basin and has an allowed pumping right of 2,565.35 AFY. The Water Replenishment District of Southern California is responsible for recharging the Central Basin. The water supplied within the SGVWC service area as of 2015 was approximately 32,846 AFY and is expected to increase to 47,503 AFY by the year 2035, an increase of 14,657 AFY. Based on the CaIEEMod assumptions, the proposed project's estimated water demand is approximately 6.85 AFY, within the estimated increase in water demand. According to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for SGVWC, there is sufficient supply to accommodate demand under normal and single- and multiple-dry year conditions. In addition, the 2015 UWMP identified a per capita water demand target of 151 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). As discussed in Section 4.13, the proposed project is estimated to generate a population of 79 residents. According to CaIEEMod default water demand generation rates, the proposed project is estimated to demand approximately 6,112 gpd, resulting in daily demand of 77.36 GPCD. This meets the 2015 UWMP per capita target for water use. The UWMP is based on area population projections as provided by SCAG. As discussed in Section 4.13, the proposed project is consistent with SCAG projections for the City of Rosemead. As the estimated increase in water use is within the anticipated increase in the Urban Water Management Plan, the project is consistent with regional population projections, and the project meets the UWMP per capita water use target, impacts would be less than significant. Regarding wastewater facilities, as discussed in the preceding response, wastewater generated at the project site is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP). The proposed project is estimated to have a wastewater generation of approximately 4,889 gpd.This generation is well within the existing remaining treatment capacity of the JWPCP. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 75 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Connections to local water and sewer mains will involve temporary aid less than significant construction impacts that would occur in conjunction with other on-site improvements. No additional improvements are needed to either sewer lines or treatment facilities to serve the proposed project. Standard connection fees will address any incremental impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, the project will result in less than significant impacts as a result of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Potentially significant impacts could occur as a result of this project if storm water runoff was increased to a level that would require construction of new storm drainage facilities. As discussed in the Hydrology section. the proposed project would not generate any increased runoff from the site that would require construction of new storm drainage facilities. A NPDES permit will be required for the proposed project and, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 13.16.030, all construction projects equal to or greater than one acre and less than five acres shall prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Best Management Practices (BMPs) that include drainage controls such as detention ponds. dikes, filter berms, and downdrains to prevent runoff, and utilizing plastic covering to prevent erosion shall also be applied. Implementation of BMPs would reduce pollutants in stormwater and urban runoff from the project site. The proposed storm drainage system and BMPs must be designed to the satisfaction of the City's Public Works Director and in conformance with all applicable permits and regulations. The project applicant/developer would be required to provide all necessary on-site infrastructure. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation beyond compliance with existing regulations is required. The project will have a less than significant impact on requiring the construction of new facilities or expansion of existing storm drainage facilities. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project could result in significant impacts if the project required additional water supplies than are currently entitled. Water demand is provided by survey data utilized in the CaIEEMod air quality model. Water demand is estimated at 2,230,813 gallons per year or 6.85 acre feet per year. Water demand within the SGVWC service area is anticipated to increase by 114.657 acre feet per year(AFY) between 2015 and 2035. The proposed project's estimated water demand is approximately 6.85 AFY, well within anticipated increase in demand. Based on the SGVWC 2015 UWMP, there are sufficient water supplies to meet the project's estimated water demand and long-term demand. The project will not substantially deplete water supplies, and the project will have a less than significant impact on entitled water supplies. On January 17, 2014, California Governor Edmund D. Brown Jr. proclaimed a State of Emergency in California. State agencies were directed to use less water and hire more firefighters. In addition, a greatly expanded water conservation public awareness campaign was initiated. On April 25, 2014. the Governor proclaimed a continued State of Emergency due to the ongoing drought. On September 18, 2014. Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-26-14 to provide water to families in dire need of water as extreme drought conditions continue. This order makes funding available through the California Disaster Assistance Act to provide water for drinking and sanitation to households currently without running water. On December 22, 2014, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-28-14, extending the waiver of CEQA and Water Code section 13247 in Paragraph 9 of the January 17, 2014 Proclamation and Paragraph 19 of the April 25, 2014 Proclamation. On April 1, 2015, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-29-15, mandating substantial water reductions in the state of California. This Executive Order includes actions that will save water, increase enforcement to prevent wasteful water use, streamline the state's drought response, and invest in new technologies that will make California more drought-resilient. Pursuant to Directive 2 of Executive Order B-29-15, the State Water Resources Control Board shall impose restrictions on potable urban water usage through February 28, 2016. Executive Order B-36-15 was issued on November 13, 2015, requiring that Executive Orders B-26-14, B-28-14, and B-29-15 remain in full force with additional directives. This Order includes directives to extend previous restrictions on wasteful water use until October 31, 2016, to prioritize the capture of high precipitation events and solutions to provide reliable drinking water, and to expedite applications for amendments to power plant certifications to remediate wildfire damage and to restore power plant operation. Governor Brown executed Executive Order B-37-16 on May 9, 2016, extending restrictions and directives required by previous Executive Orders B-26- 14, B-28-14, B-29-15, and B-36.15. This Executive Order requires that State agencies update temporary emergency water restrictions and transition to permanent, long-term improvements in water use by using water more wisely, eliminating water waste, strengthening local drought resilience, and improving agricultural water use efficiency and drought planning. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 76 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts As summarized above, the 2015 UWMP indicates that there is adequate supply to serve the projected demand. Reduction in potable water usage facilitated by Executive Orders B-29-15, B-36-15, and B-37-16 will result in a minimum 16 percent decrease in water demand within the SGVWC service area.49 The proposed project will be consistent with applicable Directives of each Executive Order, will comply with all water conservation and efficiency standards required by the Rosemead Public Works Department, and will contribute to the state-wide effort to reduce water demand. In addition. the proposed project is anticipated to demand 77. 36 GPCD, which meets the 2015 UWMP target per capita water demand of 151 GPCD. Therefore, there are sufficient water supplies to meet the project's estimated water demand and long-term demand. The project will not substantially deplete water supplies, and the project will have a less than significant impact on entitled water supplies. e) Less Than Significant Impact. As detailed in Sections 4.17.a and 4.17.b, the proposed project will be adequately served by existing facilities. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. f) Less Than Significant Impact. Significant impacts could occur if the proposed project will exceed the existing permitted landfill capacity or violates federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. Compliance with County waste reduction programs and policies would reduce the volume of solid waste entering landfills. Individual development projects within the County would be required to comply with applicable state and local regulations, thus reducing the amount of landfill waste by at least 50 percent. The proposed project would increase the volume of solid waste generated in the County by 24.6 tons per year. According to CalRecycle, solid waste facilities serving Los Angeles County had a combined annual disposal limit surplus of 6,959,406 tons in 2015 and are projected to have a combined annual disposal limit surplus of 6,500,388 tons in the year 2025.50 Combined remaining capacities at the landfills would be adequate to accommodate the proposed project. Impacts related to sufficient landfill capacity are anticipated to be less than significant. g) No Impact. The proposed project is required to comply with all applicable federal, state, County. and City statutes and regulations related to solid waste as a standard project condition of approval. Therefore, no impact will occur. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 77 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 4.19- Mandatory Findings of Significance Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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 Rif ❑ ❑ 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? — r b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively ❑ ❑ ❑ considerable? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects ❑ ❑ ❑ on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not substantially impact any scenic vistas, scenic resources, or the visual character of the area, as discussed in Section 4.1 and would not result in excessive light or glare. The project site is located within an urbanized area with no natural habitat. The project would not significantly impact any sensitive plants, plant communities, fish, wildlife or habitat for any sensitive species. There would be no impact to migratory birds. Adverse impacts to historic. paleontological resources, or human remains would not occur. Construction- phase procedures would be implemented in the event any important cultural, archaeological, or paleontological resources are discovered during grading, consistent with Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-8. This site is not known to have any association with an important example of California's history or prehistory. The environmental analysis provided in Section 4.3 concludes that impacts related to emissions of criteria pollutants and other air quality impacts will be less than significant. Sections 4.7 and 4.9 conclude that impacts related to climate change and hydrology and water quality will be less than significant. Based on the preceding analysis of potential impacts in the responses to items 4.1 thru 4.17, no evidence is presented that this project would degrade the quality of the environment. Impacts related to degradation of the environment, biological resources, and cultural resources will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Cumulative impacts can result from the interactions of environmental changes resulting from one proposed project with changes resulting from other past, present. and future projects that affect the same resources, utilities and infrastructure systems, public services, transportation network elements. air basin, watershed, or other physical conditions. Such impacts could be short-term and temporary, usually consisting of overlapping construction impacts, as well as long term, due to the permanent land use changes and operational characteristics involved with the project. Cumulative impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, as further discussed herein. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 78 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Aesthetics Impacts related to aesthetics at the project-level have no potential for cumulative impacts because impacts are limited to on- site conditions and include no component that could result in similar impacts over time or space. Therefore, no cumulative impacts related to this topic will occur. Agricultural Resources The analysis provided in Sections 4.2 found that no individual impacts would occur; therefore, the project could not contribute considerably to local agricultural or forestry. Air Quality The analysis provided in Section 4.3 related to air quality found that impacts would be less than significant without the need for mitigation; therefore,the project will not contribute to localized or regional cumulative impacts. Biological Resources The analysis provided in Section 4.4 found that no individual impacts to sensitive species or migratory birds would occur; therefore, the project could not contribute considerably to regional impacts on such species. The project will have no other impacts on biological resources. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Loss of on-site archaeological resources could reduce or eliminate important information relevant to the County of Los Angeles and the City of Rosemead. Impacts related to cultural resources were found to be potentially significant and require mitigation to reduce to less than significant levels; therefore, the project could contribute considerably to significant localized cumulative impacts in this topic area. Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-4 have been incorporated to reduce impacts to archaeological resources, Mitigation Measures C-5 through C-8 have been incorporated to reduce impacts to paleontological resources, and Mitigation Measure C-9 has been incorporated to reduce impacts to human remains. Implementation of Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-9 will eliminate any potential loss of important local archaeological, and paleontological information or human remains that may be buried under the project site; therefore, the project will have no contribution to a cumulative loss of important local or regional archaeological knowledge. Geology and Soils Impacts related to geology at the project-level have no potential for cumulative impacts because impacts are limited to on- site conditions and include no component that could result in similar impacts over time or space. Therefore, no cumulative impacts related to this topic will occur. Greenhouse Gas Emissions As discussed in Section 4.7, climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of greenhouse gas emissions all over the world. The project will not contribute considerably to global climate change. Hazardous Materials The analysis provided in Section 4.8 related to hazards and hazardous materials found that impacts would be less than significant. Compliance with all regulations related to the disposal and storage of household hazardous waste will ensure that impacts will be less than significant. Airport Hazards Impacts related to airport hazards at the project-level have no potential for cumulative impacts because impacts are limited to on-site conditions and include no component that could result in similar impacts over time or space. Therefore, no cumulative impacts related to this topic will occur. Wildfires The analysis provided in Section 4.8(h) found that no individual, local, or regional impacts would occur; therefore, no cumulative impacts related to this topic will occur. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 79 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Groundwater Levels The analysis provided in Section 4.9 (b) found that less than significant local, or regional impacts would occur; therefore, while the project will contribute to individual, localized or regional cumulative impacts, the project contribution will not be considerable. Drainage/Water Quality The analysis provided in Section 4.9 (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f), found that less than significant individual, local, or regional impacts would occur; therefore, while the project will contribute to individual, localized or regional cumulative impacts, the project contribution will not be considerable. Flooding The analysis provided in Section 4.9 (d), (g), (h), and (i), found that no regional impacts would occur; therefore. no cumulative impacts related to this topic will occur, Land Use and Planning The analysis provided in Section 4.10 related to Land Use and Planning found that impacts would be less than significant: therefore, while the project will contribute to individual, localized or regional cumulative impacts. the project contribution will not be considerable. Mineral Resources The analysis provided in Section 4.11 related to mineral resources found that there would be no impact; therefore, while the project will contribute to localized or regional cumulative impacts, the project contribution will not be considerable. Noise The project is not a substantial source of operational noise. as discussed in Section 4.12.C, and therefore would not contribute considerably to noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the project. The project will contribute to temporary increases in noise levels in the immediate project vicinity during construction activities; however, Mitigation Measure N-1 will be incorporated to minimize construction-related noise and therefore the project's contribution will not be considerable. The project will increase traffic in the project area; however, project traffic-related noise will not be discernible (as discussed in Section 4.12.C)to the public and therefore will have no considerable contribution to cumulative traffic-related noise. Population and Housing The analysis provided in Section 4.13 related to Population and Housing found that no impacts would result; therefore, no cumulative impacts related to this topic will occur. Public Services The analysis provided in Section 4.14 related to Public Services found that impacts would be less than significant; therefore, while the project will contribute to localized cumulative impacts, the project contribution will not be considerable. Recreation The analysis provided in Section 4.15 related to Recreation found that impacts would be less than significant; therefore. while the project will contribute to localized cumulative impacts, the project contribution will not be considerable. Traffic and Transportation Traffic conditions were analyzed in Section 4.16.a and found to be less than significant. There is and will be adequate capacity to serve the residential uses along Lawrence Avenue with the addition of the proposed projects. Impacts to regional transportation facilities are analyzed in Section 4.16.b. The project will have no impact on regional (Congestion Management Program) facilities in the project area. The project's contribution to cumulative impacts to local and regional transportation facilities will not be considerable. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 80 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Utilities and Service Systems The analysis provided in Section 4.17 related to Utilities and Service Systems found that impacts would be less than significant; therefore, while the project will contribute to localized or regional cumulative impacts, the project contribution will not be considerable. c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the analysis of the project's impacts in the responses to items 4.1 thru 4.17, there is no indication that this project could result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. While there would be a variety of temporary adverse effects during construction related to air quality and noise, these will be reduced to less than significant levels through mitigation. Long-term effects include increased vehicular traffic, traffic-related noise, use of household hazardous materials, emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, and increased demand on emergency response services. The analysis herein concludes that direct and indirect environmental effects will at worst require mitigation to reduce to less than significant levels. Generally, environmental effects will result in less than significant impacts. Based on the analysis in this Initial Study. the City finds that direct and indirect impacts to human beings will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated Lawrence and Orange(13533) 81 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Lawrence and Orange(13533) 82 5 Mitigation Summary C-1 Conduct Archaeological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards, to conduct an Archaeological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training session shall be carried out by a cultural resources professional with expertise in archaeology, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards. The training session will include a handout and will focus on how to identify archaeological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures to be followed in such an event, the duties of archaeological monitors, and. the general steps a qualified professional archaeologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary. C-2 Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Archaeological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be established around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue until a qualified archaeologist has examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has evaluated the area of the find. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards. Should the newly discovered artifacts be determined to be prehistoric, Native American Tribes/Individuals should be contacted and consulted and Native American construction monitoring should be initiated. The Applicant and City shall coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. The plan may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to address treatment of the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. C-3 Conduct Periodic Archeological Resources Spot Checks during grading and earth-moving activities in Younger Alluvial Sediments. The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualifications and Standards to conduct periodic Archaeological Spot Checks beginning at depths below two (2) feet to determine if construction excavations have exposed or have a high probability to expose archaeological resources. After the initial Archaeological Spot Check, further periodic checks will be conducted at the discretion of the qualified archaeologist. If the qualified archaeologist determines that construction excavations have exposed or have a high probability to expose archaeological artifacts construction monitoring for Archaeological Resources will be required. The Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional archaeologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards. The archaeological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non-fill younger Pleistocene alluvial sediments. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require multiple archaeological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project archaeologist. C-4 Prepare Report Upon Completion of Monitoring Services. The archaeological monitor, under the direction of a • qualified professional archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards, shall prepare a final report at the conclusion of archaeological monitoring. The report shall be submitted to the Applicant, the South Central Costal Information Center, the City. and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. The Lawrence and Orange(13533) 83 report shall include a description of resources unearthed, if any, evaluation of the resources with respect to the California Register and CEQA, and treatment of the resources. C-5 Conduct Paleontological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The Applicant shall retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, shall conduct a Paleontological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training will include a handout and will focus on how to identify paleontological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event; the duties of paleontological monitors; notification and other procedures to follow upon discovery of resources; and, the general steps a qualified professional paleontologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary. C-6 Conduct Periodic Paleontological Spot Checks during grading and earth-moving activities. The Applicant shall retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, shall conduct periodic Paleontological Spot Checks beginning at depths below six (6) feet to determine if construction excavations have extended into the Miocene Puente Formation or into Pleistocene older alluvial deposits. After the initial Paleontological Spot Check, further periodic checks will be conducted at the discretion of the qualified paleontologist. If the qualified paleontologist determines that construction excavations have extended into the Puente Formation or into older Pleistocene alluvial deposits, construction monitoring for Paleontological Resources will be required. The Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontological monitor, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The paleontological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into the Puente Formation or into older Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require multiple paleontological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known paleontological resources and/or unique geological features. the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of paleontological resources and/or unique geological features encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the qualified professional paleontologist. C-7 Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Paleontological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that paleontological resources and or unique geological features are unearthed during ground- disturbing activities, ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be established around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue until appropriate paleontological treatment plan has been approved by the Applicant and the City. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. The Applicant and City shall coordinate with a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Treatment may include implementation of paleontological salvage excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis or preservation in place. At the paleontologist's discretion and to reduce construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor shall assist in removing rock samples for initial processing. C-8 Prepare Report Upon Completion of Monitoring Services. Upon completion of the above activities, the professional paleontologist shall prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, as well as a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report shall be submitted to the Applicant, the City, the Natural History Museums of Los Angeles County, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. C-9 Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Notify County Coroner If Human Remains Are Encountered. If human remains are unearthed during implementation of the Proposed Project, the City of Rosemead and the Applicant shall comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The City of Rosemead and the Applicant shall Lawrence and Orange(13533) 84 immediately notify the County Coroner and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). After the MLD has inspected the remains and the site, they have 48 hours to recommend to the landowner the treatment and/or disposal, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated funerary objects. Upon the reburial of the human remains, the MLD shall file a record of the reburial with the NAHC and the project archaeologist shall file a record of the reburial with the CHRIS-SCCIC. If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. N-1 The following measures are required to ensure that project-related short-term construction noise levels are reduced to less-than-significant levels. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, a noise mitigation plan verifying that compliance with the following measures would reduce construction noise to within the allowable levels of 65 dBA for residential uses. Should construction noise exceed allowable levels after implementation of the following measures, the use of sound curtains or other noise barriers shall be required. The noise mitigation plan shall identify the type and location of sound curtains or other noise barriers to be utilized to reduce construction noise to within allowable levels. • Stationary construction noise sources such as generators or pumps must be located at least 100 feet from sensitive land uses, as feasible. or at maximum distance when necessary to complete work near sensitive land uses. This mitigation measure must be implemented throughout construction and may be periodically monitored by the Community Development Director. or designee during routine inspections. • Construction staging areas must be located as far from noise sensitive land uses as feasible. This mitigation measure must be implemented throughout construction and may be periodically monitored by the Community Development Director or designee during routine inspections. • Throughout construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with included noise attenuating devices and are properly maintained. This mitigation measure shall be periodically monitored by the Community Development Director, or designee during routine inspections. • Idling equipment must be turned off when not in use. This mitigation measure may be periodically monitored by the Community Development Director, or designee during routine inspections. • Equipment must be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging. This mitigation measure may be periodically monitored by the Community Development Director, or designee during routine inspections. Lawrence and Orange(13533) 85 Lawrence and Orange(13533) 86 6 References 6.1— List of Preparers City of Rosemead (Lead Agency) Planning Division 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 626-569-2140 ■ Lily T. Valenzuela, City Planner MIG (Environmental Analysis, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise) 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 110 Riverside, California 92507 951-787-9222 ■ Christopher Brown. Director of Environmental Services • Christopher Purtell, Senior Archaeologist • Olivia Chan,Associate Analyst Albus-Keefe &Associates, Inc. (Geology& Soils) 1011 North Armando Street Anaheim. California 92806 714-630-1626 • David E. Albus, G.E. 2455, Principal Engineer Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) 2154 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 200 Torrance, California 90501 800-419-4923 • Jason Bates, LEP, Senior Author • Robin Blanchard, Environmental Professional Kunzman Associates (Traffic Analysis) 1111 Town &Country Road. Suite 34 Orange, California 92868 714-973-8383 • William A Kunzman, P.E. • Chris Pylant,Associate 6.2— Persons and Organizations Consulted None Lawrence and Orange(13533) 87 References 6.3— References 1 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System: Los Angeles County. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16 livability/scenic highways/index.htm [October 2016] 2 City of Rosemead. Draft General Plan Program EIR(SCH#2007111090). July 31. 2008 3 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System: Los Angeles County. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArchll6_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm [October 2016] 4 City of Rosemead. Draft General Plan Program EIR(SCH#2007111090). July 31, 2008 5 California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/los1 0.pdf[November 2015] 6 California Department of Conservation. Williamson Act Program. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/ [October 2016] South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 1993 8 California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State. May 1, 2016 United States Census Bureau. American Fact Finder. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010 for Rosemead. California. https://factfinder.census.qov/faces/tableservices/isf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF [October 2016] 10 Kunzman Associates. 1151 San Gabriel Boulevard Project Focused Traffic Study. October 12, 2016 11 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species. http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html [October 2016] 12 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. RareFind 5 Database. http://www.dfq.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp [October 2016] 13 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html [October 2016] 14 California Department of Fish and Game. Natural Community Conservation Planning. http:l/www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/nccp/[October 2016] 15 California State Department of Conservation. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps. http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap maps.htm [October 2016] 16 City of Rosemead. Draft General Plan Program EIR(SCH#2007111090). July 31, 2008 17 State of California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology. Seismic Hazards Zones Map. El Monte Quadrangle. March 25, 1999 18 State of California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology. Seismic Hazards Zones Map. El Monte Quadrangle. March 25, 1999 19 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Frequently Asked Questions About Global Warming and Climate Change. Back to Basics.April 2009. 20 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. CEQA and Climate Change. January 2008 21 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group. Meeting # 15, Main Presentation. September 28, 2010 22 Ibid 23 Ibid L4 California Environmental Protection Agency. Cortese List Data Resources. http:/Iwww.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/[October 2016] 2.5 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp July 2016] 26 California State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/[October 2016] Lawrence and Orange(13533) 88 References 27 California State Water Resources Control Board. Sites Identified with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit. http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/CurrentList.pdf [October 2016] 28 California State Water Resources Control Board. List of Active CDO and CAO. http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/CDOCAOList.xlsx [October 2016] 29 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Cortese List: Section 65962.5(a). http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/SectionA.htm#Facilities [October 2016] 30 Federal Aviation Administration. Airport Data and Contact Information. http://www.faa.goviairports/airport safety/airportdata 5010/[October 2016] 31 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones In LRA — Los Angeles County. September 2011. 32 City of Rosemead. Draft General Plan Program EIR(SCH#2007111090). July 31, 2008 33 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Map Number 06037C1665F. September 26, 2008. 34 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Map Number 06037C1665F. September 26, 2008. 35 City of Rosemead. Draft General Plan Program EIR(SCH#2007111090). July 31, 2008 36 City of Rosemead. Draft General Plan Program EIR (SCH#2007111090) — Appendix A (Notice of Preparation/Initial Study). July 31, 2008 37 California Department of Transportation. Basics of Highway Noise:Technical Noise Supplement. November 2009. 38 California Governor's Office of Planning and Research. General Plan Guidelines. 2003 39 City of Rosemead. Municipal Code. 48 United States Bureau of Mines. Mining Machinery Noise Control Guidelines. 1983 41 United States Bureau of Mines. Noise Abatement Techniques for Construction Equipment.August 1979 42 Sound Seal. Sound Seal Sound Curtains Exterior Grade Noise Control. http://www.soundcurtains.com/exterior-qrade- noise-control.pdf[September 2016] 43 California Department of Transportation. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. June 2004 44 Federal Aviation Administration. Airport Data and Contact Information. http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/airportdata 5010/[October 2016] 45 California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State. May 1, 2016 46 United States Census Bureau. American Fact Finder. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010 for Rosemead, California. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF [October 2016] 47 The Brookings Institute. Handbook for Applying the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. 1999. 48 San Gabriel Valley Water Company Los Angeles Country Division. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. July 2016. 49 California Environmental Protection Agency. State Water Resources Control Board. Water Conservation Portal — Emergency Conservation Regulation. Urban Water Suppliers and Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use Reduction. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water issues/programs/drought/docs/emergency requlations/supplier tiers 20150428.pdf[October 2016] 50 CalRecycle. Identify Disposal Facility Capacity Shortfalls. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/FacIT/facility/disposalgap.aspx [October 2016] Lawrence and Orange(13533) 89 References Lawrence and Orange(13533) 90 • E MF AS O 41 '7� � O CIVIC PRIDE NIr1 Vis. ' ,NCORPORATED ,�� per. `'CI Attachment C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program u) a) -le C.) CZ C RN Q ce E O U 0 C a) O I N G _U N N 7 CU C 0) T c c a c c 0 0 o c Q E Q E :C 0 0 Q O > U) O > 0 U a a U 0 a c a -0 O d c c ._ c E c C U O) C 0 (° c6 °� ns c c o o E �, ca 0 cn c c 0) as C u) 0, 0 a) c6 co 2 o U Q. c0 — w 0 c . E 0 d W a. Q c o c6 U Q &) `n � '> 01 Q o Q U U a E o ce ca. 0 -=. 0 a) U E U -a Z Ce O) T co N c c6 0 Q CI •C c 0 Q > cn 0 W •= O .0 a) N a) 0 0 c ZL ..+ 7 c 0 o — a' o _c c o C o i _ O O U ce O 2 LL .0 O) - CD 0 Q c n- o J O c6 - O a) Co U) N C6 c6 03 a 0 -0 U) c Q`) tQ 4, E < -O - -0 0 0 c D C _> •-C c0.) O 0 V > a 00 .0 O < U a 2 a a .c - - �= c6 c u) c6 0 Q) a 73 0 o U 'o 0 N O p >`C6 N 0 o a °) • o -O ~� 0 U L u) .� w- d 0 a) 3 0 -a a X CO 0 L a o a 0 > L - c� CO a cB 76 E °) -a o o o i6 a 0 .N > N o -03 U as _ -§ a ( 0 0 (0II -� 'p .�: c L 0 O T c CD o a .co = a) o c --'c --(1) 0 ` .. COc0 m > a▪ N co .cn as Uo a _ O o •-' O O c -o O E c6 `n cn -a o U) o L Q-� c 0 0 0 C6 0 U) N 0 c6 c6 c - -0 L 0 -a - U) O "O 0 a Q O O U Q a -L 0 N O a -Q -0).p •« o 0 0 a ,� a 0 0 ¢ as O N a � o o v) 0 %.) CO • �--• 0 L -a- d 0 L cts o c O a O C U) L Oti > U W c06 OO > Q CO _C -O 0 c6 0 a i L as a) U ~ a d a � U 0 0 B O 0 -0 ` Q Cr) 0 L ▪ O .0 a L 0 -a 1L] < 0 0 — O p . = CI) 0 '� c _ X •'c_ c u) U) U c6 0 CB m L O cL') - c6 cn co c c 0 a Q 0 L 0 L o O) `� O) U) 'O N 0 Y C y O O 0 o C O o Q O c6 .0 .C_ e) c6 c a 0 0 _ cn c CJ 0 > O 0cr) C O O -C O c- Q) O- c c 7:3 co C 0 : . 0 OU _ O crj c += Q c •� co ••-. E 06 c6 (I3 -0 - a -o Q o o "ci 0 U o O a) "O 4=- M a 0 Q 0 - 0 a C 0 C -.-- a o U o -a a >, c6 L c T 0 0 0 � (� ;.0 U i-o o O U a 0 U) L O C 06 0 o a a •E o C - c i Qui co s 0 O uU) U) Cl) o 0 �- - N 0 E = c -0 .c.) CO c a) o N -a c 7 .c .� "a o •5 C 0 0 m c6 0 0 o > 0 0 c a U 0 0 0 0 E 2 O 0 ° Cn a o •U > 0 0 0 0 o C o cn o 0 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 0-C./) CO 1— 0 cn Q D CO L c6 a) a- a 0 1— W U) L CO 0 0 N U) ce U) i 0 0 N U o o co \ § a. c E o 0 § ' iii \ Q 0 F. E: © : E C) CD o c § \f w E o = o < o > y 3 O D E = .7k 77 ® o : 2 J = 2 a O2 co \ - Q C O ± k J o s y « 2 � � � 2 § ƒ w � o3q a77 k . k cL)C a a3 Lu ct 0 k � % / a / CO 7 co M 2 ± \ 2 ± / o y CO 2 G \ a 9 - 0)± - \ % f ® ) = n g = = m ± c•- n +- o o .- - o :- 0 4 - � �2 � � a / / a & _ , co0 © � % ± \ E -- CO P co -0 7 a 5 2 o Q o = o c Q § _ » o = % \ 2 0 = a / - « 7 2 2 7 ± » eƒ CO = m « o = _ _ e = = = o = 2 m m _ 5 / a = 7 - o § ® $ / ® § ° c E E - ° %- M 2 y-0 _a \ 2 £ -0 S G ~ y > ° o c - - * e 5 2 = 3 7 - e m (pa) '- _ _ _ \ - o = o_ a _ « E ƒ D 3 � . \ / g 2 » _ « e e 0 0 0 ) a ° 22 > 2 - 28G y = ƒ = ® / ® ƒ 2G ƒ cc > ¥ ® k ) - 4 a 0 -0 _ - % > o o CO = o Cl) e e e 0 a . o a) 0 0 na n sg '±� o - 9 -9 � n - a -a .5 .@ & £ E _c 6 2 x 0 .@ c ° '- ° ® x 5 ® 7 7 > 0 ® - (1) -6.) a -O n m _o o = a y ± = 2 E - 0 _ •5 o 0 e e \ 6 o t o 2 a = 6 s a & § o ƒ % ° = o G .2 / _ = 2 2 \ ƒ 2 e > / a .0_ y y a) S f 'ƒ E ? 2 / \ 0 c = m a § _ eL = 2 « U = 3 .g o m s 2 a % ® 0 5 2 ± 4 - = 4 - - -C - _ - ._ co _c 2 7 0_ 7 n o 0 o f . 0 e _o o - = > x ° - 2 / § 2 2 / _ 0 0 \ © ® ) cu 2 G / ƒ 9 ® 9 § ° Cr)C < 0 5 - 0 .g - CO o « m 7 = — = x oc c55 = � 2 Cl) _ - = 4 = = o � 0 � -c « � 3 0 2 2 - - = / 7 2 2 - 7 g c / = R 7 0- / \.a- y = am _ - 2 c 7 2 = ° 0_ ° * ° ° - 9 y o w 2 2 7 .P « 2 . o w o ° -0 * m - _ % _ = a m - o ¥ 0 2 c 7 \ . ° n » ® E o ® . = m = .o o o - = 2 c = .z y = a G / e o .- E I '& e ± ƒ ƒ ' = ® o 2 c _0-Q03 g m o S.d ± 2 « o o - ± m o a.)'- yf‘=.-- o e oo y ± 2 k\ / % - - e % \ % E 2 9 _ _ - = k = ƒ cc') 8_2 = o e _ § ® ° ° n = c E@ 2 y/ % o - a &-• 0 _ _ « ) _ e > _ = a » 7 2 . 2 / - v e e •- o « o n S '� 2 •y a ± c o - .:(1) o n a Q _ _ _ 3 "= n e = a) o - o e ± -o a-m U) -c) I— Z .c % a % t a Q -o « o_± 2 o o a_.= 4 % a o 9 6 U N C O - U f6 C E •ca_ Q) O. Ce E 0 U O - C a) O c ...7. 0 U L d N R EC • >' c c a) o C E Q w. d E O (6 O < O > a a) E O) U a) o c cc c a C (B ,:O 'C O +' R =_ E o cs5 2 U U °- E E a) W a c O cs W Z c - U c ce O O O_ c p a) o a) Z ce C) >. c I a C .- co C Q 0 a C a) E •C .� W ,_ O 7 O z = a 0 o 0 W c O H d co (,)Ce O 2 U Q 0 2 ac O v a) L o c o `" c ami a) .- vi cs -o o 0 c a) c o cn a� o o 3ci, E a) c °' o is o _0 0 a) 4-' 1- a) ' O a) c2 U cs c -c E 0 c,; o5) c o ` .o is - >a) 0 el- co 2 o L c .o E o N "a' o 0 L1) a)L co c U 5 c E L--. �O ) -o .0 LL a) .N C1) ••O N (z C N •O Q CB E- - C 0 "a "� C W 00 Cd C T. 03 0 co �- En O c a a) 00 0 — CC U> -o a> CD U 0 . c C aJ ...- CD` '� aci � or)-o E "a) a) a) a) o -o E c = <n -C a) 5 0 0 o -a o a) o o o 0 0 c 0 0 -0 L is co U o U) i CD 0 C6 D U) (0 > 1O) - g O - a) c O O cB 0 C = ca O c a) 0 L U .0 cf in L 0 Q 0 0 -a . O Q Q > -C -L--) 0 _C 'o - _ C m 0 :. C o as a) o .o o = o , ` is cca _ > a) a) U CA "3 is >. m . c a) Q U) -'- a) `�' Q c _- a) 0 = L aci 0 = a) i.. c 0 L 4) O a) ._ a) O .L-. = cn O a) Q O cd ~ L_ U c) T N O L cn c Q? c cs •- a) co) E .- _c C cs a a) a) 0 c U) ((.1„)N -c 0 c " E o o) a 2 2 . >, O 0 o u' a) a) o Q.� o as a) _ o o - o o o = c co c O 0 .C, U E ccs _o o . ca o a Q ▪ "o o .c "� c a) o a r o n c is .o Q ALO a a) 0 -o co "c Q (,) co o E oN °) a) ca Q cs co c co a▪ a) -0 o E cc, ' - Q cs al E c 0 a) aci N c ami p a) � E 0 a) cis ca o o a-) �s a) E >, T c is = m CO m a o L is m o I- o += U •c "as O U C co = U L U U cd Q 0 O (n U •— U c ~ 2 "0).2 o a 0 ,_ E a) c "� Q) a) 0) a a)ry cs Q o V)"0 Q a) c O U - 0 a) N 7 0 0 > 0 0 C C L "� O Q U -0 o a) o a) _� o a) a a) "o " a) m cs ¢ - c a) a C1) 7"D a c 'U) '> "> U _c -- U "E a`) 0- 0 .T5 c0`) 0 -c c CB o CL U) o a a) a) � o o L x = x - o a) ,- L a 0 L o a) o a) 2 as ca -c c ca U 5 U) as I- a) as a) as E -a CL I- a-Cr) v) cs U 0 0 E v U i11111111W N U) U (p L C E 0 Y_ E O U .4-. O C a) O A C G U F. L d 0 7 co Y E cm TC CC c o C = o_ C Q • E U) E o -t E o > 0o > O < O O a) U 0 a 0 (1.) 0 • E Q (p = c c U 0 (n O 1 U U Q cO c "(q 0 0 -C W a Q E U - U .a0 ZE, a) ) I 0 n.� - O o_ o :-= d U E os o j oQca, U C a E= Lj L11 • O •c U) j Cr) 01 ">c+ EC 0 o _ Zc I- W Oi _ 2 _ ca CZ ce O 2 U ,O 0 ~ o a J O •++ -p (o (n — `� (n a) U) C)= o a) 0 0 U) -p U) CU C 0 C cU 0 0 7 o g o "O N C c (3 O U) O L o o N 'p »-- - O (6 p U (n a) "D p Cn p '. •Co CO C C o . c N U) o o co j p d c m w .c E L > c co (n m .� " c v (o <o @ io ca cp U 01 a) X _ 0 m oC c o U .g c .0 O (O L Q E v O o 0 d o O -o (n O o -0 .- cn _ •in U Q _ O c x c _ c c c - is . E c o E = .- co 3 CD o as - U) o io (o a) co n ->-, OO = c - N o O o "- Q I- -.� d 3 L o (o a) "a) E E (n .V Q) -- o as .0 c N U co .� p O N O N Eo0) o ' rt3 ` oLI_ 0 .- o co o _� o2 a) .Eo aQ o Q . (n U) o _c = O •.E '."C p "C U) Q us O.- C L U) _c (o O •- (o c CD 03'C I > U Q C -p O O a co p (B 0 >, Q fl- x a6 a) U 0-'-' C (Na 0 w c N -5) 0 .cm a) -0 o E co -- a) co c) c_ a a) E a n 0 c "o -- oc o -. ocas 0 i MIMI N a) Y C) R R a) a) O. c E 0 0 w O c a) O as R 0 U L. a) u) co F. O) > C � p i U Q o 0 O 0 < O > a) O 1 D c a a) a o c c '- C y R O - v) C . C a) .� co = a) p a) Ca a) EL- O V O °- O 7 w. c p w a. < -a E u) -a) .> a) F- O C 0 p L n ..- Z 0 o CO •E o Q t o O Q. Cs a) -- a w .- O .E d p i Q) n 0 o F E a) o op c O F- L ce o 2 w 0 m Q C J •0 _ ++ - T a) = 0) (1) 0) O) U) a)L O Q) a) N 0) Cr) Cl..) a) a) R 0 = • C .0 L (a O ,D C Q C c p C Q 0 o Cd QC) L a) c @ p 7 O (a C u) o3 - O 0 ao OEc -�- p a aQ a) �' o ao6 .o Q 412i ?` L o a67N ia) C= O aU o E 73 c c p C) LOcO CCDO ..0 Q N p (a „_ (a @ a.) C (a -0U a) p -p � .>O � apE I- -C o c - i N 6 - cCN ofa sO • . _mo o -.ip = o v) c0 . E _i (a fY o S o E o . p s Q . c )` o) o . Q c o@ c a c s o (.1-) ooa o- cu.) -- a as o > > co> c c a) o a o c °' E a o (° Q) O (a a) Cr) t- O- X O U) O 4- C Q) C .� Q) C U) p -_ c a a) is Cr) a) E a) o c is -_ o Q Q c is a) > N 3 3 p c .� 0 N a. o F- a) a) -C - 75 CO _0 - vi as a) o - ca o (s u_ a) -a p 75 to V) N O p U) (� C (a U) 7 p o_ C C (a C a) L a) Q Q c Q) >. O CO • a p O O U ` �O C " • .c (f) > CO � N U) QJ CD _ co C O 3 _ X c c o) > (a _ 7 .--. n' -o co c m C O - -U C)- (s - T (a a) Z) CO CO a) X a) as - Ca Op (a a 7 a. • p a) _c N CII w, (a U (a in ,U c C .V C .0 C O p s O -' 0 C a) -a c Er).a) a) p a) o �� 0_0- tea) O L a) . in 03 is a) o c o . aa) _o o O - ' c . o E o is 0 p c s .«-• - n cO O O O O p O O p U) D O > O U) -a O- a) p pEs O v o c j c .LO-. c o L c -0 .� (>a o c a) a) p a) E 7 `O -6 -D O In O O O O - O X O O 0 _c U o N N • .- a) � Oas ' p L mN(a L O (s (a O - O (a LO X (a T C C Qt DN O a. C v) o..-. a 0 0 CL 0 Q U) ca a a) O n- -0 0 I- LU (a a) u) - O is- o CO) U C m R_ d Q. ce E O U v- O C a) o CO CO C L) 4 CU CO OTS C a) 7' C C C C o a E oCD 0 co E o O < o > a) o > a) UCO U W O E a) U o co F.„ c Co C C Co ca .- C (n 0 C o o a co o o), a) U o w a Q o _a E a) 0 v) 7 U U c o cn � Co o Z c U c U (a c Q Q' p O O_ c u, -o O c N Z ix sm T .c C (a O Q o c o- `o a) > E c --' U O a) CO w C O d E U o `= E o C .7 a) c U a c al E O F— d c v o a`) Co c E v) a) ce o u. Q o a) - CO Q _ J 0 C a) a) T C c a) L.47.; 1-O c -co N (6 (ll a) (a 7."a a) T. C a) a) a) co a) _0 - C -0 (a N 0)• p C U Cl) C - - 0 c a) w C Co Jo ra - _c -D CD 0 I Ca CO o U o n c 0 (a O E O L n U N 7 NNp@p) -C c Uo U C >-. ' ( >, U cCa)) - =d v- a) .- .- O o C _ CCo 0 - a Co7o Coo U .O 0 Co co o Cl) a) F-- coa C 0 m Q- CCID •cts -.(-1)=- cY (n o i .iUa o a (,) E E n o c (/) • � ,- Z Q -es N O aEN . U p c Q) a -T a) a) 2C a a - E a) a) E Cop • ' - )Qc' o co m v) -p Q Co aoa 0EO3 ooo Cooco CoCD • • o °) a o Q N mac ai`° aa) a °� o > o _o Lin ca) ca. a) (7) -0 0 0a) ._ w — . L.-c-.) o v, (° a v) o@ -c Oo f E :> a) a) Ni 'a a) o a) a) Cr- ca _ ca c 15 "5 Q- c 03 CD > ll a> ( CU - .c�N a0 = 0 C ` C - a) a u) -.=, < 'scn0) 0 O - o . p •O c -a )- . E Co -0 ._ � L Clc n Cl)N > U en Co CE Et � ) Co Coom — a) i (aCoQE n (n o c a) a a) ca) Q c o - o -- " O Q) NE8 o E oc ` o cn--E • un Ea) s " 7, „ tY Q C O o_ a - Cl) E Co 0 0 0 .- — -p o a ..- > o o QQ cL aEap (vo ota) o °JTiE � E vi ) Z - p m o oQ u o (�acCU c op : -= o Cr) oc on .aQ a E = .o—v. c eL To O CO a) -o c c O a) C O p C -,a ca 'D .- m CI) V � - QCcO O . Ca (n Q) CQ O U • - ..-,_-:, II COVO a - aQ) Na07aCa c o Q c Ca NO (a a) U cyO — a) a (nU aCC O U 1. 0oU 77Ca - O NBw - U E QaQO E0 °- - 0_ p 0_ 0fl' ( U 0 Fcs (n aao_c 1— Q (a 1 X O C X a) C c -CaT aa) N d 0 CoisQ a Co(a E a) n Q a a) n no E -o .L• Co UU wQ CO0?U 0 a) - •C.) § a. r E � 0 § ' as :•75 c (..) > " co F.a c ._ $ § 2en < E ca cs c a = E .\ ca 0 � LLI C9 C crt c o z= — Q 0 .. O ± 2 J o >, « 7 . C) 2 q / := 2 E F .- CT' wct / k U « . a § # 2 2 - ID c 7 % / 7 >± 2 F >± ± ~ 0 0 / \ 3 / 2 $ ± = f -, / � © % £ � � / � � 2 / � ® / \ � # % = eco = - 'Cr) CD m �� 2 = � z � 3 e -0 a) a) rtnU *a Ea) U)t0 c — tea = -0m 0-± = > a ,72 % % . 0 ® J z k \ \ 2 a3 ƒ / ® ƒ o 9 - / o) § £ c = w m * ® 9 ^ . _ _ -c -- ° o 2 3 J G / / -- 3 U) .- _ ° 'a Q / = 5 � ° ° o 2 0 Q m % 0 w - („) z a ` £ o - 2 \ a - @ 2 y n U e > 2 = 0 ° 7 % 7 \ ® S / » c cp E 7 / a) co_/ .+ - _ oo o � - 6e / =- G 0 / ƒ Q G m / / 2 @ \ \ - ƒ / oz ƒ ? Gk7 § » ± ± -o ? mk / CL/ _ _c c = « 5 E 2 © - : - 5 •> m e 0 } ° o \ .us 0 2 ƒ 2 ƒ ƒ / ƒ G J + ./ 3 .- = o _ -0 2 y - ° a E \ •co / ) % >-./ _ .G »/ q £ / ƒ j / 5 = « § % 7 2 2 E c 5 -0_, m » m m ® _ / / 7 § m C5 c = U) § « § § § k 2 0 . - _$ o E \ � a / o = g D 0 6 q » 'E e a § = _ ° c » u) e = 5 w « o § _ » o = _ m = ? _ & � 5 ® § o G 2 c = 2 . CO g s � = = 0 .—-C= a / .g U = -0 E • a c n e us o m f * z k 2 ƒ / ° ° . E b E 7 / c a ,_ — CO 'Cr.) _ = m o � ._ % e . ± 0 _ "E2me / 2 % 2 - _ * $ 7 ) § 2 = ' o 0 • ® ® ° f2 @ \\ = / ® ® ® moma ± f 2 .@ G ® •G •/ © = -- E -a 2 D G n -- la' (13 = E 2 o - •c _ / 9 @ .ƒ ® j § J G ® k Cr) \ & G + Sz ^2 / / ƒk m = a _0 ± -0 < a O m 2 n n = * m .- E e & 2 2 .s 4 a = ' o m = QE E oC Ea) U 0 0 m c U) m O c' C c .. O E •iv E a) U C C a) .0 U) += E E 0 a) d a 00 a 0 a) a) Q 7 Q) N — L 0 U) o c 5 >. a) " U) > >, a) a) 'C >, a) > a) I ® ma y -CI 0)- GfJ ©En. £ g a » % = a _m X26 3226 _ �\ ƒ 2 O a) k ± / § as ƒ R± 0 § g — = @ g �ƒ a S % y > f E CI \» E c o > @2 E i @ - e ._ ._ e 4- 1.-- ._ ._ . ± 3 Eco ƒ ƒ e 7 E 0 RS / \ E E / E = E E `- E E ® UO± § ® Uc _ .c m ._ / .2 £ 5 = e 0 - 0 E• 0) Ec �_\ 5 w 2 J g a I ± J j •/ Eo® o - c . o •R $ o .Eco- C y w E > m a w E » • • AI* M F9 ca, NICIVIC PRIDE 14'CO13'PORATED `"59 Attachment D Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 6, 2017 g iEt- M F4 a ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION Aok STAFF REPORT CIVIC PRIDE Nng "4t PORATEO 195 ,............,/, TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: MARCH 6, 2017 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 16-01, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 74095, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 16-01, AND ZONE VARIANCE 16-02 1151 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD (PORTION OFF ORANGE STREET) SUMMARY La Terra Development, LLC. has submitted entitlement applications for the construction of a 21-unit planned development project. The project includes four home designs and three floor plans. The size of the single-family dwelling varies from 1,706 square feet to 2,353 square feet with an attached two-car garage. The proposed development will include three private streets, 19,908 square feet of common open space, and 18,287 square feet of private open space. The subject site is located at 1151 San Gabriel Boulevard in a Planned Development (P-D) zone. Environmental Analysis The City of Rosemead acting as a Lead Agency, has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Initial Study has been undertaken to determine if the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study was prepared and completed 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 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 not considered a project of statewide, regional or area-wide significance and would not affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was distributed for a 30-day public review and comment period from February 3, 2017 to March 6, 2017. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 2 of 46 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. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17-03 with findings (Exhibit "A"), which is a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 2017-12 (attached as Exhibit "B") approving General Plan Amendment 16- 01 , Tentative Tract Map 74095, Planned Development Review 16-01, and Zone Variance 16-02 and adopt the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit "D") and Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit "E"). Property History and Description The subject site is a former sports field of Don Bosco Technical Institute totaling approximately two acres. On September 21, 2015, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map 73496, for the creation of the subject parcel. / ` 'TRq�T R'F< 1 5279 ---- L� a `13 se p� -a _wo w� �. a` {.-s @ �'-s, 4'0 8 • $ C r,'" ` 'zea '' ,� 2 ,,.._ 7-�h, 2 41111p , 'ti- cp.; 4 Do Bosh • Q � � ,.� T=chnical !-_ stitut 4111110, 46, d,c 4.'411111p P6 58� _ 8 7G % 440 r �* ''.2, Q r ti , Ar W4W4?-1-p G - .t.oirkleb,,, Assessor's Parcel Map I lir Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 3 of 46 • • • 11.1 _ • . y. .. 1'A , Existing Site Photo Site & Surrounding Land Uses The site is designated in the General Plan for Public Facilities, and on the Zoning map it is designated for P-D (Planned Development). The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North General Plan Designation: High Density Residential and Unincorporated Area of Los Angeles Zoning: P-D (Planned Development) and Unincorporated Area of Los Angeles Land Use: Residential and Unincorporated Area of Los Angeles South General Plan Designation: City of Montebello Zoning: City of Montebello Land Use: City of Montebello East General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Land Use: Residential West General Plan Designation: Public Facilities and Low Density Residential Zoning: P-D (Planned Development) and R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Land Use: Church and Residential Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 4 of 46 Project Description The project includes the construction of 21 two-story single-family dwelling units and associated parking, open space, and landscaping. The project will provide 42 private garage parking spaces (two private garage spaces per unit). The applicant is also proposing 11 guest parking spaces along private Drive A. The project site is located at the eastern terminus of Orange Street. Vehicular access to the project site will be provided via an extension of Orange Street., which will be privately maintained. Internal circulation will be provided via proposed Private Drives A, B, and C. General Plan Amendment 16-01 Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.020, amendment to the City's General Plan may be initiated by the Planning Commission or the City Council, whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice justifies such action. General Plan Amendment 16-01 will amend the land use designation of the subject site from Public Facilities to Medium Density Residential (0-12 units per acre). Tentative Tract Map 74095 Section 66474 et seq of the Subdivision Map Act describes the grounds for approving a subdivision map. In addition, Rosemead Municipal Code Section 16.08 provides subdivision regulations, which adopt Los Angeles County subdivision regulations by reference. Tentative Tract Map 74095 is a condominium subdivision to create 21 legal condo parcels for the development of 21 single-family dwelling units. Planned Development Review Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.24.010(C) sets forth the procedures and requirements for Planned Development Review. The Planned Development district is intended to provide for residential developments that are characterized by innovative use and design concepts. The subject site was a part of a larger planned development for the Don Bosco Technical Institute, however, the site was parceled off in 2016 by virtue of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Parcel Map 73496. The applicant is proposing a planned development for a residential development consisting of 21 condo lots for the development of 21 single-family dwelling units. Zone Variance Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.140.010, the purpose of a Variance is to give the Planning Commission authority to allow an exception to certain development standards prescribed in the Zoning Code when practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, or results inconsistent with the general purposes of the Zoning Code occur by reason of a strict interpretation and enforcement of any of the provisions of this Zoning Code. The applicant is requesting a variance from Rosemead Municipal Code Table 17.24.030.2, which requires the front yard setback (adjoining residential zone) to be the 20 feet. The applicant is proposing ten feet as this would be the side yard for the Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 5 of 46 three homes that will abut the interior of the west wall of the project. In other words, the manner in which the project is planned will cause the "front" of the property for Municipal Code purposes to in fact be the side of each of the three parcels as developed. Development Standards Staff has verified that the proposed development would be in compliance with the applicable development standards of the Rosemead Zoning Code, as demonstrated in the following table: Development Feature Required Proposed Total Lot Size of 43,560 s.f. (minimum) 87,571 s.f. Development Site Front Setback(Adjoining 20 feet(minimum) 10 feet(Requesting Residential Zone) Variance) Side Street Setback None 17 feet Rear Setback 10 feet(minimum) 10-12 feet Height None 26-27 feet Two Spaces per dwelling unit in an enclosed 21 two car garages and 11 Parking garage(21 garages required) guest parking spaces along the private street Proposed Floor Plan The applicant is proposing three floor plan types. All three floor plans are two-story. Plan 1 totals 1,706 square feet and includes a living room, kitchen, dining room, coat room, three bedrooms with closets, three bathrooms, a laundry room, private open space, and a two-car garage. Plan 2 totals 2,072 square feet and includes a living room, kitchen, dining room, four bedrooms with closets, three bathrooms, a laundry room, private open space, and a two-car garage. Plan 3 totals 2,352 square feet and includes a living room, kitchen, dining room, four bedrooms with closets, three bathrooms, a laundry room, private open space, and a two-car garage. Proposed Architecture As shown on the architectural plans, marked Exhibit "F," there are four (4) different residential designs proposed for the development with three color schemes, each following a Spanish architectural style, characterized by a concrete Spanish tile roof, smooth textured stucco, clay pipe roof vents, corbels, square or arched windows, wood shutters, and decorative wrought iron embellishments. Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 6 of 46 According to the colored renderings, which will be available to view at the Planning Commission Meeting, the specific colors and materials proposed for each scheme are as follows: Scheme 1: The color and material of the main body of the units will be beige smooth textured stucco. The trims will be painted in a light shade of brown. Accent colors include sage green and brown. All wrought iron embellishments will be painted black. The roofing material will be a Reddish-brown concrete Spanish tile roof. Scheme 2: The color and material of the main body of the units will be off-white smooth textured stucco. The trims will be painted brown. Accent colors include maroon and burgundy. All wrought iron embellishments will be painted black. The roofing material will be a Reddish-brown concrete Spanish tile roof. Scheme 3: The color and material of the main body of the units will be off-white smooth textured stucco. The trims will be painted brown. Accent colors include tan and turquoise. All wrought iron embellishments will be painted black. The roofing material will be a Reddish-brown concrete Spanish tile roof. Proposed Landscaping and Fencing: The development will consist of a total of 19,908 square feet of common open space (11,556 square feet of landscape area and 8,352 square feet of hardscape area). Each unit will have a private back yard ranging in size from 606 square feet to 1 ,281 square feet. In total, the applicant is proposing 18,287 square feet of private open space. A conceptual landscape plan has been attached as Exhibit "F". New landscaping is proposed throughout the site. The applicant is also proposing a private pocket park within the development which includes enhanced pedestrian paving, entry pilasters, open turf area, benches, a pergola, and trees. The applicant will be required to submit a detailed landscape and irrigation plan to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of any Building Permits. In addition, staff has added a condition of approval requiring the applicant to incorporate additional privacy landscaping in the rear yards of Lots 19-21 and the side yards of Lots 1, 4, and 7. According to the Wall and Fence Plan in Exhibit "F", the applicant is proposing new wall and fence along the eastern, western, and southern property lines. The new wall and fence will include slump stone, wrought iron, and/or vinyl material. Staff has added a condition of approval requiring the applicant to construct a new wall/fence along the north property line. Parking and Circulation The project site is located at the eastern terminus of Orange Street. Vehicular access to the project site will be provided from Orange Street. Internal circulation will be provided via proposed Private Drives A, B, and C. There are 21 two-car garages proposed for Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 7 of 46 the 21 single-family dwelling units. The applicant is also proposing 11 guest parking spaces along private Drive A. Traffic A traffic impact study prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc. dated October 12, 2016, to assess project-related traffic impacts. The Study concluded that the portion of Lawrence Avenue utilized by the project is projected to provide adequate capacity for existing plus project traffic conditions, and the future traffic volumes are considered acceptable for a street that fronts residential land use. The City Engineer and 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. Lighting The outdoor lighting concept is to provide levels of lighting sufficient to meet safety and orientation needs. Lighting within the public areas of the development will be warm colored and unobtrusive. The proposed internal roadways will be lit by 14-foot high pole lights. The pocket park area will be lit by 42-inch high bollard lights. Light sources will be high pressure sodium, metal halide, or LED. Light sources will be concealed and directed downward. Lighting will not be visible from a public viewpoint off site. The development also proposes light fixtures on the exterior of each single-family dwelling unit. Municipal Code Requirements General Plan Amendment Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.060, amendments to the General Plan may be approved only if all the following findings are first made: A. The amendment is consistent with all other provisions of the General Plan; The proposed amendment will change the land use designation of the subject parcel from Public Facilities to Medium Density Residential. The subject site is currently zoned P-D on the Zoning Map. According to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table, the P-D zone is a corresponding zone district to the Medium Density Residential land use designation. B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and The existing land use designation of the subject site is Public Facilities. The subject site is currently designated as Public Facilities as it was a former sports field belonging to Don Bosco Technical Institute. The proposed amendment would change the land use designation to Medium Density residential for the construction of 21 single-family residential units. The subject site is adjacent to Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 8 of 46 single-family residences, therefore will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document is intended to be used by the City to evaluate the project's environmental impacts, if any, to less than a significant level. To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses mitigation measures. C. The affected site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle access, and public services and utilities and is served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate, to ensure that the proposed use(s) and/or development will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located. The subject site is adjacent to single-family residences, therefore, the amendment to the Medium Density Residential land use designation for the construction of 21 single-family dwelling units will be physically suitable for the subject site. The subject site is currently designated as Public Facilities as it was a former sports field belonging to Don Bosco Technical Institute. In addition, a traffic impact study was completed for the project to assess project- related traffic impacts. The Study concluded that the portion of Lawrence Avenue utilized by the project is projected to provide adequate capacity for existing plus project traffic conditions, and the future traffic volumes are considered acceptable for a street that fronts residential land use. The City Engineer and 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. Tentative Tract Map 74095 Section 66474 et seq of the Subdivision Map Act describes the grounds for approving a subdivision map. In addition, Rosemead Municipal Code Section 16.08.130 provides subdivision regulations, which adopt Los Angeles County subdivision regulations by reference. The following are findings that must be made in order to approve a tentative tract map: Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 9 of 46 A. The map will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to the property, or improvements in the immediate vicinity. Tentative Tract Map 74095 is a condominium subdivision to create 21 legal condo parcels for the development of 21 single-family dwelling units. The subject site is adjacent to single-family residences, therefore will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document is intended to be used by the City to evaluate the project's environmental impacts, if any, to less than a significant level. To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses mitigation measures B. The proposed division will not be contrary to any official plan, policy or standards adopted by the City. Tentative Tract Map 74095 is a condominium subdivision to create 21 legal condo parcels for the development of 21 single-family dwelling units. The subject site is adjacent to single-family residences and will not be contrary to any official plan, policy, or standards adopted by the City. The P-D zone is designated to accommodate various types of development such as single-family residential developments. C. Each proposed parcel conforms in area and dimension to the City codes. Tentative Tract Map 74095 is a condominium subdivision to create 21 legal condo parcels for the development of 21 single-family dwelling units. The proposed planned development conforms with the area and dimension to the City codes. D. All streets, alleys, and driveways proposed to serve the property have been dedicated and that such streets, alleys, and driveways are of sufficient design to provide adequate access and circulation for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The City Engineer has reviewed this proposed subdivision relative to the adjacent right-of-way. Vehicular access to the project site will be provided from via an extension of Orange Street., which will be privately maintained. Based on this review, it is determined that the design and construction of the project would preserve public safety and provide adequate access and circulation for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. All necessary public improvements will be made prior to Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 10 of 46 the proposed construction. These improvements will be constructed within the Orange Street right-of-way when developed. E. Alley easements and covenants required for the approval of the Tentative Map or plot have been duly executed and recorded. No easements or covenants are required for the proposed development as the streets will be privately owned. Planned Development Review Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.24.040(E), Modification of the Development Plan. Changes in the use shown in the Development Plan shall be considered in like manner as changes in the Zoning Map. Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.060, amendments to the Official Zoning Map may be approved only if all the following findings are first made: A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; The subject site is currently zoned P-D on the Zoning Map. According to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table, the P-D zone is a corresponding zone district to the Medium Density Residential land use designation. For this reason, the proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan. The subject site is not located in a specific plan area. B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and The subject site is zoned P-D. The P-D zone is designated to accommodate various types of development such as single-family residential developments. The subject site was a part of a larger planned development for the Don Bosco Technical Institute, however, was parceled off in 2016. The subject site is adjacent to single-family residences, therefore, the development of 21 single- family residential units will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document is intended to be used by the City to evaluate the project's environmental impacts, if any, to less than a significant level. To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses mitigation measures. Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 11 of 46 C. The affected site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle access, and public services and utilities and is served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate, to ensure that the proposed use(s) and/or development will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located. The existing site is zoned P-D. The P-D zone is designated to accommodate various types of development such as single-family residential developments. The subject site was a part of a larger planned development for the Don Bosco Technical Institute, however, was parceled off in 2016. The subject site is physically suitable for a residential planned development as it is adjacent to single-family residences. In addition, a traffic impact study was completed for the project. The Study to assess project-related traffic impacts. The Study concluded that the portion of Lawrence Avenue utilized by the project is projected to provide adequate capacity for existing plus project traffic conditions, and the future traffic volumes are considered acceptable for a street that fronts residential land use. The City Engineer and 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. Zone Variance Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.140.040, a Variance may be granted only after a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Per Rosemead Municipal Code, Section all of the following findings shall be made by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the approval of a Variance: A. There are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (such as location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features, etc.) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning district; The subject site was a former sports field belonging to Don Bosco Technical Institute. There are special circumstances and conditions applicable to the subject property that would not apply generally to other residential planned developments in the vicinity under the P-D zone. Single-family residential lots in the vicinity that would require front yard setbacks abut and/or face public streets. The subject site is not bounded by any public street and is accessed only through the existing terminus of Orange Street. In addition, when developed, the front Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 12 of 46 yard setback of subject site will become the side yard of the three single-family residential lots. B. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning district; Strict compliance with the Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning district as the development is not bounded by any public street. The front yard line is adjacent to the rear yards of the adjoining residential properties. When developed, the front yard setback will become the side yard of the three affected single-family residential lots. This would deprive the subject property of parking and open space privileges that typically would be enjoyed by other condominium communities serviced by private streets within the P-D zone. C. Approving the Variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; and Since the subject site is not bounded by any public street and will be serviced by private streets, approving the Variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located. D. The requested Variance would not allow a use or activity that is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel. The subject site is zoned P-D. The P-D zone is designated to accommodate various types of development such as single-family residential developments. Upon approval of the General Plan Amendment, the subject property may be developed for residential use subject to the requirements for single-lot condominium communities serviced by private streets under the P-D zone. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS On February 2, 2017, thirty-seven (37) notices were sent to property owners within a 300-feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in six (6) public locations, on-site, published in the Rosemead Reader, and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk. Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 13 of 46 Prepared by: Submitted by: als Lily T. Valenzuela Michelle Ramirez City Planner Community Development Director EXHIBITS: A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-04 B. Draft City Council Resolution No.2017-10 C. Project Conditions of Approval D. Mitigated Negative Declaration E. Mitigation Monitoring Program F. Site Plan/Floor Plan/Elevations 411•11111=1•11. AM. E M F S O 1/4t 'q O Q' \..,N.....„,....._N CIVIC PRIDE In'1 ".' j il ,NCORPORA 59 Attachment E Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-03 PC RESOLUTION 17-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 16-01, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 74095, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 16-01, AND ZONE VARIANCE 16-02 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 21-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 1152 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD IN A P-D ZONE (APN: 5275-015-042). WHEREAS, on March 15, 2016, Orange Rosemead Investments, LLC submitted entitlement applications for the construction of 21-unit residential planned development; and WHEREAS, 1151 San Gabriel Boulevard is located in a P-D zone; and WHEREAS, Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.060 provides the purpose and criteria for a general plan amendment; and WHEREAS, Section 66474 et seq of the Subdivision Map Act and Rosemead Municipal Code Section 16.08.130 provides the criteria for a tentative tract map; and WHEREAS, Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.24.040(E) provides the criteria for a planned development; and WHEREAS, Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.140.040 provides the criteria for a zone variance; and WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Rosemead Municipal Code Sections 16-08 and 17.140.040 authorizes the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the tentative tract map and zone Variance applications; and WHEREAS, Rosemead Municipal Code Sections 17.24.040(E), 17.152.040 and 17.152.060 authorizes the Planning Commission provide a written recommendation and reasons for the recommendation to the City Council whether to approve, approve in modified form, or deny the general plan amendment and planned development; and WHEREAS, in December 2016, an Initial Environmental Study for the proposed project 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 1 WHEREAS, on February 2, 2017, thirty-seven (37) notices were sent to property owners within a 300-feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in six (6) public locations, on-site, 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 public hearing for General Plan Amendment 16-01, Tentative Tract Map 74095, Planned Development Review 16-01, and Zone Variance 16-02, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to General Plan Amendment 16-01, Tentative Tract Map 74095, Planned Development Review 16-01, and Zone Variance 16-02; and WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission hereby 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 General Plan Amendment 16-01, Tentative Tract Map 74095, Planned Development Review 16- 01, and Zone Variance 16-02. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving General Plan Amendment 16-01 in accordance with Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.060 as follows: A. The amendment is consistent with all other provisions of the General Plan; FINDING: The proposed amendment will change the land use designation of the • subject parcel from Public Facilities to Medium Density Residential. The subject site is currently zoned P-D on the Zoning Map. According to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table, the P-D zone is a corresponding zone district to the Medium Density Residential land use designation. B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and FINDING: The existing land use designation of the subject site is Public Facilities. The subject site is currently designated as Public Facilities as it was a former sports field belonging to Don Bosco Technical Institute. The proposed amendment would change the land use designation to Medium Density residential for the construction of 21 single- family residential units. The subject site is adjacent to single-family residences, therefore will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the 2 City. The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document is intended to be used by the City to evaluate the project's environmental impacts, if any, to less than a significant level. To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses mitigation measures. C. The affected site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle access, and public services and utilities and is served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate, to ensure that the proposed use(s) and/or development will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located. FINDING: The subject site is adjacent to single-family residences, therefore, the amendment to the Medium Density Residential land use designation for the construction of 21 single-family dwelling units will be physically suitable for the subject site. The subject site is currently designated as Public Facilities as it was a former sports field belonging to Don Bosco Technical Institute. In addition, a traffic impact study was completed for the project. The Study to assess project-related traffic impacts. The Study concluded that the portion of Lawrence Avenue utilized by the project is projected to provide adequate capacity for existing plus project traffic conditions, and the future traffic volumes are considered acceptable for a street that fronts residential land use. The City Engineer and 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. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Tentative Tract Map 74095 in accordance with Section 66474 et seq of the Subdivision Map Act and Rosemead Municipal Code Section 16.08.130 as follows: A. The map will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to the property.. or improvements in the immediate vicinity. FINDING: Tentative Tract Map 74095 is a condominium subdivision to create 21 legal condo parcels for the development of 21 single-family dwelling units. The subject site is adjacent to single-family residences, therefore will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality 3 Act (CEQA). The document is intended to be used by the City to evaluate the project's environmental impacts, if any, to less than a significant level. To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses mitigation measures B. The proposed division will not be contrary to any official plan, policy or standards adopted by the City. FINDING: Tentative Tract Map 74095 is a condominium subdivision to create 21 legal condo parcels for the development of 21 single-family dwelling units. The subject site is adjacent to single-family residences and will not be contrary to any official plan, policy, or standards adopted by the City. The P-D zone is designated to accommodate various types of development such as single-family residential developments. C. Each proposed parcel conforms in area and dimension to the City codes. FINDING: Tentative Tract Map 74095 is a condominium subdivision to create 21 legal condo parcels for the development of 21 single-family dwelling units. The proposed planned development conforms with the area and dimension to the City codes. D. All streets, alleys, and driveways proposed to serve the property have been dedicated and that such streets, alleys, and driveways are of sufficient design to provide adequate access and circulation for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. FINDING: The City Engineer has reviewed this proposed subdivision relative to the adjacent right-of-way. Vehicular access to the project site will be provided from via an extension of Orange Street., which will be privately maintained. Based on this review, it is determined that the design and construction of the project would preserve public safety and provide adequate access and circulation for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. All necessary public improvements will be made prior to the proposed construction. These improvements will be constructed within the Orange Street right-of-way when developed. E. Alley easements and covenants required for the approval of the Tentative Map or plot have been duly executed and recorded. FINDING: No easements or covenants are required for the proposed development as the streets will be privately owned. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Planned Development Review 16-01 in accordance with Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.24.040(E) and 17.152.060 as follows: 4 A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; FINDING: The subject site is currently zoned P-D on the Zoning Map. According to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table, the P-D zone is a corresponding zone district to the Medium Density Residential land use designation. For this reason, the proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan. The subject site is not located in a specific plan area. B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and FINDING: The subject site is zoned P-D. The P-D zone is designated to accommodate various types of development such as single-family residential developments. The subject site was a part of a larger planned development for the Don Bosco Technical Institute, however, was parceled off in 2016. The subject site is adjacent to single-family residences, therefore, the development of 21 single-family residential units will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document is intended to be used by the City to evaluate the project's environmental impacts, if any, to less than a significant level. To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses mitigation measures. C. The affected site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle access, and public services and utilities and is served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate, to ensure that the proposed use(s) and/or development will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located. FINDING: The existing site is zoned P-D. The P-D zone is designated to accommodate various types of development such as single-family residential developments. The subject site was a part of a larger planned development for the Don Bosco Technical Institute, however, was parceled off in 2016. The subject site is physically suitable for a residential planned development as it is adjacent to single-family residences. In addition, a traffic impact study was completed for the project to assess project- related traffic impacts. The Study concluded that the portion of Lawrence Avenue utilized by the project is projected to provide adequate capacity for existing plus project traffic conditions, and the future traffic volumes are considered acceptable for a street that 5 fronts residential land use. The City Engineer and 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. SECTION 5. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Zone Variance 16-02 in accordance with Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.140.040 as follows: A. There are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (such as location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features, etc.) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning district; FINDING: The subject site was a former sports field belonging to Don Bosco Technical Institute. There are special circumstances and conditions applicable to the subject property that would not apply generally to other residential planned developments in the vicinity under the P-D zone. Single-family residential lots in the vicinity that would require front yard setbacks abut and/or face public streets. The subject site is not bounded by any public street and is accessed only through the existing terminus of Orange Street. In addition, when developed, the front yard setback of subject site will become the side yard of the three single-family residential lots. B. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning district; FINDING: Strict compliance with the Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning district as the development is not bounded by any public street. The front yard line is adjacent to the rear yards of the adjoining residential properties. When developed, the front yard setback will become the side yard of the three affected single- family residential lots. This would deprive the subject property of parking and open space privileges that typically would be enjoyed by other condominium communities serviced by private streets within the P-D zone. C. Approving the Variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; and FINDING: Since the subject site is not bounded by any public street and will be serviced by private streets, approving the Variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located. 6 D. The requested Variance would not allow a use or activity that is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel. FINDING: The subject site is zoned P-D. The P-D zone is designated to accommodate various types of development such as single-family residential developments. Upon approval of the General Plan Amendment, the subject property may be developed for residential use subject to the requirements for single-lot condominium communities serviced by private streets under the P-D zone. SECTION 6. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of General Plan Amendment 16-01, Tentative Tract Map 74095, Planned Development Review 16-01, and Zone Variance 16-02 for the construction of 21-unit residential planned development. SECTION 7. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on March 6, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: DANG, ENG, LOPEZ, AND TANG NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: HERRERA SECTION 6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 6th day of March, 2017. Daniel Lopez, Chair 7 CERTIFICA TION 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 6th day of March, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: DANG, ENG, LOPEZ, AND TANG NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: HERRERA ( (14„Lb e Michelle Ramirez, S4tary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Gregory M. Murphy, Planning Commission Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP 8 d E M O \ CIIRI /J IVDE TED Attachment F Planning Commission Draft Minutes dated March 6, 2017 r Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 6, 2017 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Lopez at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers, 8838 E.Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Commissioner Tang INVOCATION—Vice-Chair Dang ROLL CALL—Commissioners Eng,Tang, Vice-Chair Dang and Chair Lopez ABSENT—Commissioner Herrera STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez, City Engineer Fajardo, City Planner Valenzuela, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Murphy presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. He stated both items are for recommendations to the City Council, so there will not be an appeal from an action but you would want comments to be on the record as the items go on to the City Council. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 16-01, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 74095, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 16-01, AND ZONE VARIANCE 16-02 - La Terra Development, LLC. has submitted entitlement applications for the construction of a 21-unit planned development project. The project includes four home designs and three floor plans. The size of the single-family dwelling varies from 1,706 square feet to 2,353 square feet with an attached two-car garage. The proposed development will include three private streets, 19,908 square feet of common open space, and 18,287 square feet of private open space. The subject site is located at 1151 San Gabriel Boulevard in a Planned Development(P-D)zone. PC RESOLUTION 17-03-A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 16-01, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 74095, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 16-01, AND ZONE VARIANCE 16-02 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 21-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 1152 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD IN A P-D ZONE (APN: 5275-015-042). Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17-03 with findings, which is a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 2017-12 approving General Plan Amendment 16-01,Tentative Tract Map 74095, Planned Development Review 16-01, and Zone Variance 16-02 and adopt the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. City Planner Valenzuela presented the staff report and a power point presentation. 1 Community Development Director Ramirez stated the added condition of approval would be number 31 and the others would be moved down one. Chair Lopez asked if the Planning Commission had any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng asked staff if this added condition will be under the Engineering Conditions of Approval. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no, it is not an Engineering Condition of Approval, it is a Project Specific Conditions of Approval. She added it will be number 31 and the remaining numbers will be moved down one. She added if there are questions this evening please refer to the numbers presented in the staff report. Commissioner Eng stated some of her questions may be for the applicant, so if they are please let her know. She asked how long this project will take beginning with grading to ready for occupancy. City Planner Valenzuela replied that question may be deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Eng stated the site is slightly elevated and asked if there are plans for it to be built at that level. City Planner Valenzuela replied that question may be deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Eng asked if there are plans to have a gate at the entrance. City Planner Valenzuela replied currently on the fencing and wall plan there is not and explained it is up to the applicant to choose to have a gated development. Commissioner Eng stated she will confirm that with the applicant and asked if the Traffic Consultant is present this evening. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Eng referred to page 60 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which indicates that the construction noise level for this project will not exceed the City's noise decibel of 65 and asked how realistic this is for a project of this size and to keep it there. City Planner Valenzuela stated the Environment Document Consultant is present and can address that question. Commissioner Eng referred to page 66 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and stated they are using Sheriff's Personnel data from the year"2008"and asked if that data is still current. City Planner Valenzuela replied the data is being obtained from the City's General Plan and is the most current. Commissioner Eng asked if the General Plan was updated in 2008. Community Development Director Ramirez replied it was updated in 2010. Commissioner Eng asked if staff knows if there are 23 deputies, one sergeant, and one lieutenant. Community Development Director Ramirez replied she does not have that information but there is one sergeant, one lieutenant, and there are deputy teams. 2 Commissioner Eng referred to the site plan, Lot number 7, and stated there is a parcel that looks onto the neighbor's property, which has a swimming pool, and asked what is proposed for privacy issues. City Planner Valenzuela replied a condition of approval has been added that privacy landscaping shall be provided throughout these three residential properties. Commissioner Eng stated she is not sure if the other properties have expanded back-yard areas and she wanted to make sure the property with the pool had been addressed. She referred to Condition of Approval number 21, read the second sentence, and stated there may be a typo because it reads commercial building, but there are no commercial buildings. City Planner Valenzuela replied that is a typo. Commissioner Eng asked staff what it will be changed to. City Planner Valenzuela replied it will be changed to residential. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 23, read it, and asked if it is referring to the garages. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if there are no carports and if guest parking is out in the street. City Planner Valenzuela replied that is correct. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 24, the comprehensive Construction Management Plan. She asked if there is a standard condition and plans to include security for the site, as well for the construction equipment, and if this is something staff looks for. City Planner Valenzuela replied no, but if the Planning Commission would like that included staff will add it. Commissioner Eng replied yes. She explained that while construction is not taking place there may be trespassing, things may be taken, and someone may get hurt on the equipment. She asked for City Attorney Murphy assistance in the placement of this condition. City Attorney Murphy stated in Condition of Approval number 24,the second sentence list a number of items that need to be addressed in the plan and the word security can be added to the list of items. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 27, read the first sentence, and asked if the common areas include the private streets. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. City Attorney Murphy stated if streets are not dedicated to the public, then they will be called out in the CCR's as part of the common area. Commissioner Eng asked if this project will have a Homeowners Association. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. 3 Fr Commissioner Eng asked City Attorney Murphy if it can be stipulated that the Homeowners Association be professionally managed for a project this size. City Attorney Murphy replied he is not sure if that can be required. He stated most Homeowners Associations will contract that out and in terms of having to put a second level of authority on that,and contract with a single manager, rather than dealing with various maintenance,landscape maintenance,or other type of maintenances on their own. He stated he defers this to the Planning Commission and if they would like to recommend to City Council to take that step, they may do so, but that may get into the details of the HOA functions. Community Development Director Ramirez stated any other HOA's within the City, the City does not get involved with the HOA's, they do not review them, they do not give any input, and they are privately ran. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 29 asked if the streets are wide enough for the Trash Disposal trucks to maneuver, to enter, and exit. Rafael Fajardo. City Engineer, replied yes, and gave the width of the street. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 51 and asked if parcel refers to the project or does it refer to each of the individual parcels within the development. City Engineer Fajardo replied this is a typo and where it is stated public driveway it was meant to say per unit. Commissioner Eng confirmed that this is applicable to each of parcels within the project. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes. Commissioner Eng read Condition of Approval number 67 and stated there is a typo and there should be a space between the words''relocated"and`'as". She asked who will be responsible for the cost of the relocation of that power pole. City Engineer Fajardo replied the developer is responsible for the improvement. Commissioner Eng asked if that should be clarified on the condition of approval. City Engineer Fajardo replied the developer is responsible to contact Edison for the relocation of the power pole and to pay the permit fees. Commissioner Eng asked if that will be at the developer's expense. Community Development Director clarified that it is at the applicant's expense. City Attorney Murphy recommended to not putting that phrase in one condition because all of the conditions have to be satisfied by the applicant. He explained if that phrase is put in one condition, then it will need to be phrased in all the conditions or else it will create some confusion. He stated it is generally understood that the conditions are on the applicant and the applicant must meet them. He recommended that this condition be left as is. Commissioner Eng stated the reason she asked was because she had seen it in other places that is specified that the expense was the responsibility of the applicant. She stated if this is generally understood and staff is satisfied with this, then she is also. 4 Commissioner Tang referred to Condition of Approval number 67 and stated in the last discussion regarding this lot, there was a question regarding the entrance to that lot. He stated it was mentioned that it was 20 feet wide and it needed to be expanded to 24 feet and asked if that was correct. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes, it was 24 feet. Commissioner Tang asked if the only way to get those 24 feet was to relocate the light pole. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes. He explained a transition will take place as part of the condition and referred to Condition of Approval number 60, which requires an off-site improvement plans that the applicant will need to be submit. He stated under the construction plans they will have to indicate how they will do that transition on the sidewalk to achieve the 24-26 feet. Commissioner Tang asked if currently it is at 20 feet. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes. Commissioner Tang asked if there are walls in-between each individual unit. He stated he is trying to get clarification of the wall plan for the entire lot and within the individual units. City Planner Valenzuela referred to the wall plan and pointed out the privacy fences within the power point presentation. Commissioner Tang asked how high those privacy fences are. City Planner Valenzuela replied the fences do vary, some are 6 feet, or 5 feet 6 inches, and she explained they do have to meet the City's code requirements and they are required to submit a final wall plan. Commissioner Tang asked if that is the wall that is made of vinyl. City Planner Valenzuela replied that the vinyl is the privacy fencing shown in green. Commissioner Tang referred to the property wall and fencing on the North and South side and asked what type of wall will that be. City Planner Valenzuela replied on the North there currently is an existing wall that belongs to the Church and there is a condition stipulating the will have to install a new fence. She explained that it has not been decided if it will be a block wall or what type they will be. She added the applicant is still researching that to make sure the right type of materials will be used. Commissioner Tang asked what will be on the South side. City Planner Valenzuela replied on the South side a tubular steel fence will be used and the colors will match the slump stone they are proposing. Commissioner Tang asked what is on the East and West wall. City Planner Valenzuela replied the East and West will be slump stone. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further comments or questions for staff. None 5 Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Daryl Sequeira, stated he is present on behalf of the applicant La Terra Development, LLC. He thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their help and guidance in this process. He gave a brief summary of their company, the project, and let the Planning Commission know that Public Outreach was completed for this project and they received favorable feedback from the public. He addressed questions asked by the Planning Commission (barely audible).The first question was in regards to the timing of the project and he replied the over-all time frame will take about 12-15 months. Second question was in regards to the elevation of the pad and he explained it is raised slightly to allow for drainage purposes. The third question was in regards to a gated community and he explained it will not be gated as they would like it to be an extension of the community, not walled off or separated so that it fits better into the neighbor context. He addressed the last question in regards to privacy concerns for the homes that back up to Orange to the East and West property line. He stated most of the homes orient to the North and South, so the windows face the West, they are smaller bedroom windows, and they will have some screening and landscaping along that edge to address those concerns. He addressed the fencing question and stated during their Public Outreach they had met Pastor Wu from Evergreen Baptist Church and he had a concern with the combination fence and privacy issues. Vice-Chair Dang referred to the Civil Plan and Landscaping Plan and asked in terms of the street will it be asphalt. Daryl Sequeira replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang asked if that is the dark colored one. Daryl Sequeira replied yes and looks like the City streets. Vice-Chair Dang asked the City Engineer is the City uses asphalt or does it use concrete. City Engineer Fajardo replied it depends, they are trying to use concrete in the intersections because the life span is about 25 years. He added currently they are using rubber asphalt within the City. Vice-Chair Dang stated the reason he is asking is because dark colored asphalt is very hot and creates a lot of heat. He added per the California Green Building Code it restricts a lot of use of dark asphalt. He asked the applicant if they would consider using a lighter concrete instead of dark asphalt. Daryl Sequeira replied they have considered it with other projects, but on a maintenance standpoint, asphalt is in the long term is easier to maintain. He added it is difficult to repair concrete and harder to maintain. He added whereas asphalt is low maintenance and they are conscience of keeping the HOA Fees at a low cost level. Vice-Chair Dang agreed that asphalt blends itself much easier for maintenance, especially if it rains and there is a pot hole it is easier to install asphalt.He stated that concrete will give a longer better life span and asked that they consider. He also referred to the landscaping plan and the pavers at the entrance of the driveway and asked the dimensions of the pavers. Daryl Sequeira replied they are about 20 feet. Vice-Chair Dang requested that the architect add 20 feet to the dimensions. Daryl Sequeira agreed. Vice-Chair Dang referred to sheet L1,dealing with vinyl privacy fencing,and asked clarifications on the locations of the vinyl. 6 7, Daryl Sequeira clarified where vinyl privacy fencing will be located. (Not audible) Vice-Chair Dang stated that vinyl does look great, it is easy to install, but it does not have the shelf life and over time it will become brittle. He encouraged the applicant to use something such as metal or CMU. Daryl Sequeira explained reasons why vinyl is being used,which is for space issues, locations of where it will be used, and that the CC&R's would address the issues with the fencing material. (Barely Audible) Commissioner Eng complimented the applicant on the design of the homes, the functionality, and the private outdoor space in each of the yards. She stated she appreciates that public outreach was conducted in that area because this is significant addition to the neighborhood and is glad the feedbacks were positive. She referred to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and stated it indicated that during the construction phase for a residential neighborhood the noise levels would not exceed over 65 decibels and asked if that is realistic for a project of this size. Daryl Sequeira deferred this question to Olivia Chan, Representative for MIG, Inc. Olivia Chan,Representative of MIG, Inc.,referred to page 61 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report and explained process for noise level measurements, what they are based on, and stated they should be realistic. (Not audible) Commissioner Eng asked if this is a one phase project or will it be completed in different phases. Daryl Sequiera replied it will look like one phase, but generally it will be constructed in two phases. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant is planning to have model homes. Daryl Sequeira replied yes,there will be models to some extent, depending on the interest. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions for staff. None Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and called Brian Lewin to the podium. Brian Lewin, resident, stated that it is good they have improved the access point to the site, but the choke point up there is that it is being the sole access point to the site, and that is what concerns him from a safety viewpoint. He stated it will be better than it was, but it is still very constricted relative to a regular street. He stated when there are 21 residences and only one access point to it,you want to have a standard width street as the access point. He stated that is his primary concern with this project and in terms of aesthetics it looks nice. He also echo's Commissioner Eng's comment of appreciation for Public Outreach because there are too many projects that get dropped unexpectedly on peoples laps and he is glad they actually talked to people. Reverend Chuong Nguyen stated he is the Director/Administrator of Saint Joseph Retreat Center. He stated that this site is the most sacred site in the City because there is a Baptist Church in the North, a Catholic Church retreat in the South, and a school in the East. He stated his concerns are privacy and noise due to the Retreat Home being on the South side and requested this be considered. Chair Lopez stated while construction is taking place a sound barrier will be used if the machinery is too loud. He stated that staff will have to make sure this is addressed if it is too loud. 7 Vice-Chair Dang requested to look at the Civil Plan. Sheet 1,shown on the power point presentation,looked at Section E, and stated the development is 7-8 feet above the Church, and the Reverend has concerns with privacy. He echo's that concern and recommended that the applicant put a solid mesh or something to obscure the viewing onto the Church's property. Daryl Sequeira stated they looked at that property line and it is proposed that that a new keystone wall with a iron fence on top of that, which is the open wire fence. He stated currently there is an iron fence so they were just replicating that and unless there is an objection by the Civil he does not know why a block wall could not be on top of there. Vice-Chair Dang asked so in lieu of the rod iron it would be a block wall. Daryl Sequeira replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang requested that be added as a condition of approval. City Attorney Murphy recommended rather than a condition of approval, when this goes to the City Council with their recommendations that will give the applicant time to update their plans to show it will be a block wall rather than the split wall. He stated the conditions of approval start by saying that the development is in conformance with the plans and that will be the best way to do it because it will actually be on a revised plan. Community Development Director Ramirez stated staff agrees and will make sure that happens. Chair Lopez asked if there is anyone else wishing to speak. None Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing and asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments. Commissioner Eng asked in regards to Brian Lewin's concern in the egress and ingress to the site, if staff or the applicant had considered feasibility for a better access point to the site. Daryl Sequeira replied the only access to the property is from Orange Street and regarding the ingress and egress,the plans were engineered and looked at by the City's Engineer and was also reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. City Engineer Fajardo stated there will be a 26 feet clearance, a red curb will be installed, so there will not be cars parked there, and will be clear most of the time. Chair Lopez asked if there were any other comments or questions. None Chair Lopez requested a motion. Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Chair Lopez,to ADOPT Resolution No. 17-03 with findings, which is a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 2017-12 approving General Plan Amendment 16-01, Tentative Tract Map 74095, Planned Development Review 16-01, and Zone Variance 16-02 and adopt the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Vote resulted in: 8 r Yes: Dang, Eng, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: Herrera Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with a 4 Ayes and 0 Noes vote. She stated there is no appeal process because this item will go to the City Council for approval,which tentatively will be held on Tuesday, March 28,2017. B. DESIGN REVIEW 16-02, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-01, AND ZONE CHANGE 16-01 - Ivar Eagle, LLC has submitted entitlement applications to construct a new five—story Hampton Inn & Suites with 123 guest rooms. The hotel includes a business center with a computer, fax machine and photocopy machine; fitness center; meeting rooms; swimming pool; and, snack shop. The project proposes to provide 125 parking spaces. New landscaping will be provided along the northern, western, and southern project boundaries to buffer the project from the adjacent uses. A three-foot tall block wall and landscaping will be constructed along the eastern project boundary to separate and buffer the project from the UFC Gym and its parking lot adjacent to and east of the site.The hotel is proposed to be 67'-9" in height. The property is located at 8900 Glendon Way (southeast corner of Ivar Avenue and Glendon Way) in a Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay(C-3/D-0)and a Planned Development(P-D)zone. PC RESOLUTION 17-04 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW 16-02, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-01,AND ZONE CHANGE 16- 01 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HAMPTON INN & SUITES WITH 123 GUEST ROOMS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8900 GLENDON WAY IN A C-3/D-0 AND A P-D ZONES (APN: 5390-018- 036). Staff Recommendation- It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17-04 with findings, which is a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 2017-10, approving Design Review 16-02 and Conditional Use Permit 16-01,adopt Ordinance 972 approving Zone Change 16-01, and adopt the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. City Planner Valenzuela presented the staff report and power point presentation. She added that staff has received two letters from the public. She stated one letter is from the owners of the UFC Gym and is in regards to an agreement between the two owners, which the applicant will address. She added the second letter is in opposition to the project. Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commissioners if there were any comments or questions for staff. Commissioner Eng stated some of her questions may be for the applicant. She asked staff how many hotels does the City of Rosemead have and what the occupancy rate is. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that staff does have that information but it is not available this evening and the occupancy rate is very high. City Planner Valenzuela stated there are 14 hotels. Commissioner Eng asked what the occupancy rate is. 9 Community Development Director Ramirez replied that the occupancy rate is generally at 95%. She added having these hotel units busy every night is not an issue. Commissioner Tang asked if this includes motels or is it just hotels. City Planner Valenzuela replied 14 and includes both hotels and motels. Commissioner Eng stated the reason she is asking is because recently it seems like everyone is developing hotel projects. Community Development Director Ramirez stated staff sees that and that is why they scrutinize hotel projects when they come in because like the Planning Commission, they want to make sure this hotel comes in and functions, and does turn into something undesirable that they don't want within the community. She added staff looks through it very carefully during this process. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant did a market study. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes,they did. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant already has a franchise agreement with Hampton Inn. City Planner Valenzuela replied according to the applicant yes. Commissioner Eng asked what the height of the Qiao Garden Hotel is. She stated she knows it is 3-stories. City Planner Valenzuela replied it is 43 Feet 2 inches. Commissioner Eng stated she noticed as part of the amenities the hotel has meeting rooms and ball rooms and asked if that was accounted for in parking spaces. City Planner Valenzuela replied there are no ball rooms and the meeting rooms are only for hotel patrons. Commissioner Eng asked if the meeting rooms they currently have are only for the hotel patrons and it is not like a conference center. City Planner Valenzuela replied that is correct and it cannot be leased out. Commissioner Eng stated the staff report indicates that there are 5 RV spaces, asked where they are, and are they designated on the site plans. She requested the site plan be displayed in power point presentation. City Planner Valenzuela referred to the power point presentation and pointed the 5 RV spaces out to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Eng asked if those spaces will accommodate tour buses. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if there is a loading or delivery area. 10 City Planner Valenzuela replied that item is something staff is going to request be a condition of approval, because then they can use any of their standard parking spaces for loading. She added they will have to dedicate 12 parking spaces for loading to meet the municipal code. Commissioner Eng asked if a condition of approval will need to be added for that. City Planner Valenzuela replied a Condition of Approval will not need to be added because in the conditions of approval it does state that they do have to meet the parking requirements and off-street parking requirements. She added that is part of the Municipal Code Off-Street requirements. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant will have to designate loading spaces. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes,and it can be put into Condition of Approval number 1,where the plans are revised to call out those loading spaces. Commissioner Eng stated that is direction to staff then. She asked staff if during the traffic study was it taken into account the trips generated by Qiao Gardens. Elie Farah, Traffic Engineer, replied yes, they did take that into account for the 2018 Analysis. Commissioner Eng stated she could not tell from the Traffic Study. She requested the traffic consultant walk the Planning Commission through the study, because she is concerned around the area of the on-ramp and off-ramp of the 10-Freeway and on the side. She stated she found it confusing when she went to do her site inspection and would like to know how the study was conducted. City Planner Valenzuela stated Keith Rutherford, Traffic Consultant from Phil Martin & Associates, is also present to speak on behalf of the traffic study. Commissioner Eng stated when the Public Hearing is opened she requested that the Traffic Consultant speak because traffic is a major concern for this area. She stated in terms of waste water and that in the Mitigated Negative Declaration it indicated it has less that significant impact or no impact and it has 123 rooms with high turnover, laundry area, and the volume seems large to her. She stated she would like to understand how that would not have a less than significant impact. She would like to know what is reviewed for this analysis. City Planner Valenzuela replied that Phil Martin is the consultant and he is present to answer that question. Commissioner Eng referred to the Resolution Finding, on page 22, of the staff report, and stated this is something she learned by attending the Planning Commission Academy, she recommended adding to the second finding to the last sentence "The proposed amendment would correct the dual zone classification by changing the subject site to only C- 3/D-O because it promotes good zoning practice". She added it would just describe the reason for the zoning better and because the Zone Variance will bring the zoning into consistency. City Attorney Murphy asked Commissioner Eng to clarify her request. He stated he has no problem with the change but for clarification it is not a Zone Variance it is a Zone Change. Commissioner Eng referred to the Mitigation Measure Program there are a couple of mitigation measures numbers 14 and 15 in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, but it does not appear that is part of the mitigation monitoring reporting program and she is wondering if that needs to go in there. 11 r , City Planner Valenzuela stated that was a technical mistake and when she was making copies page 12 was omitted. She added that it has been printed out and number 13, 14, and 15 were added to the conditions of approval and are in the program correctly. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 24 and asked if there was any covered parking for this project. City Planner Valenzuela replied no. Commissioner Eng read Condition of Approval number 24,which refers to covered parking spaces City Planner Valenzuela replied that is a standard condition of approval in place and it is in case in the future they may request to have a covered structure. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 25, which is the Construction Management Plan, and requested that the following be added: "Security for the site and equipment during construction". She referred to Condition of Approval number 27 and read it and asked how this performance will be guaranteed, is there a MOU, or what will hold both parties to make sure they will perform. City Planner Valenzuela replied they will have to submit a recorded easement, and, staff and the City Attorney will review it. Community Development Director Ramirez stated what ensures that it gets done is that declaration of restrictions, which is already recorded against both properties. Commissioner Eng asked if that is the guarantee of performance. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Commissioner Eng read Condition of Approval number 48, regarding a Pedestrian Route Circulation Study and asked why this has not already been done. City Engineer Fajardo replied it is to his understanding it has not been done because it is part of his condition from the Engineering Department. He stated it needs to indicate if they need to include any new crosswalks in this vicinity and how the pedestrians are going to go into this shopping center. Commissioner Eng stated this is an important concern for the City and she is curious why this isn't something that has not been required already or is something that is worked with the applicant on. • City Engineer Fajardo stated this was a condition that was brought up after the Traffic Analysis was revised for the traffic circulation for both hotels. He added to be accurate another analysis will be necessary to find out the best way to have pedestrians safely cross over to the shopping center. Commissioner Eng asked before the applicant can pull permits a plan will have to be developed and get approved. City Engineer Fajardo replied this is part of the condition of approval and the applicant will have to submit a circulation plan for their approval. He stated suggestions will be made but safety is what is emphasized. He stated there will be other considerations included such as timing of signal lights, new crosswalks, flashings in the crosswalks and intersections of Glendon Way and Ivar Avenue, or whatever is necessary for the safety of the pedestrians and patrons of these facilities. 12 Commissioner Eng expressed this is an important component of this project. She stated you would want to take advantage of the commercial amenities across the way and to be able to have people access it safely. She referred to Condition of Approval number 67 and asked how it will be enforced or checked. City Planner Valenzuela explained that was one of the mitigated measures and the consultant may address that. Commissioner Eng referred to Mitigated Measure Conditions numbers 69 and 70 and the phrase "certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space" and asked what that is. City Planner Valenzuela explained that was just a typo and staff can make that modification. Commissioner Eng asked if that correction needs to be made to make it clearer. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes, and stated it can just say"hotel". Commissioner Eng stated those two conditions should correspond to Mitigation Measure Conditions number 14 and 15 and staff should do whatever it needs to clean it up. Commissioner Tang asked since this is next to UFC Gym was the parking requirement taken into account for both the gym and the proposed site. City Planner Valenzuela replied UFC Gym has its own parcel, own parking requirements, has 185 parking stalls for that lot itself,which accommodates their project. She added that they do not need any further parking from the side to meet their requirements. Vice-Chair Dang asked the City Engineer when street trees are required to be placed. City Engineer Fajardo referred to Condition of Approval number 46 and stated Parkway trees will be required. Vice-Chair Dang asked how many trees will be required. City Engineer Fajardo replied that the number of trees that will be planted is decided when Civil Plans are submitted with off-site improvements. He explained there are currently mature trees on Ivar Avenue and he will check with the Arborist to confirm which trees stay and how many more may be needed. Vice-Chair Dang asked if Glendon Way will also have trees planted. City Engineer Fajardo replied it will be the same for Glendon Way. Vice-Chair Dang asked if in general is there a rule of thumb that they are every 20 or 30 feet away from each other. City Engineer Fajardo explained the process. (Not audible) Vice-Chair Dang asked if it is roughly every 50 feet. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang asked if that was the rule of thumb. City Engineer Fajardo explained that utilities, such as sewer lines and utility poles, also need to be considered. (Not audible) 13 Vice-Chair Dang asked if the Utility Plan needs to be reviewed to make sure the trees do not interrupt the infrastructure. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang asked if the site plan is a little premature and does not show all the trees. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes. City Planner Valenzuela stated the applicant will submit a final landscaping plan and all that information will be called out. Vice-Chair Dang referred to the site plan, pointed out a trash container, and looking at the property line, it looks like it is within the UFC Gym property. He asked if it is serving the hotel. City Planner Valenzuela replied this trash container does serve UFC Gym. Commissioner Eng asked if the two driveways are existing driveways and if they are going to be moved. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes they are existing driveways. City Engineer Fajardo explained that the driveways will be brand new and be replaced, so will the sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. Commissioner Eng asked if the driveways are being relocated or moved. City Engineer Fajardo replied no. Commissioner Tang asked if there is street parking heading East on Glendon Way. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Tang stated this is a very narrow street and for a project of this size he requested that he would like to get the Traffic Consultants opinion on that piece. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions or comments for staff. None Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to the podium. Simon Lee, Architect of the project, introduced and requested Patric Pan, Representative for Ivar Eagle, LLC to the podium. Representative Patric Pan stated they feel fortunate to manage to reach this stage thanks to the help and cooperation of the Planning Division and Hilton. He stated this project will not only bring a benefit to Ivar Eagle but to the City as a whole by bringing in more revenue and provide a use for what was previously an un-used parking lot. He stated he will address some of the concerns of the letters that had been sent. He stated in regards to the easements they do recognize the significance of the existing easement and they take enforcement of it very seriously. He referred to the plan and stated most of the entries are as existing, however if necessary. the southernmost entry where it is the awkward L-shape, they are willing to correct it and make it completely straight to meet ingress and egress easier, but 14 it would require moving the fire hydrant,since it is in that exact spot. He stated as for the second letter he has not had the opportunity to view it and he is not sure what Mrs. McDonald concerns are. He requested a summary and he would be happy to answer to the best of his ability. City Planner Valenzuela gave Patric Pan a copy of the letter. Representative Patric Pan stated if there are any questions in regards to the architecture or traffic study they can ask Simon Lee or Traffic Specialist Keith Rutherford. Commissioner Eng stated she would like to hear from the Traffic Consultant. Phil Martin, from Phil Martin & Associates, stated they are in contract with the City and they prepared the Mitigated Negative Declaration. He stated in regards to the question Commissioner Eng had regarding waste water treatment, when they started this project he sent service letters to various service utility companies that serve the project,including the sanitation districts of Los Angeles. He said the numbers in Table Number 23, on page 79, are there waste water generation number and it was in the letter that they sent back to him dated August 16th of last year. He stated their letter also did not indicate any impacts or issues with them not having adequate capacity to treat the waste water from the project. He stated in regards to traffic he will not attempt to answer traffic questions so Keith Rutherford, from Stantec, will address those. Keith Rutherford, Traffic Consultant from Stantec Consultant Services, referred to the Power Point Presentation and pointed out the accesses into the site. He addressed and asked Commissioner Eng what part of the Traffic Analysis would she like him to address. Commissioner Eng replied she would like to understand what they look at and her main concern is the freeway on- ramp and off-ramp and the impact of this project. Traffic Consultant Rutherford stated in the beginning there was a Scoping Meeting with staff and Caltrans here in the City, to get Caltrans to buy into and provide input on what they wanted them to study. He stated the ramps and intersections they wanted studied were also included in this study. He added Caltrans did review this study and those concerns were identified up front and were addressed. He stated the Qiao Garden Hotel was included, new traffic data was collected for this, and is less than a year old. He stated when that hotel re-opens, it will add 53 additional rooms and those were added in and treated that like a cumulative project. He also added in the traffic from identified projects in the neighborhood that would cumulative traffic volumes. He addressed the question on how they generate the traffic, they did use 100%occupancy rate, considering worst case to have the hotel completely full, so the project analysis they do includes the volumes they took, grown 1%until the project is completed, so they fluff up the existing,they add the project traffic to that combined with traffic generated by any local development projects that have been identified. He stated it is very conservative and they do cap a wide net to capture the traffic that could impact these intersections. Commissioner Eng asked if they have a study of that area of the on-ramp that can be provided. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied yes,and referred to the study area. Figure 3 in the Traffic Study,and it documents the existing lane configurations, existing traffic controls, and shows what the existing network is in their study area. Commissioner Eng requested that figure be pulled up on the Power Point Presentation. Traffic Consultant Rutherford stated this is in agreement with Caltrans and the City,they included Ivar Avenue,the on- ramp and off-ramp of the freeway, and the actual signal light intersection at Rosemead Boulevard and Glendon Way. 15 ammone Phil Martin,from Phil Martin&Associates,stated it is Figure 18 in the Mitigated Negative Declaration,which is a project trip distribution and shows the site and the all the surrounding area roadway system. Traffic Consultant Rutherford stated that is the exhibit he is referring to. He pointed out the areas on the power point presentation to the Planning Commission, which were discussed and agreed upon in the scope meeting with Caltrans and the City. Commissioner Eng asked if the numbers are the current existing trips. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied yes,those are existing peak am, and pm,volumes. Commissioner Eng referred to the number 3,618 and asked what that number represents in this study. Traffic Consultant Rutherford stated that number is a link volume for the am, peak hour, and that is the two-way link volume. He stated of all the numbers they have up there that is all the traffic they have going both ways on Rosemead Boulevard during the am peak hour. Commissioner Eng asked if the existing number includes Qiao Garden Hotel. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied yes,with am peak hour. He stated the Qiao Garden Hotel is closed currently and not open to traffic, so that is one reason explicitly modeled their traffic and added it into the analysis. He added they could not capture them in existing volumes. Commissioner Eng stated the two-way am peak hour number is currently 3,618 and asked what that number will be once this project is completed. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied that would be on Figure 11A, page 3.9, and the number is 3,631. He explained they use that for informational purposes and what they really use is the peak hour analysis and look at the intersection. He added the intersection really determines the level of service of the roadway, because that is where the bottlenecks are. Commissioner Eng asked what the difference in number is. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied it is 13. He added there really is not a lot and Caltrans had wanted them to look at Valley Boulevard and they tried to balance where they go and if they send everyone to the intersection on Valley Boulevard they are not really going to get any impacts down there, so they have to use a reasonable distribution so they sent 50%of the traffic to the freeway and sent 15% up Valley Boulevard. He stated so they are getting 15% of what they get in the am peak hour, which is only 15 trips. He stated when they look at this, they use two tools and Caltrans uses a Highway Capacity Manual Method, which calculates delay and assigns a letter grade based on delay. He stated the County uses a fraction of capacity ratio along with capacity and assigns a letter grade based on that. He added they look at both methods for this report. Commissioner Tang asked how they will anticipate the traffic flow with both the project site and with the opening of Qiao Garden Hotel along Glendon Way. Traffic Consultant Rutherford referred to the Power Point Presentation Figure 3 and 4 on page 2.6, and explained the directions of the traffic flow at intersections. Commissioner Tang stated the reason he asked is that the intersection on Figure 4 does get bottlenecked during peak hours or non-peak hours and he does not want to see it happen at heading on east bound Glendon Way also. 16 Traffic Consultant Rutherford stated this is a non-project move and like it was stated,there will also be people that will want to walk to some of the retail, and then you are talking about an enhanced cross-walk treatment. He explained the traffic flow, delay values, movement, and stated there is no significant impact associated with this project at those intersections. Commissioner Tang stated that is why he asked his initial about parking at the UFC Gym on Glendon Way heading east bound, because if there was a need to improve traffic flow, then they would have to eliminate parking for cars to turn right or entering the freeway. He added then they would still have an access or to have a free lane to do so. Traffic Consultant Rutherford stated striping is proposed to allow access on Glendon Way and it would require in the east bound direction or west bound direction on Glendon Way that parking is allowed on the first 70 feet. He referred to a diagram and showed where it will have to be striped red to eliminate the parking for about 3 vehicles. He stated this is the same type of treatment that exists for the UFC Gym access and movement number here is small, the am peak hours would be about 21 vehicles for the left turn, and a pocket of about 40 to 50 feet should be needed for a volume of level. He stated that way they will make sure thru traffic will not be impeded by those vehicles turning left into the Hampton Inn. Commissioner Eng asked if there is a proposal to eliminate parking on the East side of Glendon Way. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied he is going to call that the north side and does not believe there is any parking here. Commissioner Eng asked if parking will be eliminated on the South side then. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied on the South side yes.just immediately West of Ivar Avenue. He stated there is a small 75 foot stretch that is not red curb, it's allowed, and that will have to be red curbed. Commissioner Tang asked what about the section that is 75 feet closest to the entrance of the 10-Freeway. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied that is not their frontage and they will not be proposing any changes to it or be required to make any. He added that is restricted in that area, approaching that intersection too. it has been cleaned out, and that is why they painted a symbol in the ground for the 10-Freeway. Vice-Chair Dang asked for the traffic study the pm hours are from what time. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied pm hours are from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm. Vice-Chair Dang asked what the am peak hours are. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied they are from 7:00 am to 9:00 am. Vice-Chair Dang stated to put things into perspective it would a perfect storm to have the hotel guest leave between 7:00 am to 9:00 am. Traffic Consultant Rutherford stated that is what they assumed. Vice-Chair Dang replied of course to have a conservative report. He added they assumed the hotel guest were leaving the exact peak hours when the street is fully congested,which is morning rush hour, and on the flip side,the afternoon rush hours when people are coming home. 17 Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied exactly, and they use the ITE, Trip Generation Manuel, they actually surveyed uses and they take the data from those times and they call it a one hour created before 4:00 and 6:00 pm of the adjacent street traffic. He stated they are actually surveying those uses at that time. Vice-Chair Dang asked if they assume a perfect storm scenario in order to calculate this study. Traffic Consultant Rutherford agreed, but for example they do not look at the peak hour of the generator, the site may generate the most traffic at 10:00 but who cares because the streets are much more open at that time. He added they do have that data and they do check the on-site flow based on those numbers because they are significant for on-site circulation. Traffic Engineer Fajardo stated he has a clarification and addressed Mr. Rutherford. He stated they are proposing a red curb to adjoin the existing red curb of 76 feet. He added he would like to add another new red curb to the new proposed driveway to the existing driveway of the UFC Gym. Traffic Consultant Rutherford clarified which side and agreed to his request. City Engineer Fajardo stated staff will add a condition of approval for this request. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that is something staff will add when it goes to the City Council. Representative Patric Pan stated he has had the opportunity to read Mrs. McDonald's letter and while she has legitimate concerns, they are not significant to this project. He stated her first concern is the height of the building being 5 stories and they made a deliberate design decision to keep it kept at 5 stories because they believe it is the ideal height to maximize the square footage without it having to peer over the private residences. He stated if you look at the site plan you have the UFC Gym to the East,there is the U-Haul,there is a storage area,the Qiao Garden Hotel to the West,and the 10-Freeway to the South. He stated the only residential area is adjacent to the condo/apartments to the North where there are no back-yards or private areas to look into. He stated Mrs. McDonald's address is on the other side of the Qiao Garden Hotel and there is no realistic way for someone from the Hilton Inn to look into her back yard. He added her other concerns such as lights, noise, and air pollution they believe the Mitigated Negative Declaration has all of the mitigating strategies to answer those. He stated she commented this is a cheap motel but this is the Hampton Inn. which is a large and successful hotel chain that is owned by Hilton. He added that is there response to that letter and that he is open to any question in regards to the project. Commissioner Eng asked how long they anticipate it will take from grading to occupancy. Representative Patric Pan replied it will take about 18 months. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 67 regarding the shakiness and asked how is that going to be enforced. She asked if that is a geological concern and if a consultant will address that. Representative Patric Pan replied that is a question for one of the engineers. Vice-Chair Dang stated he is looking at the conceptual landscaping plan and he recommended it would be a good feature to have pavers within the first 20 feet or so adjacent to the driveway. He commented it would add a more welcoming appeal as you turn into their very nice establishment. Representative Patric Pan replied he will take that into account in the design. Vice-Chair Dang asked if the parking area will be asphalt or concrete. 18 Representative Patric Pan replied asphalt is commonly used and the current parking lot is asphalt,so they are using a similar type. Vice-Chair Dang asked if they are re-doing the entire parking area or is it being left as is. Representative Patric Pan replied that it is very likely they will re-do the entire parking area as part of the construction. Vice-Chair Dang asked if they are going to replace it with asphalt. Representative Patric Pan replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang stated he would like to reiterate the concern about the heat island effect. He requested that perhaps they will talk to their consultants into looking into the Green Code requirements. He added he will leave that to their consultants to address. Commissioner Tang stated they are barely meeting the parking requirements and they have 123 guest rooms, plus 6 employees,with 1 parking per 3 employees, and asked if this is sufficient parking for a hotel. Representative Patric Pan replied that is a question for the Architect because he is the one that came up with the numbers. Architect Simon Lee stated he will have 3 shifts,with 6 staff per shift,which should be sufficient. Commissioner Tang expressed concern that even with switching shifts that 6 employees would not be able to manage a 123 room hotel. Architect Simon Lee stated that usually 123 rooms are not entirely occupied. He also commented that the parking spaces will not be filled entirely at the same time,the City's parking code requirement, and that they have 125 parking spaces. Commissioner Eng stated she knows that studies have been made for this project and asked if any additional community outreach had been done for this project. Architect Simon Lee replied not for this project, this project is in a commercial area, does not have very much residential, and named the surrounding businesses. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that in other franchise hotels it is actually the franchise that dictates the design on how the hotel will be done. She explained even when residents want to have input it may not be what the Hampton Inn's will allow and will have to go through the Hampton Inn franchise for approval. Representative Patric Pan stated even though Hampton Inn does have a say they are usually very cooperative, so if there is a legitimate concern,then they will try to make some kind of accommodation for it. Resident Brian Lewin, stated that he disagrees with the lack of residential character and name the UFC Gym,the Qiao Garden Hotel, pointed out there are condominiums directly across the street and immediately on the other side of the Qiao Garden it is entirely residential. He stated that it would have been appropriate to do community outreach. He recommended that delivery times should be restricted because hotels are a 24-hour business and a 123 room hotel will probably get a fair amount of deliveries. He stated some of those delivery routes may decide to drive on Muscatel Avenue to Glendon Way, hopefully the others may come off of Rosemead Boulevard, and some of those trucks are very loud, especially when they are unloading. He stated he also agrees with Commissioner Eng's concerns with Condition of Approval number 48, and appreciates that they wanted to do the traffic study before the pedestrian route 19 I study, but he does not see why they couldn't of both be done before bringing it to the Planning Commission for approval. He stated that is an important component and it would be good for the public to be able to see it and not be something that is going to be done later, where the public cannot see it, until it's been approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. He added in interest of transparency something like this and as potentially important should be done prior to any kind of approval for this project and asked that this be considered. Chair Lopez called Bao Zhu Wong to the podium. Speaker left before being called to the podium. Chair Lopez asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak. Vice-Chair Dang stated that when the predevelopment meetings were held,he was one of the Planning Commissioners that stated it was a very important element to have the hotel guest be able to walk across to the Target shopping center. He stated that the applicant did state that they would work on details to facilitate that concept, rather it is a shuttle bus or improve the pedestrian pathway.He requested that the design team work with staff,so that this particular element is ready, before it goes to the City Council. Community Development Director Ramirez stated this is something that the City Engineer needs to review and approve. She stated it can be specified that this item will need to be approved by the City Engineer prior to any issuance of permits that way it would let staff know it was handled prior to the issuance of building permits. She asked the City Engineer if this would be doable and stated this is an option the Planning Commission may take. Vice-Chair Dang stated he would like to ask the Planning Commission if they want this to be an item that requires to be taken care of prior to it going before the City Council. He added that way the public would also have a chance to view it, see the conditions, and will be able to voice any concerns they may have. He stated the problem with having the City Engineer approving this prior to issuing permits is that this item will not be visible for public viewing. Community Development Director Ramirez stated this could possibly delay the project and may have to go to the Traffic Commission. She asked City Engineer Fajardo if this will have to go to the Traffic Commission. City Engineer Fajardo replied. (Not Audible) Commissioner Eng stated she shares Vice-Chair Dang's concern, it is a safety component, and asked how much time they are looking at. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the Traffic Commission meets only once a month and will not be able to get it onto their Agenda until April, so they are looking at 3 month delay. Commissioner Eng asked if that is the reason why it is not a condition of approval for the Planning Commission because of the limitation of the Traffic Commission's meeting schedule or are there other factors affecting putting this pedestrian plan together. City Engineer Fajardo replied this is something the applicant can address, because staff has established the conditions of approval, but the applicant is the one that will develop the study. He added they may take a week or a month and it depends how long they will take before it is submitted to the Engineering Department for a review and approval. He added then it will go to the Traffic Commission in case there are any necessary traffic improvements for this vicinity. He added so it will depend on how long it will take for the applicant to develop this study. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the City Engineer pointed out a keyword and that is "if"this needs to go to the Traffic Commission. She stated staff does not know if it actually does until it is reviewed. 20 + _ Commissioner Eng stated Vice-Chair Dang's request is that the improvements be made, but that there is a plan for the public to be able to understand what is happening. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes,that is correct and that is what staff understands also. Vice-Chair Dang requested the Traffic Engineer from Stantec approach the podium to share his thoughts. He asked if this is a plan that can be put together in a week or so. Community Development Director Ramirez stated this is a question for the applicant and the not Traffic Engineer. Architect Simon Lee, stated this condition is not required in many other hotel projects and this is their first time. He stated they are willing to work with staff and work this out. He added there are options such as providing a shuttle bus with a schedule located in the lobby to take patrons to the nearby shopping center. He stated the pedestrian plan is not easy to do a quick study and get a quick response. He stated this is not a traffic engineer issue and he is not sure who he should contact to do this study. He stated their primary option is to provide the shuttle bus service. Community Development Director Ramirez recommended that it be included in Condition of Approval number 48 that at a minimum a shuttle bus be used.She stated that way at least they will know that at a minimum there will be a shuttle bus for the hotel guest. Vice-Chair Dang stated a shuttle bus is a good alternative because it will not affect the traffic flow very much. He stated if a pedestrian study is done, then it would involve street lighting because of security issues and you would have to check with the traffic engineer, because when you touch the traffic signal pedestrian crossing it affects the timing of signal lights. He added there is a little more involvement in terms of the study, but the shuttle bus is a good alternative and will get their patrons to the shopping center safely. He stated it may also shuttle the patrons to other venues around the City. Community Development Director Ramirez asked if the City Attorney has a recommendation of how to state this condition. City Attorney Murphy stated he is concerned if it is appropriate to provide a solution if the pedestrian route circulation study doesn't wind up requiring that solution. Community Development Director Ramirez stated if the applicant is willing to do this regardless,then that would solve the issue all-around. City Attorney Murphy asked if the circulation study will still be needed. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that is part of the condition of approval and they will still be doing that, but at a minimum there is a solution. Commissioner Eng stated this is fair because their concern is the safety of the pedestrians to get to the shopping center. City Attorney Murphy addressed the City Engineers office, and stated as the pedestrian circulation study moves forward they will need to take into account the fact that the shuttle van or bus is being provided, so that this applicant isn't required to pay more than their fair share for capital improvements, given the facts that its impacts are going to be decreased by the use of shuttle van. He stated it is important that they do not have up ending this applicant pay more than his fair share given they are being asked for this alternate. He said if it is the will of the Planning Commission this could say: "The Pedestrian route circulation study of commercial businesses and neighborhood which addresses 21 pedestrian travel and indicates any needed improvements shall be developed and approved by the City Engineers Department prior to any issuance of building permits and at minimum a shuttle van shall be provided for transportation of hotel guests during the duration of this permit". Vice-Chair Dang stated to clarify he wants to make sure he is communicating properly to all the Planning Commissioners and stated the pedestrian study and it going through the City Engineers office is a good thing to have. He stated what he is proposing is for the sake of time because having that study will not reach its completion prior to the applicant going in front of the City Council. He stated in lieu of that,they are substituting a plan in place by having this shuttle service. He added in the future if this pedestrian study works all the signal lights and traffic studies, at that point and if the City has authority,then it will give staff the authority to terminate the shuttle service. He reiterated that by asking the developer to offer the shuttle service, and then this item can move forward to the City Council. Community Development Director Ramirez asked the applicant if he agrees with this request. Architect Simon Lee, replied yes. Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Commissioner Tang commented that he appreciates the developer coming in, looking at this property,and wanting to invest in it, and to bring a great quality brand and franchise. He stated he unfortunately does not think he can support this project, this design is somewhat of an anomaly, and does not really flow well within the surrounding businesses, as well as its residential areas. He stated it feels a little disjointed and disconnected from the local community and it is a unique area because there is a little commercial area against a heavy residential area. He stated that it is not that he does not appreciate the quality of project, he just does not think it is not a quality design and does not blend into the flow of the area. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further comments. None Chair Lopez asked for a motion. City Attorney Murphy stated the motion would be to adopt Resolution Number 17-04 with the amendments and direction given to staff on the record. Vice-Chair Dang made a motion,seconded by Chair Lopez to ADOPT Resolution No. 17-04 with findings,which is a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 2017-10, approving Design Review 16-02 and Conditional Use Permit 16-01, adopt Ordinance 972 approving Zone Change 16-01, and adopt the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Vote resulted in: Yes: Lopez and Dang No: Tang Abstain: Eng Absent: Herrera City Attorney Murphy stated under Roberts Rules of Order an abstention goes with the majority for purposes of moving this forward,so it will go to the City Council with the notation that the recommendation of approval with the amendments and direction has been given on a 2 Ayes, 1 Noe, 1 Abstain, and 1 Absent vote. 22 Community Development Director Ramirez stated since this item will be going to the City Council there is no appeal process. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of 2-6-17 Chair Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tang,to approve PC Minutes 2-6-17 as presented. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dang, Eng, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: Herrera Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with 4 Ayes, 0 Noes, and 1 Absent. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez announced the time, date, and locations of the Community Area Watch Committee, City of Rosemead Passport Day, and the Rosemead Plaza Skate Park Ribbon Cutting. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Eng stated she attended the Planning Commissioners Academy on Thursday, March 3, 2017, and it was educational and informative. She added will share her notes with the Planning Commission once she puts it together. She stated that if a Planning Commission meeting is held on April 3, 2017, she will not present she will be out of town. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting Adjourned at 9:20 pm. The next regular Planning Commission will be held on Monday, March 20,2017, at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. 23 Daniel Lopez Chair ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary , 4.44� • . , • ƒ. . ",k44-4. 24 iE M Eq O CIVIC PRIDE Ali_ V II 'NCORPORAT 54 Attachment G Letter from Pastor Wu I, To: Rosemead Planning Commission and Department From: Evergreen Baptist Church of Los Angeles Re: Lawrence and Orange Residential Development Project Date: March 1, 2017 Dear Rosemead Planning Commission and Department, We have been informed about the pending approval of a 21-unit residential project in the vacant property adjacent to our church campus. We have spoken to the city staff and a representative from La Terra Development to discuss various concerns that the Church has regarding this project. We appreciate their receptivity and desire to work with the Church to satisfactorily resolve these matters. These are the issues that we have presented: 1. Construction noise The City Municipal Code allows for work to be conducted on weekends. We host our worship services from 8:00am- 2:00pm every Sunday. We expect that any construction taking place during these hours would greatly disrupt our activities within our sanctuary. We request that a condition of no construction permitted on Sundays throughout the duration of the project. 2. Traffic flow and access Our church shares access from Orange to the rear parking lot of our facilities. We have placed a motorized gate to impede any inadvertent vehicles from entering that area. We are concerned the entrance to the new development is quite narrow. In addition,because there is a block wall along the perimeter of our property line,this inhibits a clear line of sight and would pose a traffic risk for vehicles leaving the new homes and those entering or exiting our rear gate area. We request that the City determine the appropriate means to mitigate this concern. Solutions may include placing line striping to divide the Orange roadway,a median,a marker pole to prevent damage to our block wall and gate, and/or a reflective device to profile vehicles leaving either access road. 3. Visibility, privacy, and security This is the matter of greatest concern to the Church. Currently our six-foot block wall does not extend along the entire length of our property line. At a certain point,it is replaced by chain-linked fence. This has worn over time and has exposure at the bottom of fence line. We are deeply concerned that the current proposal does not require the Builder to create a solid separation between our property and theirs. This will place our property at risk of outside intrusion. We request that a condition of a new block wall be built beginning at the end of our existing block wall and continuing to the start of the property line of the first unit along the southern perimeter of our property. The height of this new wall should be equal to the height of our current wall. If the Planning Commission or Department request further clarification,they may contact me at 626-260-5582 or jcwu@ebcla.org. Thank you for the opportunity to present these public comments. We together are seeking what is best for our community. Sincerely, Jonathan Wu Executive Pastor Evergreen Baptist Church of Los Angeles 1255 San Gabriel Blvd Rosemead CA 91770 E MF S O 4 '....'. 5 O CIVIC PRIDE illij Nil /NCORPORA A-ce Attachment H Site/Floor/Elevation Plans 4 i QM O) A A m n a w a m 5a c m C A d w 12 7 —","'m N ao c . lima er g3 .... aaao5 aA m VZ1-- r1W Y .RU'w cccc cc > oNX CZE iOcg OOOO a.aa O E' E a - t . mmmm L' Z t = — e 1 LLL 1.314 .c-cc 0 5 FNaFa Wmy'-mmwwww »> a aco N wG— q.-q.-C4011: OrNr) q7,1 O x a as - Vi ZM *** c a' ,% c .SE: r=Q te ., .. 3` m p • 20<c 0 ao>U N o ' Fes„ 27, 'v rn Y Q'E g Y L 1 mm.01 1 =moms 1 X +1= w Ai ', NEMBINEMB x . 1 11 111 I 1 , , \\ 1=) z ca liii iii: I i it i 11li r---:-_ _._. I I LA U 4 I AI`• =a 11 JT:L ± mo: b . Q J IFF7111 4* a \ „2„ I._ IIII P W o a a 11101041 z 1101--i z I uli Q 1 J 1 ; a '211 ' sigtg9§ s9tt� i `— s ". a 8.'62Eqa . ItttiIIIEIt I..� w ry I o _ I aiii666a66t6ii6 a 1 0' E Y p 1 I 1 1 1 1 I { f Q '_� ,i1t>S hl �$t Pili ccc LL I I T I I�.I � I A�; I � IjJ •-._ ,i i ill - • R36_A7i 5i,- g. 1 I 1 1 11 I IT I j r ! �F tri l 1nil jJ 4g�$ s iy['R �slli ISE of �� Q 8p=. 5t ^ 9#p!tt gqaFIp6i3Io n g t 3e - 9t% 3w Gi y�g�G G G G G 7 g,,;..4;x2 � 3 3 . ? alsa llBi ?% 1111 gi a a a hitt gas $ =X 6 5 y is i ! .J1'901 • :ii! i .Xib 6 i.ea¢ay p6pg i9i9l669aa13i P §ig 77 L,U— i$ . 6 B $ Ili % . }A ; 3s. ear.42t:..61.c=?er.rire.G rgiqgg � 6X '! l�p}I! a 3 ha ! sp (!eFr4 l1. a le1§1 ig pe -E; g1�36Exo 6.. gg ssq�. ¢e R g11il'A•i6 :a s1 " 119 b36 1111:41 yLl3 1h1 4liLX8a I �•• ' � 11!S p� 1p! aX rs�tl{Q igreme !9ii 01 3.911 ; . i 11 S6I E %fYYY4r0ei_s EE3�rlre.s-ir.iiii 0 `L � a I I ;.s' ot.i Vit. 11 i f °, 6� t:. o Wel y� 1 €i BatQf! 1 I1.., t =z, I r— Q aM € i8 . E° b- 5 I$§ . MIL:.!r .. • I J I I Illllp_ E LL m �. r � —I I I y lir V I(A Q '''' ' t• I p R II bl * .�\�C`\\\\\;- %1!.1 �p 4 C Q CCOO I ' I r$ 1 -- --' e , min_11,1II rI. ! BMWa a LL acimii _ t �� ., _umiumn, _._ Q6W 1�lit a LE§ G��IQNE A' MI'NC I S" i 'e^gj CC O l r 1 'ice: I / I p ' 111E �F3 �® o i I" g -41—!? g 311111 o _ ti. , II p 0; IE 1 1i I p y 9' 1' 1 ® � Q 1 I ill! IH g E 11 K Z I I * 14«1/uuu42 . ,ze - LEPI ° �g x.101.',Hai I I¢ 2•znzj. 41 •Z1@fit 1- 3,.. 11 0 j)__..-.:. . • In ,--1 •1 '41 i i 1 II i72 :t'111 1r-- i R er 111111 �< - 3 11 111!1 ,I "`.a .-I� gal 1�t 1r_ I t 11111 s iP LI p r til9 6 it I ill, 1 4 € s { 41, 1 P 1o ® R a i L .l ; G b a I dpg Diffll I g ..a/ i § � Fl ii ;{ 11111011E 13" 1QiE. �'aal d :I 1112111 b$ ii g 40P----i ill 311 g r p •cc cs na,pt TIT TIII IILI ` d a 2 a b i AQ ty�Q.11? 9i a • 2': d' � _.S- I I I II I I 1. d /�p` '''':•'•- q` € ,tlyp y p gg I lg. 1 11 0 1egpi gi 2 qg 41 H11:', I I III �L �^ m, W ! Ya F R�n ? • ®Will li VSJ}lg16ra4 ; i 4 wooa) andr_ iIi!flui!rttifliI gl1 $ rg [Crpg fe11111161 SAag 5- 0ado ® a � tlRpG R¢���e ��"- �. E'� n1IlQs � � §�Sso 'I,�'y[Y9Fis§ b g ��{{ A ��• ypy p$ @Q qqWLLaY1 v d y?R i g tib it f - D Q. 11#1111 H 1 f i[1 s V� 5• �j z YFIqd� � F • . 4 - "' �I@ � •�� tl tl3 G�G G G G:9`.'G ¢ vi o f Db N 3!d g *r':& Qgx 3> a�1 i : G g• a I I a1I i 11- I 0 j�{ b gs D S '.d€ .5g8yt Q n a5�!'�'i� gg�85Y ss I If I hi! A €ll;:111I1Ilidlsli3dFPE kah } r ag a 5 i• 1; lA Q gs.et:PN.It.et.N.aNagr.rGet.3 )111111! � „ � p7� ■� pfdgg • 3 � ! �R ! y } � 61116 Ila3� e DIadEEDg§gsx �a,ea �s}{g1�lial ip A a •'•I� �-,jyt✓I = d e9 b3 1 Q QS uQBai "add38feAfLt hilai i © fltt' •.� Pa !!!!ti 3. F g CE.,e4i9ec!ttat,o3alf i”; 1i I I II ' ir 33: I1 Iii 1.0 y _ EI aQpy = .= I1' VW I $l 2 99Bggg / r— �[ Y3 71- arm Q ,•C $ a�- i° I _ Q1i f ----- - I I' -67'-ir- :�QEQi; -e t — - es=- = iGr \ ✓ 1 LL1 N cd bu - - 1 - mu II -..",.D a .t --- --o-ar � II a g w ,, II: F if s 3 (� I Ii �91g�iINNI @p y W ti rs e ' ■ ■ 1ss s QdJiteft ■ � @L )1- r ■ I t ►°' cc,..,_ g amihniso=rari= n-Titil i 1 kl •hi zD < O :h QIQ I� gliOI =_. el 11-- Li 0<g 0 o F= &mid k.. N l� lawait ,. „ H o°Q Io? �� Ji w. I o ■ ■ a I > ct w a II 9I�'c� T I q i1`t• W 2 O I J :!I + �_ i1la�► ''u Y i In t __a N ,• V< r -zaz --- taw- \ I 'C" 11,t no 1 i I �®®_7 i�fr;► I1 , ,.I I. Q Ql Z .-. a 4���� I _� _ ] r t I� III L!I'.lt ' 44_,,,,,,i, U 11/a Ii, ! 4_,,,,, `" a ' `I' N ®I•�aln1 ■ O I I! ,< •tnuS! n wI y 111'■L� _ � IES 11. ,. _ a o __ 1r■■ p�71 ■ ■ of - ___�i g �1 ,G , nm % y 8i I _ ' -- ,__._ _._- _ _1 :ij --• _� k4zt -dc gg-3—L ' *gig SII IIy QgG7frYo __' s �f I 8 r y1 B' NCI Mlle Q Q II r5; ti 1.11 G■ I 1 di - ____Tm'an4--- ; 14- r7e-4 - g iii I ; he le l V 44r Q 4 e V u !x73 1 0 .,�: w r A � �3 ,Q• IOW!! H' a xag. :Mil:din!!!111 ,s= W �� •,, ` • .pili •' 11018131 1 g 1 11 O ;Jr( 110! li�� ¢ kig. o�o�eai! . ©` R i o ggg;- I I I I I v1..E._Alr..,:�.QF. u lic ys U y a ` bx g! b i el iii 1 1 Pt! 1E fa @t 4! ; i ie Q i 115i a n!• bQF ii IIS! ii 121= 4 A 12Q f a yxl i T11151.11! yri :!e ilx 111 @s ell . 1! f.Zlbt glD! x6 e� ?fie Q F:F paella. g 1.11 k 10 HI ; , CC ii.d 11 Pir988 II U i 0 .1t1 Z • rn 1- Q /' j;; 1 _I N H l ads 1: _ - I. Z W ,_..w- T --1--- _x �1 7.r_1i= — '�� - . e g ' $ „ • LL Ey y gIt1 ! b f , 1" icc1/ � Q 1— Z $ tr. 1Q,, i ,t - : .1 1 li _ WI I— w E ._y� Q� 1 I—' 2 ,,,...,.—v..,1 11 Ir,, LL � 1212-11111111111111' 11 , Er, 1 111 ' I I a f11 g III w 6`_6. �® �. ' — ; 'MjErg 1 a ,p B6 I ,, r z ! I ru Io g1— t !1 o_". 1� _ 1 ,11 I i z xa 1 fir;. � !4i;{' I4i' • c ,F. x . L L�� l Li a IT 31 ip, Eti . -low I 1 el i. .,li , ,1/4 " t I . ; / ! 5 ft a a - 'al I21 � I I I I I I I I / / I 7) 6 , .Z _ - — - --L--L-- --L--�-1 • 1r� Ili .c _ -- ----�tl-- — 1� OP 4rr■MIr e � R � ' N. R—a NWIDI EMII -kF„Q �g ,TRo�Roro4g8� o o Rg b N 41 y. 1i s '„� yB� b:_e b:s�bebo• abb a :� a ux _ n� 112 _�,� n �.� s� Fdti�<_en ee� w CAni V. R il �N 12c75; CA!! 777 -c 8 .3 99 r lgi, i �fff'>fvf,s££ffff ffff 6A � I g M x f r �g 8 8 s s s s s s c a E P �sa �€ rpa a + ,� ro F i~ 2 H Itttr iii! • C , oQ� E <f 2 s x e F a f i f.... ii Y 3 ` _. �w ° 4 _---- _---\- C O f og2roz y is W As :MEMO i— b s W l� a ill, a . D e •1i o, a a p , , __ � Wim IIS i w ,a s SAII ,a p 1�;,I�< ,a S © .a 1 D _ 1 . ilL 4n -i III .` _'`� F � N � F w 1%2-1 3AI89y o i • VI' / memIN _ - i , 3311 u 1__J -- 011rill IW 1 d ®IV ; of o R: 41 ! 111 11011,111171411111---- ...„..„hi, le ....h.. •• • I� iii. .. RPM ru7 .. illiMilliP”'c ]" ' .c !r >..kal--) I 1 0 wisimasiiich%m .. _ x Ir - — — w J ce iiw �W < {� owo N Z c `c5 0 - E Si �''da c>W zao uWs �•`mQ o (j G z G F¢ ly m a V _ �> RR., L7 m z-- ' g� W _4 z •.� Q iOi 2 8 ■ I W x x Z me EJ il nilIuJ it. x II . IIEM OILA 0 0 fV N J N 2 g.N E< C C . 0 E E .EO � 7 m Ymc2"' ili1; 7,74 >o E ___ ___ ___ <:?__y,„-------------LN\___ # / i_. \ . , moocc, _ =‘ I; L.LJ 1 I mIH I ow riWiill*H. , , �i �. lil 4.1 I [:[ :AN •1.4-<]-91 04. ! L.„ ,, . _ 11"741111111 JLLJ � CI W 3 I 1 `'■ 1• ► 11 11' r 1 s z nogg a 'A I Or:Jr:wiz. to t- - _ _ i .... , Wm y ` 7 : ,,``'Q. n;51.>" a Ii�■� IIVI I I7 • k Way I ilk -�- Lti. 1 ,I_�,�._J ; 3d ' .=--, - L _L ,_ , / / d .` d i 1.--4 T T T T T \ 1 I rilal T.-. , I , " . F .1 , ,,-,::] c:::..., i tea— rtiall 1 _Ai ! am . . - Si [:::-- [2::- 4.16.4r. ,,::., 112,:,, vi , miwaNWLL, regriamill , ger J" L_11_J ii fit.A.m• ..1„1" A F "14#111101111MI IIM cc ivir loom J1II1P!Lit71P 3 d o Q O NOf N0 A. F N O ui, li .1111, ,I dl x �� (Ii �i, a 410 !1N1 ' x ii.. ID Z 1 IR L AO x i 1 .J t� 1 rte, 3 �J, , t Ilil III . ' Illi — 41 9 EyESEE ��y EE'Y E"".3g1E . e 0. tl. 1 • e3 a 'J it li 10 1,14, Ail o € ii! i 1Q i;itii : . gii ` 61:i3t lib 1 . E! ll W m F = 2 I 4 r5= -Y -g31 i , g , 3j 2 1 Zw a wi6g ZZ1i Z �y a U ;1 4 ° a Q s a V o' $ w 99 F. d� tit: C� 4 m U -5 2 a � i ""�1 .8' � g ° z3� 3:r3 t3 O �d Hs V vmrnd3 'yg �5$.55Fg3g'pleu £ ~ Z f ✓1= sE �if � 33i1 'dO Pi zg CM .1 yr 0 23 011141114 of v ",....:„_____--- —....„. N....„. \\,...,. \,. —- . •rat (?i0 s, L..)liar l'A, I I Al_ . Lon1 II P m - UM JIMA§ 1 I. . , Is_ _ oe - L R 4 116A l I __ I s L i r _ , 13 �R r. II i 3 , • l •1 i SSC . -i \,0.- •. ~ '- I _ i C:7 •` i4 w !4EAIII: s I♦,. „^' 1 Ani ■ ® i - 11 1 Ir ) , \ Z I e m U 5 Z J co . A o Qh E C ry p r 5az N L, G W¢ g.3 Y 4 25 g - a a r- c 8 11 O J m 0 W g o W gyp w o m s (� 0y d • Z� Ji J JCf d ;! }@3 ' WI I l f bg Slni i%lig -1 x11111 ill " , '""' ; obf i[ i 51134 1 R• 1 :(A:: 1 i 7 5 i s a #11111 FId 3igi3 . . .._ . .. III gl 'igb !I 1 _ <_ L 11 p ; a 1 r g `E�y$y} F.8 �s' '# YII" f viI� F �r°aF ••. .a fl € e� $ g €3 ZQ v m N y 1 W1 2 * - 1 illb ° M Y r N� F O Li"' S g �' U OI ac 8:31x= 14 Ed -w iiiiIIillII±IkiiI1IitiIi 1 Ob1 IPIh !I upgs� Za Eiel. Ii1 . I'd 1 �� 0 i J 1 & I L7 I. 2d0 g Z z ._ a. a11i ii W_ , 1 a a ad. .i.r --1 = Ic-_bi) .. U -Li IVIG A N:v t • L1- ® L. rr-I L, — 1 r - I '_ __ , . ,,, . l ox i-' - _ - 1 •mac ( 1 i .714 r T T T -1 —1-_ lfi\\\ i c.r\ l C — 1 I I i L ' ,;r , -; • .. I m ' mim„MI _j —fI I A:11-' intill 7 :1 -ii •.. �r�:klc' o_. I., _I __ a .~. r O n CI o a owo gm < Z .3ac�� W r, .5 cc ccv4 _- U �1 `yoau N I m m o° J1 -i.-_1n y w r y xrV 1 N' Its gEg 1IIW iV w Z T.) • = -, °'c-, $.`O c 7 N p m 4 - ...x Gi) v W " A t/,r ni 1 .,, , ri , 1__ -1, ., — _ : ' rH a '� ■ • .. ___ s .. ' --1-- : : 1 Fil" 0 i • • ' I 0 Li \i 0, -____, • 1-11- F -! _ 1 ! 11 f ; P T _ II 1, LD z C) Q ,,. m cc t- U•s Q Z w W E s rn cc V oaa o Z d U N W Zjw� - O"I'g i y Uo¢m��n 51 �msF Ma. YU 1,1 i .-.! ,, - .g --J li _ - 12x1 0, = dt gttwgo : O Mg-46& 606,1 ;<1604z . < < LNCn 8, Qnyg1Wm. dQ „'. i- i� Ws WU - . V n 2 y V tp U ■ : ■ ° , , ■ LLI o" y rn ZI ■ ■ ■ 3 _ • VJNm� ■ ■ i N ■ _1 vo vo O ■ ■ ■ l=/■ N c^ 3 rn II MI= � ZQ f U to Z rn . 0 0 © O 0 0 0 —I J Q O 0 © O 4.1) � I-• .m I V 11 r - 1_,-,- _____4 . -1 1-- 1 I 1 _ I iH ^ s 4 I /1. 1 ri., i 1 �--: ... . i a s 1 1 A 1 -- _Ill r T ■ ifer I �'> ' �% — — fir —,- ► II 1 _ 1' i ON IL I - F] I i T_ j _ i I1Ir1 I fiI L -J IF I w D 1-- t 1 ft ____17' l: 1 ''f ( _ i#iiiiIIU I / Z I— d w CC cc 1- 10 vo s w p J 9 z Z CC Q t;17, o W E x$ V g-.5 Z a+ U N Wt .5 28 cc 0`m q -3' 2T,a� rnN i moat Q1 A8 2 J�Jc7 1 d-•" N:: -- V 4 A 4 — e= .. n :11I` n � i Bch y - ._.. - Q 111 U Q Clj t^ 2 w a g .^ .^ w wvQ (.0 CO 1- 2 °' - .-. .-. 1-1-.11 Q U -- 0 v W L)i - w mrn .. .-. ..... LJ 13 J5 m 0' .> Z L r vco .-. .-, Ill .J w o o co - ,.-.. .-_ W LU LL_ 3v .-. Z J Z f0u�izm J .' LI- Q W Q p--, �' } J I a. Q d Q 1..--, I 1 J J 1- W 33NJ3iIANIA.9-S / lAp213d } C } Q TVM JNINIYJ31! Z- c / 30N3i IANA.9 S Z Z w 'XVII S 01.9-A > O 5 0 = L.-) VI 0 i o Q -- r _ II . ! II LU CO - w V � 8 i -_ — — w C.) O — - - -- Ow _ _ � =- -. .- --- W- a - - --, - v . - _ _ my Y = w /- xv 1 9•S / J ..- CO tf TVM 3NO.SA3X ONH39135iiO 1w3d0 9 I""" 33N3i 13315119.1E19111'1H.9 TIYM 3NO.SAMI O O 4 II _ z .7,,,.O c_....., 7 1 -1 U W CO J J J Q Q W C.7 =a..... — Z C7 Q O CC Z o 0 U _ Q. 1- Z J N M w Q mwo JW E C V omQ 1044.9 1w1 Had f/) O Z m t1 U 1lVM`.NINIV13H © W m y p XMJ.E CC °.v o ._U c N 3 moQv? QiN alp O J 1 J J M .'.1 , EJ e ii .-8-8 7t N(2 _ d Y -- r - oO Jy F xN Q N N A?c i 04 dUu�ydR lA _d U U L D p OO Ya V v 'jn m 855�7w8 8388 c> cNM O coN D �O W l CQ C C O co as, ca € 7.-Y c M O`j. FFY O Q 02> N E C .0,-U� N 5 N O c0 U -' t u O CO Q' Egf J d J ' N } W w • O a) LL CC t .1.-.6 .1-8 t ..1-.8 1 1 .1-.6 • • — • • NomaI 4 • ' © . -- U I. : o 111M= s � ' : - El W = z I • J W I ' L W I .mac s • • L� IN r E c 0 0 fi /- . ....r. >t W w a) c J] J - - I, • ,I • © r P. J J I to • I1 II E I IL t m w O I £Y O Ljj O Q U • ro Z p-'•m o • ILAQ q? W I Nf—iJ 0 p O g m 0J7 0 • . . C:C I liar ila-1 3 I r, n : J . � � FL—I i% O. —Q x:101 "g i::. -- EMI To E2 0 Z 1&4111 0 e % N- 7- ~o CL W 0...-. w J d ~LLQ'mAKw mN N Ol: C >0 caVN 2SZ Q— � � 3 ct a n v u v=°€ u 8N6i33W853813O CC � N Q Vf Cofp �ap • N 2 O OQ N C7 m>U� o C C Yt,- ,D co u N N 0 ` C a , T 0 J N J J 0 Cu •LE hi I .L-.8. :,, . . .1,-.6 li .L'8 { .L'.8 IX �F. ._ .'. O . a o - J 1 W 1 a I .......•'EA I Eal I ■11 11 __ i r 1•000.01. D I ._..c 1 _ Ili 6 W :...*,4144 ..iiitr 37 LL 14 = NNW Mil Z 11 C 41) CD J H f- -I f J y DI i 1 B o ISI kEEl W as 6 O m U Z O c y 0o E I grA © I <N �m0o - I f_._- i---� o a I - Frw7. - W V ITLId 6 1 1 ii ypI` J V d ii NmC` uK ,1,0 ,7,... o EM 1- %Q v W mK .m _ G 8L gi �i C L L pU f1 U U Willa tz ffn JUOLUCr N M? [ p -aD O, 'r NdJ X01 S. > c c V �0 t0� j mYgr> E. ry CTO C fli2 >U Eo N .- O N .- }L `e. Gp U O S O ir o-,szF ci. com �e .�s " �s s - w -- � - liil <� +U I ' - t�� LonO ri......1 1. W 1 arc LI - CI n- In A, M _ v _ , , ,coo 211411110F <4 .E, W W r`—___I li _: I: IIi J J v C(gyp E, I. U > Z.2 z 8? s •G Q l O yWJ7, V M 'IA.. W ,:e U ail Q 1 J J 1 MI' � au —a I.Oil rt m EMI _ o N C co ijHi!llllhI 0 2 8 a?co C coLr,s;Nl Q vi m r`oD Cl^OEQ V o) co, UO Q N N N 0 d>V N EO yCO > N CO )-L,- 6 co O 4'.LJ J Q Z W Y d Q .L-.6 .L-.6 , I L-.6 L.6 44 A i i is CL cas • Z CA 1.= 4. T IME = x r_ ....— ,.,_ 1 . ci , . . T o o Milw 1 Jgi L CD NIM. © = a MwJ MK ,7) IM syr m J p SUcvNi O 1-q-co N O J l r l Z W f0 L--) Em ...CrIIIIPM cit Illy 1 1 J 1 Mu O I 1� FA E� �i N �a § ;J1 2•7• 8<Z-; N IIIMINIIIIIIIIIIIIMIll I `'I W71.111..11 o U. ■I is'Q Mk - ,i t N • LLts 0 ',:g b Qi—UAINI 9i� .- J .08 “0-ZIP ' 3 Hg 3 Z , W . of) Q L_ h a) O m Lo a N 1- •O� ma (7 m I 3 . ,1 0 , _____ " 5 7.-) 47-6- --- 0 u - # 1 o CO I ` : i I.i aoi co f� W JJr. Ja 111d- .0-.93 11,0'.86 w °a6 c_.V >r z �I8O' CC . 4D CO t‘i V.41 O ,-8 g W.•Jt+1 c Z Q L.1-1 l..., Y Z lad U -i miZ Q I 111 hi .R.1119mit Q '- t:T,l .o-s1 .o-zr 141 O O N N co _C > a �I C C C I Ii e'�¢ f N� e._ rn r) ill 1 ayo 1 A , 0 m 0 >U- E o� It I1g 1 I �Ca^zaY 4 ,-,o).„ Rili I t LE 01co N mry Z 1111111 r el 00c. II la 11 0z �'�Sv.�' eve" w.�- r� n S i jla 44114'1-411P".4,41 I— W told I�i� Ti � i�� = I s a rN m0 M -c N 03 ciN 1 .o-z> o N § J! 1 �.. roe 0% 4. O • ®N O U. eqTi LT_r, § o m X11 I to co 0 _ N � � 0 • �� w V N4 c � i • \r I I c v l g P %.I •IL J,A Lil• a $ Z d� g i!h 0 ~m .0 0 z Q W V W CC k( 11 n 1 N• 3 �� IILA 8 N d a� _ YY c Q cc 8'& cimEv m- c a O r cp a N W >—.E 6 c V i It: Ya z�N. Y O LL- • • r+ u_0 Mil IL (i) 72 73. NI 4 Z q 1 , _ IIL� i W. �`�__._.,__. LII I Z•' : S~S - - -- - L; Li '`I —tl 1 r w Vf Nip • g r - ' tg e - 4 4' _..4Y" .'•. F--- 4 . 4 ','I,IpII 'IQIrIn, .1 �eiY.1 • re b -P'-�---- i "4 y S; ec co £ -)N -iitti tR1 -4 fiat /:./, co -,— N _cp N O co 0 M H N . co 0 N rt— .0'.Z4 f ,.o '20.1 N 0 fr4 lee_..________ • lipi W111111110 OM 021/4 e'N : 1 0 11 , g �� IO =°LiI Or oil 0 gg T ©m ; y O 0L. VN .c..) (,) ,. 1 ______ mr E1 K� Nh m 14 $R 1 m t J '1'4,7,R H r mEE W OQ W E.%<6 (-7 > zH2 Z ag. :1„,o O fp 0 .O 0 Z Q W ID Li j Lv,kil 1 RP Q 1 J J 1 'r7 .. N , n . ` ti a it-All 11114 a — 0 01 iMI iin .. I, r.„. co iti%.7. / '1„,,.. .. .Ei E—.1. 1 1..„_# ; 4,4r� I �p '_� /Ay � IfihE 4. /., __od ai co r , —111 .-'-''' / 4N4 ''-',,-,0 /1 411141P AP:Ei.,--.11" 2/p..........._ Ar /—• ,---': V .7 / sit,....• • tor Ns 4111pgA, • ...4':..... ."4 /...i.* ozlii, 3 m . '..* .41.-*II i ,, ,,, ,. VIIIMMIMIII (.0'1 '%41/F _ W s • - f i ,... r ........„._.:...:..„:„... t. ... ., , , ... 0 . :•. ,, Al • Mlml - `moi . Nr WM' •o 2 mY0 W 3 a U L) i Ls,; 'c Q o c m%b t o U a Z tm, ...Cr 'M1 M W ANIIIIIINNINIVIMINIMIli VC ;� �. _ .4, o 0 N , f6;::111114‘.c:-")-1:1::v lilt' 11'4 u) - ly a '•&Q 4� .1� c C e: � " ,. a E U.- 4 ! - 0 a, O Q N :..* o in-1 ,.. , 0.; .f. 0_L U ger: Q Z rn Y r. c. . • S e t W , 6 i ..eMilleilli111111111 LJ—I I 8 ; Ct. 1 ac jtis Viffii �Yw r • ,- t .-.---.. 7 - 7 ... ... 0. .. . ) . ::„. ...". .t•it._.. T.. _, . .. • .,.. 4. - iit ,`�."a,.. ,� r "s ,�• y • • a • •=__-ice _• C•N 8 0 W �1 g...6 _a �' s Z 8 y o , s s @�j OVN j'. `ray'._ 0 n •-Z4 � v L 4 cC J IlUta 1n—j/iL Q 1 J