The URL can be used to link to this page

CC - Item 5A - Design Review 16-04 Al1E M e 44 ° ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL w\,E STAFF REPORT iIl TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: GLORIA MOLLEDA, CITY MANAGER L.)6, Iv' DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2018 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE PROJECT —DESIGN REVIEW 16-04 SUMMARY Gerard Ngo of Waikiki Property LLC has submitted a Design Review application to construct a new residential/commercial mixed-use development at 8449 Garvey Avenue and 3014 Earle Avenue. The project would consist of 35 residential apartment units and 7,520 square feet of commercial floor area. The project site is located in a Medium Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Development and Design Overlays (C-3/RC-MUDO/D-O) zone. Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.28.030.B.1, a precise plan of design for a residential/commercial mixed-use development shall be submitted, and approved in accordance with the requirements of[Rosemead Municipal Code] Section 17.28.020 (Design Overlay Zone). STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the City Council: I. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2018-I1 (Attachment `E"), adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approving Design Review 16-04; or take alternative action not adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration or denying Design Review 16-04; or take other action. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The City of Rosemead, acting as the Lead Agency, has completed an Initial Study and prepared a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed residential/commercial mixed-use development, pursuant to Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act. On the basis of the Initial Study, the City of Rosemead has found that, if mitigation measures were implemented, the project would have less than significant impacts, and therefore, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. ITEM NUMBER: SA City Council Meeting February 27,2018 Page 2 of 3 A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was distributed for a 30-day public review and comment period of January 3, 2018, to February 1, 2018. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, along with Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, are attached as Attachment"F". The Planning Commission recommends approval of the project and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to the City Council. The Planning Commission has considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration before making its recommendation. The Initial Study was undertaken to determine if the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study was prepared and completed by Phil Martin & Associates, Inc., acting as an environmental consultant to the City, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Rosemead as the Lead Agency. 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. DISCUSSION On February 5, 2018. the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Design Review 16-04. Analysis of the proposed project is provided in the Planning Commission Staff Report. The Planning Commission Staff Report, Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, and Planning Commission Resolution 18-03 are included in this report as Attachments 'B". "C', and "D", respectively. After considering all public testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution 18-03, recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2018-11 to approve Design Review 16-04 and adopt the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration, for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed-use development at 8449 Garvey Avenue and 3014 Earle Avenue. PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY The Planning Commission received oral testimony from one member of the public during the Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission did not receive written testimony from the public relative to Design Review 16-04. FISCAL IMPACT—None STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT—None City Council Meeting February 27.2018 Page 3 of 3 PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a public hearing notice published in the Rosemead Reader on February 15, 2018, 300-foot radius public hearing notice to 60 property owners, and postings of the notice at the six (6) public locations and on the project site. Prepared by: Reviewed by: Cory H , ssociate Planner Lily Vatenzucla, City Planner Submitted by: 4/ Ben Kim, Di o tommunity Development Attachment A: Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Elevations (Dated December 18, 2017) Attachment B: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated February 5, 2018 (without attachments, attachments are on file with the City Clerk's Office for review) Attachment C: Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated February 5,2018 Attachment D: Planning Commission Resolution 18-03 Attachment E: Resolution No. 2018-11 with Conditions of Approval Attachment F: Mitigated Negative Declaration with Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment G: Letter of Request for Density Bonus, Proforma, and Affordable Housing Agreement Attachment H: Agency Review Comments M414"-kre CIVIC PRIDF ORPTED \Gg9 Kf4 9 Attachment A Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Elevations (Dated December 18, 2017) S1O31IHOHV 1NRWdOl3A303Sr1-OXIW t€ 531VIOOSSV 8331 NOWIS - VZVld 31SIV3 A3/R,VO a S 2.1 1 ! c e _1j tz (k� r a® a i ,.1` y r _�e IQ x • v Y t � [ t $p.11 n. :3• � t i 14t ,iO �R. t - , o , 4 ;9 is g Bitpi i : P 1 pi !I 1 ; ;ie 1 �,,. li 'i'3 r{! 1! ;up 110;1 if I , Fr ; ? t ' r —p Ra! 3• ip o t7 I 'Q li Xi o et t t e tit , 4by8 , 11 ,t. 1 s^ Id g ! !; it 9 a 2 ;[ 1, r RRi ! ; wise , , t III i .2 ® it S b o 1 P ti §.. a c 5.j,„ t ,2 '2 s ii d pitdio z P,;1( = s rR r f /DI' tit i.:< ; R .re,i t 1 ai I: III 6 ! t u i V( 5 Ur t1 i tie:a - °r@ Ii ;;l y r _ 16, u i I ii t ; it l;; leo g1;;I;! ; t ¢ 'il i l I ! til i� rc Q; hi 9 WUi ii kat r el oilid;, Eplp '4 elier - t o rtll ill -.1 r, 1 i i 1 , kat: L!'3 i s q t jtt I ` ! it I — ) o r xi etr krli61 ri ° ttp7t 'tq 1[iH j,�-' '. `tom o lil If iIitil 3t rt. I l ;4111,' e e r@@ a 8€ir I P wit r {v z ;Q::1; li I t i ao -6i 4;4 i; tlrt :.„1,11 514.,tie° tri Y 2 lit,[ t Iii; i t rep ivr 9t{44 Ito p !,419 9 id _� 1 Allfllr. i i I vI III i t Rvi 1 o 'ilo, plt'i ,t @11101; (, i+! lupi ? iir re eI/1;5111.4ptIjt [il' 4 r4 m I'd. of e , -1'.11:9 r Ii a .:rMit it 1 1LL "' � z , !- I Q f, ,�.' 1 i x I M'- X11 r I ' ra 4t / 7r ee V` -, -.. Y r1 i - 14 4 1 •p0 Eil Ri iila i, k i - 1 7 d 1141M115•5- N y r� ° , i II t It 1 1 .- 4.10,4i! itVr,t i lyi It I ht—,4-/„.—t-It r s • P li lEgl il,•lir; �I ri 0 h tq It 1 " ! sl !lr ti•!I o- r a �, i tli1.55 l 9 tt, i ,, , ,, 1 I ° -__ ,„L 5. I" Y _`11 _ Y1 t pl 1 i 1�e➢I k _ — . li, t_ 03;11 titti "l�i �° ,I 11111ill1111.1)11 rort9ptYl➢ N4 id __ 161P MYNr_ F]B SYiH1�M 1 , 1II 1 E .i t 1 'fetz . i ;. ' hi. ri,jip-1 — - Y I^ili �g aiinf awa3 — —_ li 1151� it r ! 8 rliJ t�.i9aV .ri lii` iii iii i .,i.gy YY id 1 (I ;i: , IV] i r .110gli 1 rif it ) �i.,;% R 1i P; t r I Bial ! l 1 I 1 c ii I+" i 1 ,11 ! �iit sr 1 ririr li i 1 A iii LI 14i } li II ]a `!5.91gg Id1.114pIP � 1 t I •'IIt F11rirl 11, 1 i [I t e c t I It P1/1161;hill 9t r 7!1 sl _i iS- If ��i' 1ttltit im' .: �I �1 _,RI°61111 , 3di3,;ti,li Ii ;11!; 1,r4I;idl,o 1110 1lriul; S±O31.1HObV --.. 1N3WdOl3A3O 3SO-O9XIW . SBSVIOOSSV 8 33l NOWIS = VZVId 3lilV3 ASA VO Ss 3 'y 1 33 ... I'171F 6 31.d 9 IEIII Iq it 7• i - -�1 I� �I �1 1. • .� Si • elfi III :{ IF 1 ` d • -• I i4 ,ll 1� I�q •L ip a lift3 Is a _`I _ 1 1 I ._ 1 ,iel:Y. I, .iiiij.. ' a r5 los 11 11 i f i.2 11 es _ ili Y III 0.PI 11 b E 111 Y Y ' fa f 111 II ill "''^"""""5 n / z p a a ll1 li i 111;- ,E�s 1,11 4 11 I I, I IS I ill 44i a'. 183Ilt+I;lE `, i lig II 6�'' N6 III 11 i 'j! lilt{t�l 'Iit el _ a• 41/2, gi gg {$ 11i1 I'rti liY sE;t � iliE Iltlt�1'�iaIli i o' si iiiii1 l ( ,P01 it 11 ! i I i.i 6 a Ili :' 3 .. -\ �� - ALJ 1 1p _1 . IML I COI - [ I � IIS . - ass,' �' ti r h)' kil[4 ■ °a 40 P • hLif-3 51 - - ■ ms] j/ 1314 i Y - :c,eJ ~ T _ X11 eel ele vel_ o—� ES r� T � Y H131,6 ,: , '0. -- 1 � y. , i!...i!....• I i r 1� v cI '. IS - iisnaa -i,� 1Ip —� r --_ — - t. ri1 - eu SlO3LHOHHV1 — N3WdO1RASO Asn-c3XIW r S3IVIOOSSV 9331 NOWIS - �1d 31HVA AAAHVO �g Q . 'j E jj .YS x 3 a i1. a ¢ #$5.. s' 144 S 3 f 5- 3 3 q ' 4 434 x 4104 45 ft:41 4 ° 8 c.k5ie5 E '.f 55,- . 4 4 44- .e . 3 3 u °, r 3t_ L o w w i w o I z '5 4 s'5 5 :q. 1 5 5 5 1 55 5 - t �� a.. 4 1e5 e' 55 o € n 3 5 a a s Se i 55 I 5i5 5:4 5 4 asa ev gd5s5 533ehhr y� to ,, 55 45 55 ' v 5 tl M I : `� y E 8Al 5 { 9 -3 f 4. ..a, a... 31! a c% i 90 sv� 4V 41. e 3 ( o x• 1 e 40 v e4 a .- ,...y SSL 5 A • y A v ' Y .4 I t L Ce n �a g. k ' k 4t ' E c q '% A 5, L. r ‘c y \A55 it q .i 5y., 2 c. y 4 � S4 5 O,. A;i AO,. fie` —..— "e • 1 -- I kr• ,ah E.1'a.4 510311HONV 1N3WdOl3ARO 3S(Y0XIW . ry S3IVIOOSSV 9331 NON'S 424/1d313V3 ASAHVO yy 1 < £:. .;F; i &:'S x _ _ _. d is 5. LI mlr. - >oe �1. 1 '.. .� m` Ht ISIIe� r— 4 i €g P. . _ r_ — 5 ��[ 1i . .. P } II 9 i ., I 1 s4tj- . . i — .L :r ® 1 e — E` 1I -�& is - 11 _ Kfi Is. kr _ I g�. — .l _ 4 II _ . ✓ -} _ — ' ii SIi SSOBSIHOi1V 1N3Wd013A303Sf1-03XIW ? ry S31b100SSV 8 331 NOWIS E a bZbld 3lffb3 A3/abb°J r � ` ? a • 3 =2 3 4 ? $_ C, \ v sit e 3 s s r '7 755i !5'57'!1 _ .3..1251;54 3. “75 3d 5 �� .3 /_ 15 755 ; 5 ` O il-p ST C. \\SilU- J �a v • .A IIV 1, mmm 11 _- � sailY � � ar. /k e I j5-5 -I I : ” 1-1 i C � 7 \-t� 4 _ .. IT II _ 0 � -� —_ a je� "� , 2 I: SIE • I sa I �1 Sy I , ii 11 N r� ss- . atl tv 0� ss 4 - l SsjS oY I l • IA-- 91 is Iw 8.01 04 .€ E 4' � l E 3" � E -�� C 1� _ E i P 1 15 .Ir Ni!' _ - - _:4•11‘.11tl 111V3 v biu a 0 tr vt 1 _ I I , fSLO31IHONV _ 1N3WdO13A3O 3SflO3XIW C � l'4 S3SVIOOSSV V 331 NOWIS d ' vivid 3�av3 n3navo 1 , 1 o s e3 8'7.;;6 � LL, Jii i . O®O , di rmo 7= l •- . psi .l I, ,. m Ili Il i?II' ►1 ' . (14 rig? I 111j141- N — � • go r o74.,411' a 'iTM oY o = '. . „her 11 S $ m _ tt 0 ' 1 ! IIIIHIIIir I h� � I5 L4IIIII IIII r1 / A O: •�-r- IlS i 1 , : r - t cdg ---440-431 i •p Q I I r `h I J e l s s :.,.— j we Qyi / -A- e" I ~ uit .41, �1 ® �'� Qtr_ 1 ¶ i :fel . rte 1 �j _ SII ttIr r I 1 'SdQi 4111 , , 8= d 1 a 3{" sA a it ( a : . I S331 NO2fV 1N3WdOl3A303Sf1-0XIW . a S3IVIOOSSV S 331 NOWIS VZV ld 318V3A3/QJVO ��, ¢ _. 4 i . C. o Or � -- ram —7. • � I alb. g Id I - ^ A I - I I -: ,- I ® i — ' I CD I r'�f7 3!® 9 .� I o• - ,�-- x D= HCP o Ir m= �--©,a : II a I iI I I ^ I — 51 I I I 4 .' l m l I m .� .II 1 I . I' • ��Mi , Mel 1. wo, I I I _ I '_ is ,r�==i'shlk.:*9= n 3 ... I,I Il a ;I ] J , ' l =i <N inn Ri it m� e� re's og ®� �U cffl 1 7-. = - - F ssoesIHOLIV - 1NSWdO13A3O3 SfPO3XIW ,(1711-14'H4. ! H S3IVIOOSSV 8 331 NOINIS VZV Id 31MV3 ABAPJVO < t LL • —-__ - -_ .. a z r d: I -y 1 LI w , i m — I I "` SE 41 d * _ m I' 1 ®'moo® I I I m 71 I Jif :--1 171 i • _ - th ;v1 CO°' I .� Van �® � - ate= _ __�� ",i Ii Iii j , �, s" Y/ _ V. a a, JJ I at'` m 1 = —, Ear _ I £ :II 1 It0 1 �� +� I £a a I ,.e S±O31IHONV V c fl 1NsWd013AaG 3Sf1-ORXIW / . S3IVIOOSSV 8 331 NOINIS VZVld 31tlV3ASAdVO � , i Q r i 13!)019d¢ NF at --.3 rka . 6 "',.id s` d3 z �(9 d Pe1 } e npti1II! _ -` x 2 ; —L L i�_ i I — i it — it ,I v i i iI ii -, 'Ira . .i • 13 I • ei _ • i --- "-" et . .I , a , - !� ° rola - d- ' �' . i - � i \ k i . K. .i J I. €.ic Iii L . F s '__ - 5. y=g n-d _ii ii.Agi s1O311HJHY ' _ 1N3wdo13n3a 3sn�axlw e. _ 531VIOOSSY 8 331 NOwIs V2>ld 31UV3 A3ndVO JF < 1 . . . w I z ! 1tiA I' i: j 11 ri 11, l : k III W a 111:g a 1'f, !1l h Hili°0 lig Ohl 5I t + i to p 1 r��._ xI Its1 S ' . I',i ill it l ir 3i et .i4.k . ...._—__ ••• 10000000-..®®®tr0.@@a©©®©® “ii 'i3 IIIIIIIMNIIF1I a11I IP ' o Illlll1 lIA1Y@IN�IIIIIIIIII1IIII U1 9a ,� —,plllil1 ci11r —I EI Iii::::i,,nh, - _ fFYF� g. ■ ■I I11 I- l. i!■I� a1 iI 1 : :IIN ■ 1 a'°01 a 11 .. y Mi 1 11 I F I. 1 :ii li in '--. n II �11111�1 ■EMEEIEn �1 11 o I■�LiI illi ill�l11111t. 1. •_• i : MB OISE . .MI 1.1=1M1 �IIillliplllnWSIeiSlll '� m1 m1 III• �l� 7 Bi a —_-_ 1al- r �-e-L Igaigil��I '...-.i u• o. l o - Mrs IR IIII _ �I �1 M. ®i > zr 8 _ o II�1 Iii f�l r,, pLa a ii II Ijj j■', a, .drillll1 I�I� I • ii .I L'I i� —' • _ _ hi 1��plg1p�11 3 ■ ■ •el i _ i. i.1j1 Ipp , 1 ' '� l 4112S 'I�Flrl • I an Ii=el-iil fII En ••• I•i�l ml ! I IIII I IIIIIII ■ ■ lu' m1 1. . MI MI Ioi�I�19117S _1 IIIA• _■.J 101 �y III'�� 1.n1 1.1111 �1 •fiam1 ._el�rJ '1I��1�I�1��• s�¢•1 "an.... 1- 1_1 l Ai h —iii I g9= ■ MEI Nqq•, 11-■ - ■p mInI0110 • �• _-_ I.IIIIIIIWIIII II •MOB•'L.•'•EMI•' 'a �•„IIIIIIIiIIY�1111fiq II IIII rIt1 e - c I. ter. 4:,. IT • ...,r._a,,. --i S±O311HOHV 1N3WdO713A30 3Sf1-03XIW S3IVIOOSSV 8 331 NOW IS s VZVld 31HV3 A3AUVO ` $ • 1z' I 3 II CO 1t i1 1 1 1 1 1 11 f I f 1 II ;I ; id d e f o Y. ., ' 515 575 a e > s i s s i F S! 3 : 1 I a w :5 i . 615 6•5 4 Bs I i [ 11511; L $ 11 1yyp 1 : 993 / `i 41 , si Iz - f11:4o1. iE,< ,@I f . 5/1,6- :I .,— ' f l,6f 11. ii i 1 ;y 1 1 It/ 5111161 kW 5. g 15 i ••••••••5... 5 ISIu11 IL ' .. i 11 1'01111 _ a.. "4. oil mfflm m "� "�_ Iima i�ll: f!' __ .�I - - _•,._ i- �I .d IN �I I !Jim 11 1 -, --. Ill..,IIIIIII4. �i z 'tiplitr'--''71'��I h o a ■ss • 1 I a !�!�� El lac I w, o .. ai o rc Z -1111111. mai,ENV! z c. 1111.111111_ ANIl - 1 :a I I�I:�I am i I f I sa _. _.,:a,VI �1j �' o air II J �I� i t I � 1-'" iI�i.I of MOI III m II - 1�� % 1 I �� E . �iliffi.dli _ II __ Iii _ixm � �i,, �v..,.nom..... 0 ": SLO3 LIHOHJV 1N301dO1 AEC 3sn-a3xIIN fir17 S3SVIOOSSV V 33l NowIS VZVld 31HV3 ASA VO ` , Q e - 3 S I tt w l - IN I o i eddrt1 ° - CI� I� Li - I s % N, . , I . . . - - I p IN.. .. °I ?.- MEIN'',I } >m=l ml- _= I- I ! ; E ._, Iin I , . , 0 . • • �1M IM IM 1.'91. I _miImli mi-so „Lion 1...••14a n,nI;�I �I ��,IQ 1 �13�1y�1 ®IL1 k ° iulM'IM IM • I_°9M I- o ' .IM:IM IC lM°'oz •NI• We =1.al la ' �FI�F 1� 1�.1= Im , ImmmilIm ®_tem:_:: s_ee�e'' . .:I El>lmm magi- . , • , • I. Ii...Z3..:k.. ILV Iy. 'I l- �f �l l F9 WIC ..••f MI::1 ® 'I= „ • , • . . imam � , • ; o® , ,. :SIC I� I� I-ii -IIIA s IM IM-IM I • I�IIMIIIM N SO3HONV � SLL--.. . 1NSWdO13AEO 3 S(YORXIW �i5 1 SRLVIOOSSV 8331 NOWIS 'redid siva A3hNV0 •L,!' Q -. e O, Z 0' F OI WI" yl- 0' O -1 ® ® I= fi Ila "" la umtl — ia �IIIMEaps 13 FYI if f tl f 1Air- I P 11 amen_ 4 — juin i ' ill r lel-- ��sk.■araa�- L10111.111.1111"— ®I®�Imh 6 —11=1-1 II q�irn■ - . ■lSfa® ® ° I'II'I ©® 7lai A61 r w , , _ _ _ __ ri ®® 1e ® I �IIII ..._-. - is®I�L YrIM .IIII�W a �h 1 ll , l3 1 1 E. I 3 e..'_.,.1,tr ,. S±O31IHOaV WI-- _ LN3LNdOl3n3O 3sn-43XIVd jam ' q ?; S1O311HOHH 1NSWdO13ASO 3511-OsXIW / i° "' 531b'IOOSSV 4 331 NOW1. YS V2Vld 31HV3ARAUVO .. a . z - - 4 1 1- In,. 0IOII111 Ali..iii - Z p ¢° f U2 O QJ liii um4 ' 1 1 4 . CInEJ::y i' 88 0 0 n --it-b'. tt _ ............... i III Ir . 5 O 11111' sill _ 01 d �,-- �'ri I1 -t o � • t w !if Qi D ; atelo �,/ ®I 1 - ! -- __ilis___I I 4 _ . te!1t `-r J • T_ 1pED — ° i f. =IL I— i _ I 1 V S -,_.}f. � I � -1 VL_I - gi EAR AVENUE _ wIt.70Y i� —— I I I AV& _�t.;;--_------ — i I I /- �iP2M ® 1I `" ,+o- r— — m !0,01111r I/� , — olt0 AmIlpOp __ . ft >i �.: I I ►��:r.s♦ "I" V 1 1 �_ �� , il il 0 se It Jpg 1. 0 tel , I �I \1 ( _ 1 ) De 4h O11014 4I I\ o : 0 I. -, :1 I - I ,1 1 g 410 ifij, I 0ii 0 ��I ToommomBl i a -- I `' r71. . \ ► 0 0 xi - , 0) 2 P` Qo — forriCrJrrr:,r I ` ` 0 iitl , Io( All itok 1'"M-11IIN ►' ,_.. .ii La m / . I4 0 0Illiiii \ \ I ' 1 \ .-7 ,: ,.. .. , . ,o, ii. ,, ,_.,,4 , B 1I21 3 ii 0,,, 0 0( 41 n / 0 El --1 ) l't 0) \ a —I 1 1 li S� �� f i ia , � o ' i ,, a ii 1 ;�1 �p) <e is , , 01 \, I ; Aoror„o "° o _ o a ppppayy Ti 4 0 {0 0 �� Yii 1 1%11 al -N' A { a 7 12 i4g5g 11 4 a t 7 Ili iii - 11 lq 1 1 vi) 1 1 4! r I l ?I' At 8 d s aiY_ �� o xPf i W ! 9 s ” Y 8 c` B Y K c L A n s f. a'E a' f TWO TREES GARVEY EARLE PLAZA �,. ,*(,,,-, r,..• ` r 1 ' PRELIMINARY m s :•:4•11012,:' DESIGN, INC. I — e '6 98? a 84 9 GARVEY AVE LANDSCAPE PLAN- ` I w-0� 5 c4 9 ROSEMEAD.CA.91770 GROUND FLOOR L1 S, pme>b•m moe k�..a�.a a....vn......m.,.tie...r..w�..w....w a a o.ew.a..>w n.>a....,..+....�...e..+.a a..ar�.n.+........n a.•r..r w.a..r..rr r..r r,a,m ena a. ' EARLE AVENUE 40,9n11, ————_——— 1I J r I ( �� .. A j_ �\ .. ❑o❑® - II \ Ill in" . `�� 1 T IL - J Ag - Al ,;,;_," rFFF FFFF' •Q Q ::: :::: Ns . 'V S II 1 S A - 1 AMINE JYllt_ .+VII. .11:1-.1.i.'&4.1 ppo'oL�p a.,coaPal p1 w:11,1'8:11:9.2.. 0'OC)O;�c,ca1 i odoo��d�O, {o� ooC�oE I,j— O�OG,L':d a„a' , � �O G °�°Jn oc:. 00iJr;J JJJJ 'i.J.J�JJJ2I j 1 1 J� �� l ^Ci 1 0❑® ; ❑® � its >:�nnnnnn� �\ 1 ,� • j oo':o�.o oCei` ' t � O � ��$ I 'wA�'� -o0 1 �� / I :II I .a1i1'.•■s -oo■ I :oh/ oa r A • p�G.t■ o; Itl1 q,aro ,.5,� IIff�II�IIIIU� ir ; :I°I aa1 I ` .,copl7p0C7C)c•,ca la /a tI c:�:oc:�.:o rj, 4 . a ..v_il 11111 111111 vA1 3 ' Y s g: ® ° ° 9111 YTil 1 �I.siq nP e AR 1:: RC • • FI J{y 1'1 9Y 111) a. . . - 3i g vA v>', ( I P I!J Y 1 a c s I s e�•`_ :.. TWO TREES GARVEY EARLE PLAZA ^�. . A r- 1 ° PRELIMINARY i ,It .-. �t ' DESIGN, INC. i '� b -0 S- sw9 GARVEY AVE LANDSCAPE PLAN- ` Q. '' ��• _.... •'- 6 t ROSEMEAD•CA.91770 SECOND FLOOR 'f. 5 Q,II.1W0W cod w.w....'.wwr1..w/44MW....'•,MI.we............“...in rat I*to•••••••••4*.•sr AYY Aww••.rr.M•w.tiw y.N•..V..w.,..M,.+.M..'....".'m..wn•w'.....”ma"anD.m0000 w. E M F Ao ka: CIVIC PRIDE -4i14,171. /hC�PORATED ‘;‘54 Attachment B Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 5, 2018 (without attachments, attachments are on file with the City Clerk's Office for review) 5 M '4 ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION O Q. �Ctir STAFF REPORT CIVIC PRIDE s 9 C�'ORAT£D^'�h TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2018 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 16-04 8449 GARVEY AVENUE AND 3014 EARLE AVENUE SUMMARY Gerard Ngo of Waikiki Property LLC has submitted a Design Review application, a request to construct a new residential/commercial mixed-use development at 8449 Garvey Avenue and 3014 Earle Avenue. The project would consist of 35 residential apartment units and 7,520 square feet of commercial floor area. The project site is located in a Medium Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Development and Design Overlays (C-3/RC-MUDO/D-O) zone. Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.28.030.B.1, a precise plan of design for a residential/commercial mixed-use development shall be submitted, and approved in accordance with the requirements of [Rosemead Municipal Code] Section 17.28.020 (Design Overlay Zone). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The City of Rosemead, acting as the Lead Agency, has completed an Initial Study and prepared a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed residential/commercial mixed-use development, pursuant to Section 15070 of the California Environmental. Quality Act. On the basis of the Initial Study, the City of Rosemead has found that, if mitigation measures were implemented, the project would have less than significant impacts, and therefore, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was distributed for a 30-day public review and comment period of January 3, 2018, to February 1, 2018. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, along with public comments and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, are attached as Exhibit "E", respectively. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the project and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to the City Council, the Planning Commission shall consider the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration before making its recommendation. Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 2 of 39 The Initial Study was undertaken to determine if the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study was prepared and completed by Phil Martin & Associates, Inc., acting as an environmental consultant to the City, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Rosemead as the Lead Agency. The project site is not on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The proposed project is considered a project of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance, and could affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 18-03 with findings (Exhibit"A"), a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 2018-11 (Exhibit "F") for the approval of Design Review 16-04 and adoption of the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit "E"). PROPERTY HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION The project site consists of two parcels and is located on the northeast corner of Garvey Avenue and Earle Avenue. The total gross and net lot area of the project site is 38,070 square feet and 37,810 square feet, respectively. As part of the proposed project, the existing structures for residential, vehicle sales and rental, and warehouse uses would be demolished. 1 . • ; t • :I . ..1 i lli. i;._:c ." _1 1 I. - :I.a•ie!-i: .. ; i . .i • •..i.i.• .::. I. . LL. 1 . - J 1. ,;• - V 1 .. SI_ ', _ -_ -___ Aerial View of Project Site Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 3 of 39 • .. 1 >, z muslaka 5 4i 1j _l. i Front Elevation (Existing) Site and Surrounding Land Uses The project site is designated in the General Plan as Mixed-Use Residential/Commercial and on the zoning map as Medium Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Development and Design Overlays (C-3/RC-MUDO/D-O) zone. The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North General Plan: Mixed-Use Residential/Commercial Zoning: C-3/RC-MUDO/D-O Land Use: Residential South General Plan: Mixed-Use Residential/Commercial Zoning: C-3/RC-MUDO/D-O Land Use: Commercial East General Plan: Mixed-Use Residential/Commercial Zoning: C-3/RC-MUDO/D-O Land Use: Commercial West General Plan: Mixed-Use Residential/Commercial Zoning: C-3/RC-MUDO/D-O Land Use: Commercial Planning Comm'ssion Meeting February 5,2018 Page 4 of 39 DISCUSSION Project Description As illustrated in Exhibit"B", the applicant has proposed to demolish all existing structures, merge the two existing parcels as one, and construct a new residential/commercial mixed- use development on the project site. The new four-story development would consist of the following: • 35 residential apartment units —40,020 square feet total c Nine one-bedroom/one-bathroom units — 880 square feet per unit c 23 two-bedroom/two-bathroom units — 1,200 square feet per unit c Three two-bedroom/two-bathroom corner units — 1,500 square feet per unit • 7 commercial units — 7,520 square feet total o 2,200 square feet of restaurant floor area o 5,000 square feet of retail floor area o 320 square feet of manager's office floor area • Surface- and subterranean-level off-street parking areas • Outdoor central courtyard • • Indoor residential community amenities —4,160 square feet total o Library o Lounge o Play room for children o Gym The General Plan land use designation of the project site allows for a maximum of 30 dwelling units per net acre. With a net lot area of 0.868 acres, the proposed project may provide a maximum of 26 residential units. The applicant has requested a density bonus, under Rosemead Municipal Code Chapter 17.84 and Senate Bill 1818, to increase the allowable density by 35%. To achieve a 35% density bonus by providing lower-income households as the target housing units, at minimum, 20% of the total residential units, but not including bonus residential units, must be allocated for lower-income households. Accordingly, the applicant has proposed to allocate six out of 26 residential units for lower-income households. In addition to the density bonus request, the applicant has requested two concessions: (1) increase in maximum height and number of stories and (2) deviation from allowable land use mix. Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 5 of 39 Re•uested Concessions in Con unction with Densi Bonus Three stories high Four stories high 50 feet in height 55 feet in height (max.) (proposed) 67% residential and 33% commercial 85.5% residential and 14.5% commercial land use mix land use mix Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.28.030(B)(1), a precise plan of design for a residential/commercial mixed-use development shall be submitted, and approved in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17.28, Section 17.28.020 (Design Overlay Zone). However, per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.120.030(B), multiple applications for the same project shall be processed concurrently, and shall be reviewed, and approved or denied by the highest review authority designated by this Zoning Code for any of the applications. Since the project application includes a Density Bonus request, which must be approved or denied by the City Council, the highest review authority for the proposed project is the City Council. Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.84.090, when the requirements of [Chapter 17.841 are satisfied, the requested incentive/concession shall be granted unless the City Council makes the following finding based on evidence in the record: The requested incentive/concession is not required to make the units affordable. Develo•ment Standards pls,Z61 #r • Lot Area 30,000 sq. ft. (min.) 37,810 sq. ft. Floor-Area 1.6:1 (max.) 1.4:1 Ratio Front Setback Zero to 3 ft. 2 ft. Interior Side l0 ft. 10 ft. Setback Street Side None Zero ft. Setback Rear Setback Zero or 10 ft. Zero ft. 55 ft. and 4 stories Height 50 ft. and 3 stories (max.) *Requested concession Variable Height N/A N/A Residential: 1-bedroom unit— 1 sp. 3-bedroom and below unit—2 sp. Residential: Off-Street 61 residential spaces required 70 sp. provided Vehicle Parking (residential requirement reduced as part of Density Bonus request) Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 6 of 39 Commercial: Restaurant— 1 sp. per 100 sq. ft. Commercial: Retail — 1 sp. per 250 sq. ft. 46 sp. provided 43 commercial spaces required 104 total spaces required 116 total spaces provided 10% of required parking (min.) Bicycle Parking 14 bicycle spaces provided 10 total bicycle spaces required Land Use Mix 67% residential and 33% 85.5% residential and 14.5% commercial land use mix commercial land use mix Common Open Space: Common Open Space: 150 sq. ft. per unit 8,500 sq. ft. 5,250 sq. ft. (provided) Open Space Private Open Space: Private Open Space: 60 sq. ft. per unit 3,166 sq. ft. 2,100 sq. ft. (provided) Floor Plan The applicant has proposed seven commercial units and a manager's office, with a total commercial floor area of 7,520 square feet. The seven commercial units would allow for restaurant and retail uses. The 35 residential apartment units would be located on the second through fourth floors, and are categorized into three types, as shown in the following chart. Residential A•ailment Unit T •es t� $ v o5 -B„'pr h g t �* � fG s'7. -`r k t 7$ ° ': - k. x 7 hal v ..N:,--,� r k.11-,aili ',Z'pe, 4 pr 4 L p� o' X 3s-� 84!wz ,;:-',S,�.,T,4a 62.41.7 �,9iY: , ..,,. .t 7. 't?-:inn._-.5EA4µ 11.t:*. .,,,, ...rNI:r-1..E,Fo-i& s,.? A 1 1 880 sq. ft. 9 B 2 2 1,200 sq. ft. 23 C 2 2 1,500 sq. ft. 3 (Corner Unit) Each residential apartment unit contains, at minimum, a living room, kitchen, laundry area, private open space, and storage space. Elevations The architectural style is modern and characterized by multi-story street-facing facades with strong, distinct lines and angles. The proposed color scheme consists of primarily of contrasting earth-tone colors, and the proposed exterior finish is predominantly stucco . with complementary wood, stone, and metal details. The flat roofline utilizes varying heights to alleviate the bulk and mass of the structure. The overall design of the project Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 7 of 39 takes a decidedly balanced, restrained approach in terms of massing, colors and materials, and architectural features, and does not utilize excessive or exaggerated design cues that may not be compatible with the community. Landscaping and Walls As shown on the conceptual landscape plan, new landscaping has been proposed throughout the site. On the first floor, landscaping would be primarily on the perimeter of the development, whereas, on the second floor, landscaping would be concentrated in the outdoor central courtyard. The applicant has proposed to construct a perimeter wall along the northern property line. Walls along the rest of the perimeter would not be necessary or viable, as the building would essentially be built to the southern, western, and eastern property lines. Lighting Per Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.28.030(D)(10), a photometric survey (lighting plan) shall be approved by the Planning Commission for each mixed-use development. The results of the photometric study are shown in Figure 13 of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. The photometric analysis shows that the proposed project will generate minimal off-site light to the residences northerly of the project site. The following mitigation measure has been recommended to mitigate potential impacts: • Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project applicant shall submit a lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division that incorporates the following light reducing measures as applicable: o Select lighting fixtures with more-precise optical control and/or different lighting distribution. o Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures. o Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures. • • Select lower-output lamp/lamp technologies ■ A combination of the above. Off-Street Parking and Access The sole vehicular access to the site would be through a 25 feet wide driveway on Earle Avenue. Pedestrians would be able to access the site on Garvey Avenue and Earle Avenue. As part of the Density Bonus request, the applicant is eligible for a reduction in the minimum off-street parking spaces required for the residential apartment units. Standard Rosemead Zoning Code off-parking requirements apply to the commercial units. A total of 104 parking spaces are required for the proposed project. The applicant has proposed Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 8 of 39 to provide 116 total parking spaces. Off-street parking spaces for the residential and commercial uses would be provided on the subterranean-and surface-level, respectively. Traffic A traffic impact report for the proposed project has been prepared by Stantec. The traffic impact report studied 10 area intersections. The ten studied intersections consist of: 1. San Gabriel at 1-10 Westbound Ramps (stop controlled); 2. San Gabriel Boulevard at 1-10 Eastbound Ramps (stop controlled); 3. San Gabriel Boulevard at Hellman Avenue (signalized); 4. San Gabriel Boulevard at Garvey Avenue (signalized); 5. Delta Avenue at Garvey Avenue (signalized); 6. Walnut Grove Avenue at 1-10 Westbound Ramps (stop controlled); 7. Walnut Grove Avenue at Hellman Avenue (signalized); 8. 1-10 Eastbound off-ramp at Hellman Avenue (signalized); 9. Walnut Grove Avenue at Garvey Avenue (signalized); and 10.Walnut Grove Avenue at Fern Avenue (signalized). City of Rosemead's City Engineer has reviewed the traffic impact report and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, and has found it acceptable with the recommended mitigations measures and conditions of approval. Soils Report The project site is located within areas susceptible to earthquake-induced liquefaction. Liquefaction is the sudden failure and fracturing of saturated ground resulting from an earthquake, which can cause structural failure of buildings, roadways, bridges, etc. Structures presently on the site, as well as any future structures, may be subject to the impacts of liquefaction. The City of Rosemead's independent geotechnical and geological consultants have reviewed the soils report and have deemed it acceptable as presented. The soils report is relied on by the Mitigated Negative Declaration and mitigation measures have been recommended to address potential concerns. Agency Review Comments Within the 30-day public review period, the City of Rosemead has received comments (Exhibit "G") from the following agencies: 1. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; 2. County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County; and 3. County of Los Angeles Fire Department. The City of Rosemead's environmental consultant has reviewed the submitted comments and did not find that the comments would raise any issues with the project. Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 9 of 39 MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS Per Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.28.030.B.1, a precise plan of design for a residential/commercial mixed-use development shall be submitted, and approved in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17.28, Section 17.28.020 (Design Overlay Zone). Per Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.28.020(C), the Planning Commission or the Community Development Director where authorized, may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove any application based on the following criteria: 1. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. The configuration of the residential/commercial mixed-use development, as indicated on the plans, demonstrates proper consideration for the existing and approved site developments in the general neighborhood. The placement of commercial units and pedestrian access to the commercial portions of the project along Garvey Avenue further reinforces Garvey Avenue as an established commercial corridor in the City of Rosemead. The lack of commercial units along Earle Avenue, a street with primarily residential uses, creates a buffer between the commercial activity and existing residential uses located north of the project site. 2. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. The project is located within an established commercial corridor in the City of Rosemead. The commercial units are located along Garvey Avenue, which is aligned with the existing commercial uses. In doing so, a substantial buffer is created between the commercial activity and the existing residential uses located north of the project site. In addition, a combination of trees and wall would provide screening and protection between the parking area and such residential uses. Landscaping screening will be provided for visible mechanical elements, such as transformers. Conditions of approval and mitigation measures will be imposed on the project to protect surrounding properties against potential adverse effects. All construction work will be required to comply with the timeframe and decibel levels indicated in the City of Rosemead's Noise Ordinance. 3. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. r Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 10 of 39 The development is aesthetically more appealing than the structures that it would replace and would likely improve the appearance and value of the local environment. The architectural style is modern and characterized by multi-story street-facing facades with strong, distinct lines and angles. The proposed color scheme consists of primarily of contrasting earth-tone colors, and the proposed exterior finish is predominantly stucco with complementary wood, stone, and metal details. The flat roofline utilizes varying heights to alleviate the bulk and mass of the structure. The overall design of the project takes a decidedly balanced, restrained approach in terms of massing, colors and materials, and architectural features, and does not utilize excessive or exaggerated design cues that may not be compatible with the community. 4. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially in those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center cr in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style. The project is located in area with the proper General Plan land use designation and zone for residential/commercial mixed-use development. The project site is not located in or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or education use, or land in any precise plan which indicates building shape, size, or style. Furthermore, the placement of commercial units and pedestrian access to the commercial portions of the project along Garvey Avenue further reinforces Garvey Avenue as an established commercial corridor in the City of Rosemead, while residential uses are above and behind the commercial uses. 5. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved. The proposed development satisfies all of the standards of the Zoning Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the structures are involved. 6. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaires and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development when viewed from the public streets. The commercial units are located along Garvey Avenue, which is aligned with the existing commercial uses. in doing so. the commercial-oriented pedestrian foot traffic is concentrated along the established commercial corridor, Garvey Avenue. The commercial off-street parking area is located on the surface-level for ease of Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 11 of 39 access to the commercial units, while the residential off-street parking area is located on the subterranean-level with a secured entry gate to prevent public access. The driveway for vehicles to access the development is located on Earle Avenue instead of Garvey Avenue, which promotes pedestrian walkability along the commercial corridor. A master sign program must be submitted and approved by the Planning Division to ensure the orderly design and placement of signage. Landscaping on the surface level is located along the perimeter of the development to soften the appearance of the structure and provide screening for the residential uses northerly of the project site. A mitigation measure has been imposed on the project to protect surrounding properties from luminaires on the project site. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed with a 30-calendar day public review period, which includes a 300-foot radius public hearing notice to 60 property owners, publication in the Rosemead Reader, postings of the notice on six public locations and on the subject site, and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk. Prepared by: Reviewed by: ik,A Cory Hanh Lily Valenzuela Associate Planner City Planner Submitted by: Ben Ki Director of Community Development EXHIBITS: A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-03 B. Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Elevations (Dated December 18, 2017) C. Assessor's Parcel Map (APN: 5288-004-041 and 5288-004-057) D. Letter of Request for Density Bonus and Concessions E. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program F. Draft City Council Resolution No. 2018-11 with Conditions of Approval (Attachment"A") G. Agency Review Comments Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 12 of 39 EXHIBIT "A" PC RESOLUTION 18-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION 2018-11 TO APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW 16-04 AND ADOPT THE ASSOCIATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AT 8449 GARVEY AVENUE AND 3014 EARLE AVENUE (APN: 5288-004-041 AND 5288-004-057), IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OVERLAYS (C-3/RC-MUDO/D-O) ZONE WHEREAS, on May 4, 2016, Gerard Ngo of Waikiki Property LLC submitted a Design Review application, requesting to construct a new residential/commercial mixed- use development at 8449 Garvey Avenue and 3014 Earle Avenue; WHEREAS, 8449 Garvey Avenue and 3014 Earle Avenue are located in a Medium Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Development and Design Overlays (C-3/RC-MUDO/D-O) zoning district; WHEREAS, Section 17.28.020(0) of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the criteria for a Design Review; WHEREAS, Sections 65800 and 65900 of the California Government Code and Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve, or deny Design Review applications; WHEREAS, Section 17.84.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to approve projects requesting density bonuses, concessions, and/or incentives; WHEREAS, Section 17.120.030(B) of the Rosemead Municipal Code requires that multiple applications for the same project shall be processed concurrently, and shall be reviewed, and approved or denied by the highest review authority designated by the Rosemead Zoning Code for any of the applications; WHEREAS, on January 3, 2018, 60 notices were sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property, the notice was published in the Rosemead Reader, notices were posted in six public locations and on site, and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk, specifying the availability of the application, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for Design Review 16-04; Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 13 of 39 WHEREAS, on February 5, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Design Review 16-04; 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 has sufficiently considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as the environmental clearance for Design Review 16- 04. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Design Review 16-04, in accordance with Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. FINDING: The configuration of the residential/commercial mixed-use development, as indicated on the plans, demonstrates proper consideration for the existing and approved site developments in the general neighborhood. The placement of commercial units and pedestrian access to the commercial portions of the project along Garvey Avenue further reinforces Garvey Avenue as an established commercial corridor in the City of Rosemead. The lack of commercial units along Earle Avenue, a street with primarily residential uses, creates a buffer between the commercial activity and existing residential uses located north of the project site. B. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. FINDING: The project is located within an established commercial corridor in the City of Rosemead. The commercial units are located along Garvey Avenue, which is aligned with the existing commercial uses. In doing so, a substantial buffer is created between the commercial activity and the existing residential uses located north of the project site. in addition, a combination of trees and wall would provide screening and protection between the parking area and such residential uses. Landscaping screening will be provided for visible mechanical elements, such as transformers. Conditions of approval and mitigation measures will be imposed on the project to protect surrounding properties against potential adverse effects. All construction work will be required to Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 14 of 39 comply with the timeframe and decibel levels indicated in the City of Rosemead's Noise Ordinance. C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. FINDING: The development is aesthetically more appealing than the structures that it would replace and would likely improve the appearance and value of the local environment. The architectural style is modern and characterized by multi-story street- facing facades with strong, distinct lines and angles. The proposed color scheme consists of primarily of contrasting earth-tone colors, and the proposed exterior finish is predominantly stucco with complementary wood, stone, and metal details. The flat roofline utilizes varying heights to alleviate the bulk and mass of the structure. The overall design of the project takes a decidedly balanced, restrained approach in terms of massing, colors and materials, and architectural features, and does not utilize excessive or exaggerated design cues that may not be compatible with the community. D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially in those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style. FINDING: The project is located in area with the proper General Plan land use designation and zone for residential/commercial mixed-use development. The project site is not located in or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or education use, or land in any precise plan which indicates building shape, size, or style. Furthermore, the placement of commercial units and pedestrian access to the commercial portions of the project along Garvey Avenue further reinforces Garvey Avenue as an established commercial corridor in the City of Rosemead, while residential uses are above and behind the commercial uses. E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved. FINDING: The proposed development satisfies all of the standards of the Zoning Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the structures are involved. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaires and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development when viewed from the public streets. I Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 15 of 39 FINDING: The commercial units are located along Garvey Avenue, which is aligned with the existing commercial uses. In doing so, the commercial-oriented pedestrian foot traffic is concentrated along the established commercial corridor, Garvey Avenue. The commercial off-street parking area is located on the surface-level for ease of access to the commercial units, while the residential off-street parking area is located on the subterranean-level with a secured entry gate to prevent public access. The driveway for vehicles to access the development is located on Earle Avenue instead of Garvey Avenue, which promotes pedestrian walkability along the commercial corridor. A master sign program must be submitted and approved by the Planning Division to ensure the orderly design and placement of signage. Landscaping on the surface level is located along the perimeter of the development to soften the appearance of the structure and provide screening for the residential uses northerly of the project site. A mitigation measure has been imposed on the project to protect surrounding properties from luminaires on the project site. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS City Council approval of Design Review 16-04, for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed-use development, located at 8449 Garvey Avenue and 3014 Earle Avenue, and subject to Conditions of Approval. SECTION 4. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on February 5, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: • ABSTAIN: ABSENT: SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicants and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 5th day of February, 2018. Sean Dang, Chair Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 16 of 39 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on the 5n day of February, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Ben Kim, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kane Thuyen, Planning Commission Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP i Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 17 of 39 EXHIBIT "C" —_r_ I o qui r %t§ PROJECT • SITE a i 1 I I O N I � I �I I I 1 - a ufie--S86£I I 1 I 98 .:£9EWd I I I---- 1 4 3AVI.9 i 4. 1,3 aye s 0 1 a ivliIM= o9 c4 y y 'lis 19 i9 1_m 09• 09 91 Oti pq Sit 9 W Or ®iii O- $I > ® ®F II®g 4® ® O "Or,IO 'i®sii;:. s-g19L"r: $Q ®V-§ .gi ... Qaa . CO 01 , 09 , 09 IL K, L6 L 9S 09 1 9424 ,� I'4L ' ' 9 Ill 99 61 1 91 -' LI S9q , 99 rCK on I O I I ^191 2®' + gid I 191 it k 1009 -" I ^• ryl g O O �O U ®r •a+. °' / Z 'i a 1- 1 &®Z w I= I I d ^ $ N ® 19� 0 I I lr riyB9- 5L W d sdL£ O'J _e I I. op. 13%1E1 0i oC7 n- . 19-1[ L[ » cr 9r Cl 0II a 1.L DI , 9L I 0L I 99 ly a IAi9.1.1 PI SLL... C,I 3 3AV 3v3 : 3 3 3 a 031iV3: , 1 I I - N 8 I j 1 I I I Fig g� .I 4 1 a In I I I 1 1 I I GNI Ts-, 3 CO Z $ dEIMIEr .1X'4 CO N I Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 18 of 39 EXHIBIT "F" RESOLUTION 2018-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 16-04 AND ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AT 8449 GARVEY AVENUE AND 3014 EARLE AVENUE (APN: 5288-004- 041 AND 5288-004-057), IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OVERLAYS (C-3/RC-MUDO/D-O) ZONE WHEREAS, on May 4, 2016, Gerard Ngo of Waikiki Property LLC submitted a Design Review application, requesting to construct a new residential/commercial mixed- use development at 8449 Garvey Avenue and 3014 Earle Avenue; WHEREAS, 8449 Garvey Avenue and 3014 Earle Avenue are located in a Medium Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Development and Design Overlays (C-3/RC-MUDO/D-O) zoning district; WHEREAS, Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the criteria for a Design Review; WHEREAS, Sections 65800 and 65900 of the California Government Code and Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve, or deny Design Review applications; WHEREAS, Section 17.84.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to approve projects requesting density bonuses, concessions, and/or incentives; WHEREAS, Section 17.120.030(B) of the Rosemead Municipal Code requires that multiple applications for the same project shall be processed concurrently, and shall be reviewed, and approved or denied by the highest review authority designated by the Rosemead Zoning Code for any of the applications; WHEREAS; on February 5, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended approval of Design Review 16-04 to the City Council; WHEREAS, on February 15, 2018, 60 notices were sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property, the notice was published in the Rosemead Reader, notices were posted in six public locations and on site. and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk, specifying the availability of the application, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for Design Review 16-04; Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 19 of 39 WHEREAS, on February 27, 2018, the City Council held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Design Review 16-04; WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered the Design Review application, Mitigated Negative Declaration, environmental findings, and all testimony presented to them; WHEREAS, City Council, having final approval authority over this project, has reviewed and considered all comments received during the public review period prior to the approval of this project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council has sufficiently considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and HEREBY ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration as the environmental clearance for Design Review 16-04. SECTION 2. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Design Review 16-04, in accordance with Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. FINDING: The configuration of the residential/commercial mixed-use development, as indicated on the plans, demonstrates proper consideration for the existing and approved site developments in the general neighborhood. The placement of commercial units and pedestrian access to the commercial portions of the project along Garvey Avenue further reinforces Garvey Avenue as an established commercial corridor in the City of Rosemead. The lack of commercial units along Earle Avenue, a street with primarily residential uses, creates a buffer between the commercial activity and existing residential uses located north of the project site. B. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. FINDING: The project is located within an established commercial corridor in the City of Rosemead. The commercial units are located along Garvey Avenue, which is aligned with the existing commercial uses. In doing so, a substantial buffer is created between the commercial activity and the existing residential uses located north of the project site. In addition, a combination of trees and wall would provide screening and Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 20 of 39 protection between the parking area and such residential uses. Landscaping screening will be provided for visible mechanical elements, such as transformers. Conditions of approval and mitigation measures will be imposed on the project to protect surrounding properties against potential adverse effects. All construction work will be required to comply with the timeframe and decibel levels indicated in the City of Rosemead's Noise Ordinance. C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. FINDING: The development is aesthetically more appealing than the structures that it would replace and would likely improve the appearance and value of the local environment. The architectural style is modern and characterized by multi-story street- facing facades with strong, distinct lines and angles. The proposed color scheme consists of primarily of contrasting earth-tone colors, and the proposed exterior finish is predominantly stucco with complementary wood, stone, and metal details. The flat roofline utilizes varying heights to alleviate the bulk and mass of the structure. The overall design of the project takes a decidedly balanced, restrained approach in terms of massing, colors and materials, and architectural features, and does not utilize excessive or exaggerated design cues that may not be compatible with the community. D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially in those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style. FINDING: The project is located in area with the proper General Plan land use designation and zone for residential/commercial mixed-use development. The project site is not located in or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or education use, or land in any precise plan which indicates building shape, size, or style. Furthermore, the placement of commercial units and pedestrian access to the commercial portions of the project along Garvey Avenue further reinforces Garvey Avenue as an established commercial corridor in the City of Rosemead, while residential uses are above and behind the commercial uses. E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved. FINDING: The proposed development satisfies all of the standards of the Zoning Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the structures are involved. Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 21 of 39 F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaires and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development when viewed from the public streets. FINDING: The commercial units are located along Garvey Avenue, which is aligned with the existing commercial uses. In doing so, the commercial-oriented pedestrian foot traffic is concentrated along the established commercial corridor, Garvey Avenue. The commercial off-street parking area is located on the surface-level for ease of access to the commercial units, while the residential off-street parking area is located on the subterranean-level with a secured entry gate to prevent public access. The driveway for vehicles to access the development is located on Earle Avenue instead of Garvey Avenue, which promotes pedestrian walkability along the commercial corridor. A master sign program must be submitted and approved by the Planning Division to ensure the orderly design and placement of signage. Landscaping on the surface level is located along the perimeter of the development to soften the appearance of the structure and provide screening for the residential uses northerly of the project site. A mitigation measure has been imposed on the project to protect surrounding properties from luminaires on the project site. SECTION 3. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES Design Review 16-04, for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed-use development, located at 8449 Garvey Avenue and 3014 Earle Avenue, and subject to Conditions of Approval attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign this resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the adoption thereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles of the State of California on February 27, 2018 • Polly Low, Mayor ATTEST: Mark Donohue, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Rachel H. Richman, City Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 22 of 39 ATTACHMENT "A" (CC RESOLUTION NO. 2018-11) DESIGN REVIEW 16-04 8449 GARVEY AVENUE AND 3014 EARLE AVENUE (APN: 5288-004-041 AND 5288-004-057) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 27, 2018 Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Design Review 16-04 ("Project") is approved for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed-use development, located at 8449 Garvey Avenue and 3014 Earle Avenue, in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit "B", dated December 18, 2017. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for Planning Division review and, if satisfactory, approval. 2. The conditions listed on this exhibit shall be copied directly onto any development plans. All conditions shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Planning Division prior to final approval of the associated plans, building permits, occupancy permits, or any other appropriate request. 3. 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 City Council approval date. 4. The on-site public hearing notice posting shall be removed by the end of the 10- day appeal period of Project. 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 City Council approval date. For the purpose of this petition, project commencement shall be defined as beginning the permitting process with the Planning and Building Divisions, so long as the project is not abandoned. If Project has been unused, abandoned, or discontinued for a period of one (1) year, it shall become null and void. 6. The City Council 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 City Council retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit, including the Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 23 of 39 conditions of approval based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation of right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City and its 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 and/or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Rosemead and/or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval of the 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 project, 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 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, without prior approval by the City. The applicant shall abide by the noise control sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code. 13. The Building Division, Planning Division, and Engineering Division shall have access to the project site at any time during construction to monitor progress. 14. 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. 15. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 24 of 39 Project Specific Conditions of Approval 16. All proposed fences and/or walls shall be consistent in design and complement the • approved design of the primary building. All proposed fences, walls, and landscape screening shall comply with the Rosemead Municipal Code. 17. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti-free state. 18. The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed and litter-free state. All trash containers shall be stored in the approved trash enclosure at all times. All trash and garbage receptacles shall be regularly inspected and cleaned, and maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition. 19. All trash enclosures shall be designed to be an integral part of the overall project design, and utilize complementary colors and materials. All trash enclosures shall have a solid roof cover and doors shall be opaque, self-closing, and self-latching. Detailed elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review, and if satisfactory, approval, prior to submittal to the Building Division. 20. A final landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The new planting materials shall include a combination of colorful and drought tolerant trees, large potted plants, shrubs, and low growing flowers. The landscape and irrigation plan shall include a sprinkler system with automatic timers and moisture sensors. Project shall comply with the City of Rosemead Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and any other drought tolerant requirements in effect. All landscape areas shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 21. All 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 and/or adequately screened by landscaping or screening walls/parapets so as not to be seen from the public right-of-way and/or adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. Planning Division approved of said screening shall be obtained prior to installation. 22. All property that is vacant, under construction, or being demolished shall be totally enclosed around the perimeter by a fence that is a minimum of six (6) feet in height as measured from adjacent property, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or other designated officials. The following requirements shall be satisfied: a. The required fence shall be adequately constructed from chain-link, lumber, masonry or other approved materials. The fence shall be entirely self- supporting and shall not encroach or utilize structures or fencing on any adjacent property without prior written approval of the adjacent property owner. • Planning Commission Meeting February 5,201E1 Page 25 of 39 b. The fence shall be installed prior to the initiation of any construction or demolition and shall be continuously maintained in good condition. c. Signs stating "PRIVATE PROPERTY, NO TRESPASSING" shall be posted on the fence. 23. The applicant(s) shall keep the electrical and mechanical equipment and/or emergency exits free of any debris, storage, furniture, etc., and maintain a minimum clearance of five (5) feet. 24. The commercial floor area shall be occupied by retail and/or service uses, with a maximum of 2,200 square feet of the commercial floor area may be occupied by public eating and/or drinking establishment use. Office uses are prohibited from occupying the commercial floor area. 25. A master sign program shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review, and if satisfactory, approval, prior to the installation of any signage. 26. The developer shall make all efforts within the first six (6) months of the leasing period to incorporate national or regional tenants into the commercial leasing spaces. 27. All open areas not covered by concrete, asphalt, or structures shall be landscaped and maintained on a regular basis. 28. The parking area, including loading and handicap accessible spaces, shall be paved and re-painted periodically to City of Rosemead standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. All designated parking stalls shall be double striped. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly manner. 29. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant(s) shall develop a comprehensive Construction Management Plan, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, and Public Works Department. The Construction Management Plan shall address noise, vibrations, traffic control, parking, debris removal, staging. dust control, sanitary facilities, and other potential construction impacts, as well as other details involving the means and methods of completing the project, including the construction equipment route. The City of Rosemead has the authority to require modifications and amendments to the Construction Management Plan as deemed necessary throughout the course of the project and until the final inspection. 30. Before a density bonus granted by the City Council is effective, the developer must execute and record a density bonus housing agreement with the City for the six lower-income residential units. The density bonus housing agreement must include and identify the following: a. Type, size, and location of each target unit. b. The term of the agreement. Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 26 of 39 c. The terms of the construction of the target units. d. Means of availability of the target units. Mitigation Measures Aesthetics 31. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project applicant shall submit a lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division that incorporates any of the following light reducing measures as applicable: a. Select lighting fixtures with more-precise optical control and/or different lighting distribution. b. Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures. c. Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures. d. Select lower-output lamp/lamp technologies e. A combination of the above. Air Quality 32. During construction, the contractor shall apply water three times daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas, unpaved road surfaces, and active construction areas. 33. The project developer 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 shall 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. 34. 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 Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 27 of 39 determined to be prehistoric, Native American Tribes/Individuals shall be contacted and consulted and Native American construction monitoring should be initiated. The project developer and the 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. 35. The project developer 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 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 shall 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 shall be required. The project developer 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. 36. 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 project developer, 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. 37. The project developer shall retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to 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 I Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 28 of 39 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. 38. The project developer 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 project developer 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. 39. 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 project developer and the 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. Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 29 of 39 40. 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 project developer, 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. 41. If human remains are unearthed during implementation of the project, the City of Rosemead and the project developer shall comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The City of Rosemead and the project developer 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 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. Geology and Soils 42. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project shall be designed for a peak acceleration value of 0.953g and 0.519g for the 2% and 10% probability, respectively as recommended in the geotechnical engineering investigation and approved by the City Engineer. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 43. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any structure, the project developer shall provide a building survey to determine if asbestos or lead paint are present. The asbestos and lead paint survey shall be conducted by a Cal-OSHA Certified Asbestos consultant in accordance with sampling criteria of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). If lead paint and/or asbestos containing materials are found, all lead containing paint and/or asbestos shall be removed and disposed by a licensed and certified lead paint and/or asbestos removal Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 30 of 39 contractor, as applicable in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations prior to the start of activities that would disturb any ACM containing materials or lead paint. Hydrology and Water Quality 44. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project developer shall submit a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan to the City for approval. All applicable erosion control measures including Best Management Practices to reduce erosion and minimize water quality impacts during grading and construction shall be installed and maintained during construction to control water quality impacts. 45. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install a surface storm water collection system to collect and treat the first 3/4 of an inch of surface water runoff from the site as approved by the City Engineer. 46. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install a biofiltration system with capacity to filter the first 3/4 inch of project generated storm water prior to its discharge to Earle Avenue. Noise 47. Project related operational hours for the following activities are recommended to be restricted as follows: a. There shall be no delivery vehicle (no trucks) deliveries between the hours of 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. b. Refuse collection vehicles shall restrict activity to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. c. Loading of boxes, crates and building materials is restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. adjacent to a residential property line. d. Construction activities are restricted by the City of Rosemead Noise Ordinance. While construction noise is not expected to exceed 85 dB at the nearest sensitive use (residences north of the site), construction noise can be minimized with the implementation of the following conditions: e. All motorized construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. f. Equipment and materials shall be staged in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and the noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. g. Haul truck and other construction-related trucks traveling to and from the project site shall be restricted to the same hours specified for the operation of construction equipment. Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 31 of 39 h. To the extent feasible, construction haul routes shall not pass directly by sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. 48. An acoustical study shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit to show that all balconies facing Garvey Avenue have a transparent glass or plastic shield to create outdoor space that achieves the 65 dB CNEL or less. 49. Small bulldozers only shall be permitted to operate within 25 feet of the north and east property lines. Public Services 50. Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the project developer shall install surveillance cameras, proper lighting and secure doors and windows to the satisfaction of the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department. 51. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall pay any required student impact fee to the Garvey Unified School District. 52. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall pay any required park fee to the City of Rosemead. Recreation 53. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall pay any required park fee to the City of Rosemead. Transportation/Traffic 54. All delivery vehicles entering and exiting the site shall have a maximum height of 8'6". 55. No vehicle deliveries shall occur between the hours of 10 PM to 9 AM. 56. All delivery vehicles shall park in the designated loading area located on the ground-level commercial parking area. 57. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall design the two project driveways in compliance with City driveway standards for site access and site distance. 58. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering the site from Earle Avenue shall have a maximum height of 8'6". 59. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) shall park in the designated Loading areas located within the commercial parking areas. Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 • Page 32 of 39 Tribal Cultural Resources 60. The project developer shall retain a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleno Ancestry to conduct a Native American Indian Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of any excavation activities. The training session shall include a handout and focus on how to identify Native American resources encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures followed if resources are discovered, the duties of the Native American Monitor of Gabrieleno Ancestry and the general steps the Monitor would follow in conducting a salvage investigation. 61. The project developer shall retain a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleno Ancestry to be on-site during all project-related, ground-disturbing construction activities (e.g., pavement removal, auguring, boring, grading, excavation, potholing, trenching, grubbing, and weed abatement) of previously undisturbed native soils to a maximum depth of 30 feet below ground surface, or the maximum depth of excavation. At their discretion, a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleno Ancestry can be present during the removal of dairy manure to native soil, but not at the developers' expense. 62. A qualified archaeologist and a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleno Ancestry shall evaluate all archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Tribe shall coordinate with the developer regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. If archeological features are discovered, the archeologist shall report such findings to the Rosemead Community Development Director. If the archeological resources are found to be significant, the archeologist shall determine the appropriate sections, in cooperation with the City that shall be taken for exploration and/or salvage in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f). 63. Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the developer shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of Tribal human remains and/or ceremonial objects. All human skeletal material discoveries shall be reported immediately to the County Coroner. The Native American Monitor shall immediately divert work a minimum of 50 feet from the discovery site and place an exclusion zone around the burial. The Native American Monitor shall notify the construction manager who shall contact the Los Angeles County Coroner. All construction activity shall be diverted while the Los Angeles County Coroner determines if the remains are Native American. The discovery shall be confidential and secure to prevent further disturbance. If determined to be Native American, the Los Angeles County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as mandated by state law who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be documented and recovered on the same day, the remains shall be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 33 of 39 equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard shall be posted outside working hours. The Tribe shall make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keep the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be taken, which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Tribe for data recovery purposes. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or means necessary to ensure complete recovery of all material. If the discovery of human remains includes four (4) or more burials, the location is considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. The project developer shall consult with the tribe regarding avoidance of all cemetery sites. Once complete, a final report of all activities shall be submitted to the NAHC. 64. No scientific study or the utilization of any invasive diagnostics shall be allowed to any Native American human remains. 65. If the Los Angeles County Coroner determines the remains represent a historic non-Native American burial, the burial shall be treated in the same manner of respect with agreement of the Los Angeles County Coroner. Reburial will be in an appropriate setting. If the Los Angeles County Coroner determines the remains to be modern, the Los Angeles County Coroner shall take custody of the remains. 66. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony shall be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items shall be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site, but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the developer and protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered. Utility and Service Systems 67. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install all State mandated low-flow water fixtures. Public Works/Engineering Conditions of Approval General 68. Applicant shall submit a plan check fee in the amount of $ 17,400.00 for plans check fees and processing. Applicant shall be aware that they may be subject to other fees and charges for other services. Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 34 of 39 69. The tentative map and supporting plans, as submitted, propose to combine two (2) existing lots to create one (1) new parcel as lot line adjustment. An application needs to be submitted for processing. 70. 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. 71. A preliminary subdivision guarantee is required showing all fee interest holders and encumbrances. An updated title report shall be provided before the final parcel map is released for filing with the County Recorder. 72. Comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 73. 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. 74. 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. 75. Adjust, relocate and/or eliminate lot lines, lots, streets, easements or other physical improvements to comply with ordinances, policies and standards in effect at the date the City determined the application to be completed all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 76. A dedication to the City of Rosemead shall be required to widen the public right of way along the entire frontage of Earle Avenue. The applicant shall engage a licensed land surveyor (or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying) to prepare the legal descriptions and documents required for the proposed right of way dedication, all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Land Surveyor, and shall pay all costs for plan checking, etc.. 77. Install red curb and no parking signs at frontage of Earle Avenue. Grading and Drainage 78. Prior to performing any grading, obtain a permit from the Building Division. Submit grading and drainage plans pre the City's grading guidelines and the latest edition of the Los Angeles County Building Code. The plans shall be stamped and signed by a California State Registered Civil Engineer. Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 35 of 39 79. 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. 80. All grading and drainage plans 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. 81. 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. Applicant shall submit a plan check fee in the amount of $2,500.00 for plans check fees and approval. 82. 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. 83. All cross lot drainage shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Roadway Improvements 84. New drive approaches shall be constructed at least 3' from any above-ground obstructions in the public right-of-way to the top of "x" or the obstruction shall be relocated. New drive approaches shall be limited to the frontage of the parcel. The drive approach is intended to serve, and is designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 85. All work proposed within the public right-of-way shall require permits from the Public Works Department. 86. Remove and replace existing curb and gutter from property line to property line. 87. Remove and replace with colored sidewalk from property line to property line, color shall be Barcelona Brown from Scofield Products or approved equal. 88. Remove and construct with colored driveway approaches as indicated on the plans, color shall be Barcelona Brown from Scofield or approved equal. 89. Proposed parkway tree should be 48-inches box min. Contact City Arborist for tree species recommendations. Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 36 of 39 90. A $2,000.00 fee will be required per each storm drain catch basin or inlets immediately downstream of the project for retro-fitting were necessary pursuant to Los Angeles River Trash TMDL requirements. 91. A Traffic Impact Analysis shall be submitted and prepared under the supervision of a California Registered Traffic Engineer for review and approval. Applicant shall submit a plan check fee in the amount of $2,500.00 for plans check fees and approval. 92. Submit a landscape plan for right of way proposed planting. 93. Submit a separate set of plans for street improvements. Sewer 94. Approval of this land division is contingent upon providing a separate house sewer lateral to serve each lot of the land division. 95. 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. This sewer analysis shall be submitted to Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Sewer Division for review and approval. Any existing deficiency or future deficiency on the sewer line found by this analysis shall be mitigated by the applicant at his/her own expenses. Applicant shall submit a plan check fee in the amount of $2,500.00 for plans check fees and approval. 96. All existing laterals to be abandoned shall be capped at the public right of way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Building Official of the City of Rosemead. Utilities 97. All power, telephone and cable television shall be underground. 98. Any utilities that are in conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's expense. 99. Existing street lights are not shown on the proposed project plans, nor are proposed street lights shown. A street lighting plan shall be developed using ornamental lights with underground services as necessary to accommodate the proposed development and to obtain the approval of the City Engineer. The applicant shall bear all costs to provide street lighting, etc., if required. In addition, all utility services to serve the proposed project shall be placed underground. Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 37 of 39 Water 100. 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 Chief's fire flow requirements. 101. To provide fire protection for the proposed development, the project shall be approved by the Los Angeles County Fire Department for approval. 102. Water hydrants, water meter boxes and utilities boxes shall be located eight (8) feet away from parkway trees and three (3) feet away from driveway approaches. Los Angeles County Fire Department Conditions of Approval 103. NOTE: Additional requirements (may/will) be required pending information provided. 104. Security barriers, visual screen barriers or other obstructions shall not be installed on the roof of any building in such a manner as to obstruct firefighter access or egress in the event of fire or other emergency. Parapets shall not exceed 48 inches from the top of the parapet to the roof surface on more than two sides. Fire Code 504.5. ACTION REQUIRED: Clearly indicate the height of all parapets in a section view. 105. Multiple residential and commercial buildings having entrances to individual units not visible from the street or road shall have unit numbers displayed in groups for all units within each structure. Such numbers may be grouped on the wall of the structure or mounted on a post independent of the structure and shall be positioned to be plainly visible from the street or road as required by Fire Code 505.3 and in accordance with Fire Code 505.1. ACTION REQUIRED: Provide a detail of the selected display method, and identify the display location(s) on the site plan. 106. Every application for a building permit shall be accompanied by evidence indicating that the proposed structure is provided with a reliable water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow as required by Fire Code 507.1.1. ACTION REQUIRED: Complete and return the "Fire Flow Availability" Form 195 / 196, with fire flow information provided by the water purveyor from the closest fire hydrant along the lot frontage. 107. The required fire flow for fire hydrants at this location is 3,875 gpm, at 20 psi residual pressure, for a duration of 3 hours over and above maximum daily domestic demand. Fire Code 507.3 and Appendix B. ACTION REQUIRED: Provide the following calculation on site plan. 108. Provide fire barriers constructed in accordance with Section 707 to separate incidental accessory occupancies from the remainder of the building in accordance Planning Commission Meeting February 5,201 B Page 38 of 39 with Table 508.2.5. Building Code 508.2.5. ACTION REQUIRED : Show all fire barrier locations and their fire resistive ratings on the plans 109. The fire-resistance rating of exterior walls and openings with a fire separation distance shall comply with Building Code Table 602, Table 715.4, and Table 715.5. Building Code 602.1, 705.8.2. ACTION REQUIRED: Indicate fire resistance ratings of exterior walls on site plan, floor plan, and provide a construction detail. Also indicate opening protection in door/window schedule. 110. Fire-resistive assemblies for the protection of openings, when required by the Building Code shall comply with Table 715.4 and Table 715.5. Building Code Section 705.8.2. ACTION REQUIRED: Indicate on floor plan and in door/window schedule. 111. Openings through a floor/ceiling assembly shall be protected by a shaft enclosure of fire-resistive construction as required by Building Code Section 708. Building Code 708.2. ACTION REQUIRED: Indicate fire-rated shafts on floor plans and provide construction detail. 112. Buildings and structures with one or more passenger service elevators shall be provided with not less than one medical emergency service elevator to all landings meeting the requirements of 3002.4.1 a through 3002.4.7a. Building Code 3002.4a. ACTION REQUIRED : Provide note on site plan and indicate the elevator cab size 113. Provide an approved Class 2 Standpipe System as set forth by Building Code and Fire Code 905. Submit plans to the Sprinkler Plan Check Unit for review and approval prior to installation. Reason: Coverage from the ground Floor Parking Structure. ACTION REQUIRED: Provide note on site plan and indicate outlet locations on floor plans. 114. No point within a building requiring standpipes shall be more than 130 feet travel distance from a standpipe outlet connection. County Fire Code 905.2.1.3. ACTION REQUIRED: Provide note on site plan, and indicate standpipe outlet connections on floor plans. 115. The power supply for means of egress illumination shall normally be provided by the premises electrical supply. In the event of power supply failure, the emergency power system shall provide power for a duration of not less than 90 minutes and shall consist of storage batteries, unit equipment or an on-site generator. Building Code 1006.3. ACTION REQUIRED: Provide note on site plan and indicate the light fixtures with emergency power on reflected ceiling plan. 116. Interior exit stairways and exit ramps shall be enclosed with fire barriers constructed in accordance with Section 707 or horizontal assemblies constructed in accordance with Section 712, or both and shall not be used for any purpose Planning Commission Meeting February 5,2018 Page 39 of 39 other than as a means of egress. Building Code 1022. ACTION REQUIRED: Show exit enclosure on floor plans and provide construction detail. 117. In buildings located four or more stories in height above grade plane, one stairway shall extended to the roof surface, unless the roof has a slope steeper than 4 in 12 (33%slope). Stairway identification signs shall be located at each floor level stating the story of, direction of exit discharge and the availability of roof access from the stairway for the Fire Department. Building Code 1009.13, 1022.8.1. ACTION REQUIRED: Indicate on floor plan and stair details. 118. Walls and soffits within enclosed usable spaces under enclosed and unenclosed stairways shall be protected by 1-hour fire-resistance-rated construction or the fire- resistance rating of the stairway enclosure, whichever is greater. Building Code 1009.6.3. ACTION REQUIRED: Indicate on floor plan and provide stairway detail. 119. Fire door assemblies required to have a minimum fire protection rating of 20 minutes where located in corridor walls or smoke-barrier walls having a fire- resistance rating in accordance with Table 715.4, shall be tested - NFPA 252 or UL 10C. Fire door assemblies shall also meet the requirements for smoke and draft control door assembly tested in accordance with UL 1784. Glazing material in the door itself shall have a minimum fire protection rating of 20 minutes. Building Code 715.4.3, 715.4.3.1 and 715.4.3.2. ACTION REQUIRED: Indicate on door/window schedule. 120. When an egress court serving a building or portion thereof serving an occupant load of 10 or more is less than 10 feet in width, the egress court walls shall be minimum one-hour fire-resistance rated construction for a distance of 10 feet above the floor of the court. Openings within such walls shall be protected by opening protective of not less than 3/4 hour. Building Code 1027.5.2. ACTION REQUIRED: Indicate on floor plan and door/window schedule. 121. Provide draft stops in floor-ceiling assemblies, attics and mansards as required in Building Code 717.3 and 717.4. ACTION REQUIRED: Show location on draft stops on reflected ceiling plan/floor plan and provide a construction detail. Attachment C Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated February 5, 2018 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 5, 2018 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair Dang in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 8838 E. Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Commissioner Lopez INVOCATION — Commissioner Herrera ROLL CALL — Commissioners Eng, Herrera, Lopez, Vice -Chair Tang STAFF PRESENT — City Attorney Thuyen, Community Development Director Kim, City Planner Valenzuela, Associate Planner Hanh, Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal rights of the 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ZONE VARIANCE 17-06 Jingyao,Shi of HJ Auto !Group, Inc. has submitted a Zone Variance (ZV) application, requesting an exception to Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) Section 17.68.040.13, by exceeding the all maximum ;height of tiie,;perimeter fence. Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.140.020, a Variance is required for any development that is not consistent with applicable development standards or other regulations of the Rosemead Zoning Code. The subject site is located at 7850 Garvey Avenue and..2,743 Strathmore Avenue (APN: 5284.038.001 and 5284.038.002), in the PC: -.,RESOLUTION 18.02.- A'`RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE VARIANCE 17- 06, GRANTING AN EXCEPTION TO EXTEND THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING PERIMETER WROUGHT IRON FENCE TO SIX FEET:,,'THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 7850 GARVEY AVENUE AND 2643 STRATHMORE AVENUE (AP,N: 5284.038.001 and 5284.038.002), IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL (C-3) ZONE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 18.02 with findings and APPROVE Zone Variance 17.06, subject to the 15 conditions. City Planner Valenzuela presented the staff report. Chair Dang asked if the Planning Commission had any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng asked if this property is located in the Garvey Specific Plan project. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if this was the same use prior to the year "2016". City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked how long this has been an auto sales use. City Planner Valenzuela replied since the year "2012". Commissioner Eng asked if this business has always experienced these types of it recently been spiked. City Planner Valenzuela explained there was a change of ownership and the app possession in the year "2016". Commissioner Eng asked if there were any other alternative concerns. City Planner Valenzuela replied the applicant did follow alarm system. The Chief of Police recommended at this Commissioner Eng stated the staff report indicates there was a triggered this request and asked if the applicant has seen similar it if staff knows if this is an on-going incident and if they kno"w..whpt.th City Planner Valenzuela replied Commissioner Lopez askedwhatis the height of the City Planner Valenzuela teplied the fence is currently four City PlannerMalenzuela'rep)ied it is a wrought iron fence. Lopez asked if they -,'are extending the wrought iron fence. that since "2012" or has which is the new owner, took to address these ms and installed camera's and an height of the fence to six feet. t that occurred in September that one in September. She also asked City Planner Valenzuela replied they#ill be extending the wrought iron and the columns in-between to two more feet. Vice -Chair Tang asked.if.the applicant is requesting to extend this to six feet. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Vice -Chair Tang asked if increasing the fence height will deter this type of crime or vandalism. City Planner Valenzuela replied that according to the Chief of Police, yes it would. Commissioner Herrera stated the prior auto sales business was possibly not a high end type of auto sales such as this one. City Planner Valenzuela replied that is correct. Commissioner Herrera stated she drove by the business and commented it was a very nice, clean, and is not inconsistent with the area. Chair Dang stated the property went through a zone change and asked it was parcel one or parcel two. City Planner Valenzuela replied it was parcel two. Chair Dang referred to page three of 14 in the staff report, which indicates the south side is zoned as R-2, and asked if it still is zoned as R-2. City Planner Valenzuela asked if he is referring to the property adjacent to parcel two. Chair Dang stated he was mistaken and thought it meant south side was south to City Planner Valenzuela clarified that it is parcel two. Chair Dang invited the applicant to the podium. Applicant Jingyao Shi of HJ Auto Group, Inc. stated he is the own Commissioner Eng asked what the incident was that took place in Applicant Shi stated they have been at this location since"2016' and this is their second location in Rosemead. He explained there have been several incidents that :have occurred (such as people jumping the fence and stealing radios), but they never called the police, or the insurance companybecause this is their first business and theyjust wanted to figure things out themselves., He,added that at thishew location, their inventory consists of high-end cars (such as Ferrari's, Lamborghini's, Mercedes, and BMW's).- He also said they have had four or five sets of wheels stolen and each one costs'�about $4,000 6r,$5,000 dollars- He expressed that he is worried about his insurance company dropping them:and the security -guard cost is high, •so they are in a hard situation. He added that he is trying his best to keep his business going',and.would like retrain in Rosemead, He added that they would like the fence to be a little higher and he r'ealizr it will not'resolve the problem, but I may help, as they do not want to move to a warehouse and tttey,do not have room for a showroom':' Eng thanked the.applicant and asked if they are just going onto the property, stealing car accessories, cars and stealing parts, but theyare not stealing the cars. Applicant Shi replied that is correct and mentioned that another dealership has had a couple of cars stolen. He added that he and'his wife pay attention to the installed cameras, alarm, and even take home over 100 to 200 car keys every night to'protect the high-end cars. He said they are lucky they have not lost a car, but his friend's dealership has had the gate broken into and the car driven right off the lot. He stated the person that stole his car accessories came on a Sunday night when they were closed, cut the electricity, and was aware that there is a 12 - hour alarm system, so they broke in at 12:30, and stole car parts. He added that they have a person in the office at all times for security, but it's not safe as they do not carry guns. He added that the security guard is $4,000 a month and is very expensive for him and the business. Commissioner Eng stated she appreciates and understands the applicants challenge, but she lives across from an elementary school that has an eight foot wrought -iron fence and kids are still climbing over. She stated she is concerned that raising the fence height will not solve their problem. She added there must be a more efficient way of doing that, and if they are able to cut the wires and get in now, then they will still be able to climb the fence and get in. Applicant Shi stated he knows this will not help 100%, but currently the fence is very low and for someone his height could step over it easily. He added his dealership sells Lamborghini's and if he sold Camry's he would not even care because the insurance would pay off for the Camry, but if they steal one of his high end cars, the insurance will only pay him $50,000.00 max for a Ferrari. He said if he loses one, he will lose $300,000.00 right away and that is why he takes the keys with him. He said the new fence will be made higher with better quality, and it will be stronger. He stated he does not mind paying for the new fence, but the security guard is way too much, and he would like to try the fence first. He also said he know it will not be 100% safer, but he does need some help from the City. Vice -Chair Tang asked the applicant when they had their security system installed. Applicant Shi replied it was installed on the day they moved in. Vice -Chair Tang asked what day was that. Applicant Shi replied the day the moved in was January 1, 2016. Vice -Chair Tang asked if their security system includes, c Applicant Shi replied it has cameras, alarms, and a glass Vice -Chair Tang questioned if someone was totrespas system. Applicant Shi replied yes, the police officer will call -;first, the camera first and if it's not needed, then he will tell,the Vice -Chair Tang questioned; Applicant Shi replied when tt Vice -Chair Tang referred to triggered off the alarm:'syster Applicant,Shi replied the only stated he watched the video, Vice -Chair Tang questioned or does the SheriffsDeoartn alarms, and if there is into his property, will that automatically trigger the alarm He added he always checks when someone enters the office building or when someone enters the lot. enter "2017" and asked if all these occurrences had all he called the police officers was the incident where the electric wires were cut. He details of what the thieves did, and said they were very professional. entered onto the property did the alarm go off, did he (the owner) get alerted, Applicant Shi replied theY;cut the electricity and the alarm was not working anymore. He explained that it has a 12 - hour battery, so it shut off when the trespassers came onto the property. Vice -Chair Tang stated he is just trying to get clarity, because he mentioned that this happened to his friend's dealership. Applicant Shi stated he does not know anything about his friend's dealership. Vice -Chair Tang asked for clarification if the electrical wires were cut and then the trespassers came back after 12 hours. Applicant Shi replied yes. Vice -Chair Tang asked when the trespassers got onto the property to cut the electrical wires, did the alarm notify the Sheriffs Department or any other agency. Applicant Shi replied the trespassers shut the power off, so no one was notified. He added he was not there on Sunday afternoon and after 12 hours, the alarm/camera is not on. Vice -Chair Tang stated he is just trying to understand if the existing security system is effective. He added if it is not working, are there other security systems that will help, other than the option of just increasing the fence height. Applicant Shi stated that currently there is a two-way sensor system and property. He added when the fencing is completed, they are going to it dealership and explained where the sensors will be placed. He explaine and they will be adding a sensor in there as well, so if someone touches it, Vice -Chair Tang asked if that is already in place currently. Applicant Shi replied he did it right after that one incident Vice -Chair Tang stated it is being mentioned that new sensors not facing Strathmore and Garvey Avenue, but this request is Garvey Avenue. Applicant Shi stated that once the fence is up, sensor system. Commissioner Eng stated with them, and if they knot Deputy Urena replied ho; they are not explained that it is assigned to the date( owners, and retrieve the camera's video: somethingthat is planned. find a way.around it. where they are located on the vay sensor system around the lock on the electric room door be sent. on the battery room where the gate is the fence located on Strathmore and security and to add a four-way s evening and asked the applicant if he has worked these burglaries. if the individdal has been identified or if it is the same one. She ureau and they are the ones that file the cases, contact the business Ws deliberate, it is not some random person off the street, and is son is that smart then a higher fence is not going to help and they will Applicant Shi commented that if a car gets stolen, they will relocate and leave the City of Rosemead. He said that they are not making.much and .if a'couple of their high end cars get stolen, they will not be able to continue their business. He`stated this business is his dream and he would like to stay, they have their company logo in place, and have provided salestax revenue to the City. He reiterated that he is trying his best, but he just needs the City to help, and to give him a chance by approving the fence height extension. He knows it will not help 100%, but he would like to try his best to stay in business. Chair Dang thanked the applicant for sharing some of the incidents that happened and sometimes, it is difficult to report some of these incidences, especially when you do not want the negative publicity towards his business. He said the Planning Commission would like to help the applicant in any way they can in maintaining their business in the City of Rosemead. He said that the applicant is the owner and stakeholder of this business and he would do anything in his ability to put in the proper surveillance cameras, the lighting, any redundancy system, satellite back- up, and he is sure his security consultant has brought all these alternatives to him. He added that the security system is not the issue but the applicant is requesting that the City help him by allowing him to increase the height of the fence. He did look at the google pictures on his phone and the facility is well kept, everything is clean and neat, and he agrees that the fence is a little low, which can be stepped over by kids. He said that it is not fair for law enforcement officers to get deployed to just chase kids away. He said a six feet fence is practical, it's not overbearing and the applicant is not asking for an eight to ten -foot -high fence, so six feet is within reason to keep people out. He stated it is a wrought iron fence and not chain-link and is not something that can be cut with a bolt cutter. It is a good precautionary measure, something affordable for the business owner, and something that they can put up right away. He also said it will give the business owner a sense of security for his personal benefit and gives him something so he can sleep better at night. He stated those are his comments and asked the Planning Commissioners if they had any further questions or comments. Commissioner Herrera asked the business owner if he had considered getting a security dog. Applicant Shi replied that he would try anything and has considered a the dog meat tainted with poison. He added he does not want a dog I himself. He also said he has been called numerous times when the anything he can do to make it better, he will do his best. He.addei cleaned the outside. He stated they just spent a lot of money in the invited the Planning Commission to come by to look at it..He reiterate from justjumping in. Chair Dang thanked the applicant and asked the Planning comments. None Chair Deng opened the Public None Chair Deng closed the Garvey with the asked dog, but he was told that they would just give o be endangered;, so he would rather be there alarm has been set...He stated that if there is f'that they just put new grass, new tree, and last three weeks to enhance the property and d that the fence will help and :will keep people if they had any further questions or or comment on this item. :re was -,a reason why the Zoning Code was changed to not allow high fencing on is located within the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan area. She stated she sympathizes for the bus ness and the cost, but she also encourages the Planning Commission to Vice -Chair Tang stated he is sympathetic to the applicant's request, but his dilemma is that he is not sure if he has all the informatioh,in ,regards to the adequacy of their security system to make a determination on whether they have fully exhausted`their abilities to secure their property. He does not know if their alarm is triggered when someone is on their property or=how it works. He asked if the security system automatically makes contact with the Sheriffs Department or if the Sheriffs Department immediately responds to the site. He added he is not sure if he has all the information to be able to say they have exhausted all their options to secure their premise and that a six-foot fence or gate will now be the last resort. He added it does not necessarily have to be the last resort today, but he also sympathizes with the Chair's comments, since it would help, it doesn't solve everything, and reiterated that he does not know if he can make a determination this evening. Commissioner Herrera stated based on the type of business this is, high end cars and a very low fence, this may be appropriate on a case by case basis. Vice -Chair Tang stated he would like to add that in Exhibit "D", which was attached in the staff report, that the numbers in regards to Part 1 and Part 2, under the number of crimes, they were staggering numbers. He added that compared to other cities, including the neighboring cities, we nearly double or triple in the number of crimes. He said there needs to be a broader discussion or broader dialog about the public safety in the City of Rosemead in addition to evaluating this application. He stated if the City wants to protect businesses, they need to look at how to address these numbers and how to lower them, so these businesses don't have these problems that they are facing now. Chair Dang stated he agrees with Vice -Chair Tang and these are staggering numbers and surprised him too. He suggested that the Community Development Director look into this for the future. He also explained how the security system works and said if someone comes in, it relays to a call center, and then the call center dispatches the police department and they will call to see if this is a real emergency. If they are able to reach you, they will tell you the police are on their way and will ask you if you want to cancel the emergency. If they are unable to reach you, the police will be on their way. He then confirmed with the deputies present if that - is, typically how a security system operates. Deputy Urena replied yes, that is typically how it works. Chair Dang stated with the security system that the owner has ii property, the downfall of the last incident was that he did not -N property owner consequently is going to increase the sensors fi all his resources in terms of surveillance and security capabl security consultant is recommending, is to elevate the fence to Avenue Specific Plan the applicant probably came in prior to the is a vested member of the community and should be protected and as a City they have an obligation to protect his business. motion. Commissioner Lopez made a with findings and APPROVE -2 Vote resulted in: Ayes: appeal 17.06, i place and if he put's motion sensors throughout his ive sensors on the backside of:kpg property. So the Illy around the property and has`probably exhausted lities. The, only thing he sees insufficient, and his six feet tall as a last resort. In terms to the Garvey Garvey Avenue Specific Plan came into place, so he He came in before these ordinances were adopted He stated those are his comments and asked for a the 1 to ADOPT Resolution No. 18.02 motion passes with a vote of 4 Ayes, 0 Noes, and 1 Abstain. He B. DESIGN REVIEW 16.04 ",,Gerard Ngo of Waikiki Property LLC has submitted a Design Review application, a request to.eonstruct a new residential/commercial mixed-use development at 8449 Garvey Avenue and;3014 Earle Avenue. The project would consist of 35 residential apartment units and 7,520 square feet 0,66mmercial floor area. The project site is located in a Medium Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed -Use Development and Design Overlays (C-31RC-MUDO/D-0) zone. Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.28.030.B.1, a precise plan of design for a residential/commercial mixed-use development shall be submitted, and approved in accordance with the requirements of [Rosemead Municipal Code] Section 17.28.020 (Design Overlay Zone). PC RESOLUTION 18.03 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION 2018.11 FOR THE APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 16.04 AND ADOPT THE ASSOCIATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAUCOMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AT 8449 GARVEY AVENUE AND 3014 EARLE AVENUE (APN: 5288.004.041 AND 5288.004.057), IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH RESIDENTIALICOMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OVERLAYS (C-31RC-MUDOID- 0) ZONE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 18.03 with findings, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 2018.11 for the approval of Design Review 16.04 and adoption of the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration. Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report and power point presentation. Chair Dang asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions or Commissioner Eng asked if the ingress and egress is only off of Earle Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng stated that her concern is that Earle Avenue is not a difficult. She added that exiting the site to make a left turn would be diffi right, which would direct traffic towards Delta Avenue. She asked if the, impact it would make to the residents in that area because she did:not s referred to the trees in the site plan and statedJhat it shows trees in ih knows how tall those trees will get. Associate Planner Hanh replied currently he grow to. He added that the applicant will be when it is reviewed at that time. . Commissioner Eng asked iffl a wall will besix Associate Planner Hanh to the north. and it is Commissioner Ei the accumulative Associate Planner Hanh the north side is. staff. to street and entering and exiting will be t and her inclination would be to make a fic analysis looked at that angle and the a reference to it in the traffic study. She ick on the north wall. She asked if staff on the exact height of what the trees will andscaping plan and it can be addressed to the front -yard setback of the residential property four feet,when it is adjacent to the front -yard setback of the residential property D regarding traffic and asked if the projections had been taken into account for that have been approved or that are currently in progress. question can be addressed by the traffic consultant. Commissioner Eng stated she has the same question in regards to the impact of Earle to Dorothy or to Delta Avenues. She referred to page 87, 3.17 "Utilities and Service Systems" (Item E) and asked how that was determined because according to the site plan all the units are suites, so they have bathrooms. She added in "Unit Laundry", the only mitigation measure that is being proposed for (Item E) is to install low flow water fixtures. She asked for an understanding of how level of impact from the design of each bedroom being a suite. Associate Planner Hanh deferred the question to the environmental consultant. Commissioner Eng referred to page 78 of the MND, and stated this is a question that also deals with traffic. She said it is indicating that the approximate travel of vehicles per day traveling on Garvey Avenue is 27,000 - 29,000 and asked if this was based on an actual count. She then referred to the Conditions of Approval Number "20" regarding landscaping, and asked if this will include the consultation with the City Arborist. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval Number "22" and questioned what type of security measures will be installed to prevent the construction material and equipment from being stolen during construction. She also asked if it is possible to allocate one of the units to low-income individuals with disabilities, so they may have an opportunity to live in a nice environment. Community Development Director Kim replied staff can research that request. Commissioner Eng referred to "Noise" Condition of Approval Number "47 and read (item c) "Loading of boxes, crates and building materials is restricted to the hours of 7:00 am and 10:00 pm.", and asked. if this is correct. She added she is concerned about the 10:00 pm time limit because some of this will impact the residents in the area and the traffic on the residential streets. City Planner Valenzuela replied that the standard ending time is Commissioner Lopez asked even if it is on that size of a project. City Planner Valenzuela replied for all the at 10:00 pm. Commissioner Lopez stated side also. City Planner done. and H Associate'Rllanner Hanh repli Works He added through the Impact Analysis Is already con Commissioner Eng referred to a letter f may charge a conr responsible for that. if it is yes, and stated for by the Planning Commission if it has been approved for residential use projects it has been approved for 10:00 pm. i of Approval -Number "91" read it. She then asked why it wasn't already is mitigation thafis required after the analysis, how will it get implemented, completed already and this is a condition of approval required by Public the studies that were completed by the Environmental Consultant the Traffic uld like to make sure that the sewer capacities for the units are addressed. She kngeles County Sanitation District and stated that there was an indication that they their sewage system. She asked if the condition of approval states who will be Associate Planner Hanh replied that their comments were standard comments that are typically given, and that is why they were not included in the conditions of approval. He explained that during the building permit process it will be submitted to the Building and Safety Department and it will be relevant to them. Commissioner Eng asked which type of HVAC system will be used and if it is a Central HVAC system that is being designed. Community Development Director Kim stated the HVAC system is something that will be addressed during the Plan Check process. He explained that currently this is going through the entitlement process and the plans are preliminary in nature. He added that during the Plan Check process, it will be checked according to the Plan Check and Building Codes. Vice -Chair Tang referred to the MND and stated that there are references on page 69 and throughout the MND that there are 46 residential units, but it is 35 residential units, correct. Associate Planner Hanh replied that is a typo. Vice -Chair Tang stated according to that calculation and going back to Corr calculations, they used 46 residential units as part of their calculations for said he does not know if that changes that calculation. Associate Planner Hanh replied if they did use 46 residential residential units that they are proposing. Vice -Chair Tang referred to page 5 of the staff report means by multiple applications. Associate Planner Hanh replied the project is project is requesting a density bonus, whi the City Council level. Vice -Chair Tang asked what the maximum bonus Associate Planner Hanh Vice -Chair Tang Associate Planner Hanh and standards ;on page six of unit balcdri es„and if the indoor residenfial:amenitie; Associate Planner H; common open space Vice -Chair Tang asked how of the question about the water i weight of the water. He then be more of than if they used 35 He than asked staff what it in the zone through: a Design Review, but because part of the viewed at the City,, Council level, the review authority is at the density bonus. and they.are asking for 5% more. tional 5%. He asked what is required for this commercial size to qualify for the applicant proposing. He added he only sees the square footage for the indoor )nd`courtyard is in combusting in that requirement. He also referred to the •eport',andasked if the private open space is considered as the individual open space is considered as the combination of the courtyard and the and explained the private open space is only accessible from the units and the the courtyard. units will be restaurants and how many will be retail. Associate Planner Hanh replied currently it is allocated as square footage, but if it is broken down it will be two units; if they are to maximize it would be the corner unit and one other unit, because they are all at 1,000 square feet. Vice -Chair Tang asked if the north side of the project where it abuts the residential unit, does the code come into place, where it talks about the line of site. 10 Associate Planner Hanh replied because the property to the north is zoned as commercial also, it did not have to provide the variable height. Vice -Chair Tang asked even if there is a residential property it is still zoned as commercial. Associate Planner Hanh replied that according to the code variable height is required when it abutting an R-1 or R-2 zone. Chair Dang stated this is a mixed use project and asked if this is also a mini -shopping center project. Associate Planner Hanh replied this could also be categorized as a shopping center according to the definition of the zoning code. Chair Dang requested that Associate Planner Hanh read the definition of the mini shopping center. Associate Planner Hanh read "Shopping Center" means, "a commercial site with two or more separate businesses managed as a total entity, sharing common access, circulation, signage, and pedestrian and.parkng areas so that a public right -a -way does not to be used to get from one business to another in the C-1, C-3, and CBD zone'. Chair Dang stated that it sounds like it is a shopping center and;the reason he is asking is because he thinks there was a previous meeting concerning this. He asked what the parking ratio for a shopping center is. Associate Planner Hanh replied if it is 100,00 and if it is over it is one parking space per 280 Chair Dang asked if this is less Associate Planner Hanh or less then itisone parking space per 250 square feet Chair Dang requested that they go back,to the restaurant parking breakdown on the power point demo and pointed out in the middle column 'Under commercial; restaurant is utilized as one per 100 and retail is one per 250, so recognizing that- is, a shopping center, and askedstaff if this particular project can qualify for one per 250, as a blanket of-app[oval. Hanh Chair Dang, recommended that thisbe acknowledged on the cover sheet of A.1, instead of calling it one per 100, have it called oufas one in per 250 parking spaces, just to be consistent with the Rosemead Municipal Code, so that parking is parked as,one per 250 for even the restaurants. Vice -Chair Tang asked the City'Attorney if this could also be conditioned as one per 100, because this is also consistent to the municipatcode, and if it is labeled as a shopping center, then it is one per 250, but the standard code for restaurants is one per 100. City Attorney Thuyen replied that if this is available to be used as a shopping center parking use and that is how staff has treated it, then that is what the applicant is entitled to in the municipal code. He added based on what has been presented so far, they did the calculations a little differently, rather than one per 250. He asked staff if that was correct. 11 Associate Planner Hanh replied originally the calculations were made by use, which is the more stringent requirement, but the applicant has satisfied and provided a surplus, and if the Planning Commission would like to modify Condition of Approval number 24, to reflect shopping center requirements. Chair Tang asked what page is that on. Associate Planner Hanh replied it is in the Staff Report on page 25, Condition of Approval number 24, which is a condition on the use that would be permitted based currently on parking calculations for land use, rather than a shopping center. Vice -Chair Tang stated he would feel comfortable calculating based on land use Chair Dang stated he would like to request input from the City Attorney and asked if it meets the definition of a shopping center, then he does not think it can be conditioned. Commissioner Eng stated that when you consider a shopping center, a mixed use is not what is in their mind. She added a mixed use is treated differently; it is a joint project, where a shopping center is a stand-alone and does not have a residential component to it. She asked if this is correct - Community Development Director Kim stated that Commissioner Eng makes'a good point and in the future, it is in the works to update the zoning code, and to make definitions clearer.; He added this is one of the items they are looking at, the definition of a shopping center.ancl how parking is calculated. He stated he will make a note of this and he would like to point out that the parking requirement that is contained in the code is the minimum parking requirement, so regardless if this is calculated as a shopping center and'do this as one per 250 or worst case scenario, break it up to one per 100 the applicant'or developercan:provide more than necessary. He added in this particular case even with the worst case scenario in one per,100; the applicant has choose to provide additional parking spaces and they are safeihere on how the parking is calculated. Vice -Chair Tang asked if the applicant can come back and. say they want to change the parking a little bit because they can now potentially ;quajify as a shopping center and -change the parking configurations where they are not providing the area with a surplus after it?s approved this evening: Community Deueloprnent, Director Kim replied yes, he added any applicant may come back at a later point, and request an augmentation ofthe approval or set of plans that have been approved. The Planning Commission should be awaretl at this applicant'in particular is tjaing through an entitlement permitting process. So in this particular case when the City Council reviews'this-and if they Approve this with the Planning Commission's recommendations, the project as a whole, it is being approved is what is being proposed. He added there is always an adjustment or minor adjustment here,.and there, they maygain or lose parking spaces, but if any applicant were to come back and say they were going to do a significant parking adjustment by applying this code, then he would be comfortable stating something that needs to be reviewed at a higher level just like the prior application as well. Chair Dang asked staff if the last project that had five restaurants and was parked as one per 250, if that had been a mixed use project. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes, it was. Chair Dang asked if that had been approved in November or December of 2017. Commissioner Eng addressed the Chair and stated that project was two separate parcels. She added this project is one parcel. ON Chair Dang stated that it was categorized as a mixed use shopping center and that parcels had anything to do with it. Commissioner Eng stated that they sold off the commercial arm. Vice -Chair Tang explained it was a mixed use as in the initial introduction. It came back because they separated the residential portion in the back from the commercial portion in the front, and the commercial portion came back because they wanted to apply for a shopping center because they did not have enough parking spaces to accommodate for the restaurants. He asked if it was considered as a stand-alone parcel and they were not looking at the residential at that point. Community Development Director Kim replied yes they were just looking at the Associate Planner Hanh stated it is a mixed use project, but it was two Chair Dang question if the parking in the Garvey Avenue Specific Community Development Director Kim replied it may be 1 added this property is not within the Garvey Specific Plan Commissioner Eng stated she applauds the applicant for be for providing more parking than required. She added it will should not be an issue here. Chair Dang stated he wanted to recognize this also and the the City. He would just hate to have them change the use to added if this is consistent with the-, .Rosemead Municipal Coc definition of a shopping center and the definition does not e so he brought this up. He rajterated whatIthe=Community bE addressed during the Zoning "Code update-Ae referred to 51 focal point in the courtyard; and asked in the event this b area; (example: Starbucks'putting tables and chairs outdoor from parking._He stated just looking,pt this as along terra open space _ = per but does not have it would not apply. portion at that point. on hand. He d even under the strictest standards project in their success and parking )licant is providing surplus parking for the benefit of staurant and not having that availability to them. He eri it is what it is. He added he was just reading the Is it from a mixed use project or have that qualified, pment Director Kim stated that perhaps this may get Al.1 and stated, there is a breezeway fountain area ;way fountain area was used as an outdoor dining )uld that trigger parking or is outdoor dining exempt >pective of the project because this is not required Associate Planner Hanh replied ;according to the zoning code, when the outdoor seating area exceeds 50% of the gross iriterior floor area, then you need one, parking space for each 200 square feet of the floor area exceeding the 50%, otherwise no additional parking;,shall be required for the outdoor dining area. Chair Dang stated those are all his questions and asked the Planning Commission if they had any other questions. None Chair Dang invited the applicant to the podium. Mike Lewis, Representative, stated he is here in behalf of the applicant Mr. Yang and Simon Lee. He added he will do his best in addressing the questions the Planning Commission may have about this project. He said he is not an architect and Simon's Associate Peter is present to help with any numbers they may need to cover other than what staff has already covered. He thanked staff for their effort that they have put into this and he has worked with Mr. Yang on several projects, this is the second one that has come before this Planning Commission, and there is a third one that will be coming down the road on the west side of town. This is due to the City's effort in revitalizing Garvey Avenue and incentivizing the property owners to package up parcels and to come back with commercial mixed use 13 projects that include both commercial and housing. He said this is one of those, the design came out great, and he does a lot of projects around the region and he really likes this design. Some of the highlights of this project are that there is a 20% affordable component to this, which would be six of these units, would be affordable. To address Commissioner Eng's question whether one of these units may be allocated for the disabled community he does not know if this can be done, but it is worth looking into. He said as a result of doing those affordable units they are allotted a certain amount of concessions and those concessions have to do with building height. The current allowed height being 50 feet and the overall height of the two highest spots on this building would be 55 feet. He said the flat roof of the top floor of the apartment is at 44 feet. He stated in terms of ingress and egress, he does not know if you can actually put a driveway in off of Garvey Avenue because there is an island in one portion. He added that it would prevent you from making turns in and out and the driveway would be too close to. Earle Avenue by the City's standards. He said so they can only put the driveway on Earle Avenue and he believes there is some additional right -a -way being given along Earle to widen the street a little on that side. He`said the property in the rear is also zoned as mixed use and it is an L-shaped property and there is a residence on it but there is also a warehouse there and he thinks the property is used for some kind of commercial activity currently. He addressed the question on time of construction and as someone that does a lot of work with the construction industry, he_can tell them that staying late isn't the problem it is how early they start. He said they likeao start early in the morning, so the big problem is people trying to start before 7:00 am rather than staying late During the summer it is light later and it is possible they may work later but on these kinds of projects you have work crews that work 8. hours and you don,'t.want to pay them over -time they would rather start at 6:30 or 7:00 am and work for 8 hours and be home early in the afternoon. He is not sure even if you allow construction to go that late other than a few exceptions when they are doing finishing work inside or those kinds of things that that is allowed to happen. He stated the HVAC systems will be individual to the units and they are usually located in the ceiling above the water heaters,,and the washers and dryers. He stated in terms of the parking this project is fortunate that. it'is'able.to provide more parking than the code requires, and that does provide a little bit of flexibility and they would say currently_they calculatedand you make assumptions on who the tenants will be, so 2,000 square feet for restaurant and Ibo for retail or other commercial activities. If for some reason the 3,000 feet were needed for restaurants that extra -t,000 square feet is currently counted for parking spaces but if it were going to be_ restaurant it would7equire ten, they have six additional and it would be eleven overall extra that would give them the flexibility to do that to make sure you get a proper mix of tenants in the facility. He added that he may answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Commissioner Eng asked apartment mixed use project in this location. e Lewis replied that is a;.market question, but there is an enormous demand in this region for rental :will continue`.; He stated' -they are a million units behind in what they need in this region and they are by 100,000 units every year. ;He said for many people renting is their only option and there is a strong she agrees and has no personal objection to apartments. Representative Lewis stated when his clients file these projects he recommends that they file a tract map so they can convert the apartments.to Condominiums at some point if they wanted to, but for some reason they opt to just keep them as apartments. Commissioner Eng asked what types of retail is envisioned for this project. Representative Lewis replied he does know, but they may be cellular shops and will tend to be smaller because the units are 500 to 1000 square feet. He stated they will not be big retail units so it will be small visitor serving, such as a dry cleaners or something of that sort. Commissioner Eng stated in the MND it has a project completion date of at the end of "2019" and asked if that is realistic. 14 Representative Lewis replied the end of "2019", it depends on this evening's hearing, but it is not unreasonable Vice -Chair Tang stated this is an outstanding project being presented and congratulated Mr. Lewis and Mr. Lee. He said this is a very nicely designed project, a well thought out project, and thanked them again for providing the excess parking and that gives them some cushion in terms of the businesses they want to attract for retail and restaurant use. Representative Lewis thanked Vice -Chair Tang and stated that this design will raise the bar for everyone else that comes down the road. Chair Dang stated he would like to echo Vice -Chair Tang's thoughts and it is an,excellent and well needed project especially on the Garvey Avenue area. He said hopefully it will put, a spark of energy in that area, create additional developments, and he likes the modern design, color, and rendering. He referred to having a driveway along Garvey Avenue and stated this is a more clever design. He added Having the retail spaces on Garvey Avenue will generate pedestrian traffic that is needed. He said if they were to introduce a driveway; on Garvey Avenue it would take away the aesthetics and the gravity of this faoade, He said it would also take away the much needed store front and by having the driveway on Earle Avenue is.a better circulation point from an aesthetic -view. He added it is a residential street but the way the project is laid out it maybe for the best to -have the access from, Earle Avenue than Garvey Avenue. He stated the way the project is presented is nice Representative Lewis thanked Chair Deng Chair Dang asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments None Chair Deng opened the Public Hearing. Raymond Cheng, Architect;- ;stated residesin San Marino and he owns property in the City of Rosemead. He is present this evening as a guest -and wanted to sea how the City,operates. He has friend that is working on a mixed use project, so; he, has,heard some ofthe commants that have been said by the Planning Commission and it is nice to hear thatthe City ofRosemead.ls encouraging mixed use projects in the Garvey Avenue area. With the housing shortage im:California any ;residential unit addition will be a plus factor and also by having a mixed use type of projects inthe commercial are'ascompl mem.the residents that live on top. He added that there will be required uses that will better their quality of living ;by providing,uses that are within walking distance instead of driving around. He explained there may be uses such:as cleaners, book store, and it is all there below you, so it will be of good use. He referred to the shared parking arrangement requirement and the City can take into the consideration that the people that live there will also be shopping` there. He stated if you have to provide parking for the residential and the commercial your bddy; and the City Council can really look at it and make a judgment call. He expressed that this type of use is the right kind of use for this corridor and will be the right thing to do. He stated that he serves the City of San Gabriel, which is a neighboring City and is also a Planning Commissioner for the City of San Marino and he thanked the Planning Commission for their time and effort in helping the City. Vice -Chair Tang addressed Mr. Cheng and said if he has a future project pending for the City of Rosemead they welcome it. He added as he can see he has a tough design to follow. Raymond Cheng replied that they know that it is a good project and it will come in the future. He added he is just a personal friend of theirs and he is trying to understand the process in working with the City. He stated it is also a very nice project and thanked the Planning Commission. 15 Chair Dang stated that he would like to extend their invitation to him to bring projects into the City. He said the City of Rosemead is going through a renaissance and would like to energize Garvey Avenue area. He stated there are a lot of incentives and recommended he speak with the Community Development Director for further information. He also encouraged Mr. Cheng to let his contacts know that the City of Rosemead welcomes new projects and will do everything they can to promote and secure their fundings. Raymond Cheng replied that there is nothing better than to make your City business friendly to bring in new businesses and also make it residential friendly. He expressed it is important in any City in our area to be friendly to all the business partners and residential people. He thanked the Planning Commission and stated he appreciates all their work. Chair Deng thanked Mr. Cheng and asked if there were any, further questions or comments. None Chair Dang closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Eng asked if the Traffic Consultant will be Phil Martin introduced himself and stated he is from Phil Eng's question on page 87, Table 21, there is a footnote by the County of Los Angeles Sanitation Districts: He sta so they use their waste water generation factors toulc based upon their comments and responses he received f waste water treatment plant capacity to serve the project. the trtin and Associates. He said to answer Commissioner tuber 26„the Wastewater generation rate was provided they have loading factors for various types of land uses, e the waste water. He said if there was capacity and i them, they didnot,identify any impacts with not having Commissioner Eng asked when1hey calculate this do they look at the plan of the project itself. She added this project has suites/units A ith'the r own bathrooms; they have multiple sewer lines, and laundries. She asked if this was taken into account,in determining capacity. Phil Martin replied they looked; at the site plan, but their wastewater generation factors, they look at many types of facilities that are called multi -family, which they use that waste water generation factor, so they take waste water loads from,a,variety of multi -family projects and they average out those rates. He added so that is how they get those rates in,'whatever number of units, water closets, they take all of that into account when they do their factors. He stated if is not specific for every projectbut they have them based on a variety of multi -family projects, just like single-family residential units generate more waste water than a multi -family unit, they base those factors on looking at many residential projects like that.;. He added that Commissioner Eng also had a question on accumulative traffic. He said their traffic analysis did take, into four accumulative projects that were identified in the area and they are on page 11, in the MND, and the,four accumulative projects are listed there. He stated Commissioner Eng also had traffic comments and 'he will: have Keith Rutherfurd from Stantec that prepared the traffic analysis address those questions on Keith Rutherfurd, from Stantec Consulting Services Inc., stated they did look at the volumes of the driveway on Earle Avenue and brought them out to the intersection of Garvey Avenue. He explained that they use a very conservative of estimate of what that outbound traffic would be and they have the volume. He said the volume for the am peak hour egress of that driveway when they make a left onto Earle Avenue and make their way up to Garvey Avenue is 28 outbound trips in the am peak hours. He stated those 28 trips come out the driveway to Earle Avenue and go up to Garvey Avenue and they split approximately 50/50, so that is 14 trips additional left -turns out and additional right -turns out, He said that is one additional left -turn every four minutes, onto Garvey Avenue and that is very well under the threshold of significant impact. It Commissioner Eng asked if they would look at the egress if they were to turn right too onto Earle Avenue. Keith Rutherfurd, Traffic Consultant, replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked what that number was. Keith Rutherfurd, Traffic Consultant, replied it is 28 total trips, because you have the driveway, and they break into right and left turns at 14 and 14. He stated the pm peak hour volume is at 27 trips, so that is about 13 and 14. Commissioner Eng asked if the number of 28 is based on what, one car. Keith Rutherfurd, Traffic Consultant, replied the volumes they get and the trip generation is based on the Institute of ................ Transportation Trip Generation rate and that again is a very conservative number and they do not take anything into account for discounts for a project like this. Commissioner Eng asked so going northbound egress of the project vyould generate 14 trips (cars). Keith Rutherfurd replied in the total am peak hours outbo'undare 28 and in the evening it is 27, -He added this was based on real counts for this project and they are the two counts that go across the machine that, crosses the road and counts the traffic. Commissioner Eng stated she just wants to make sure that was Chair Dang asked the Planning None Chair Dang asked for a Vice -Chair Tang made findings, a resolution Design Review 16.04_: Vote None None None Community Develo that the item will be 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. NONE 5, MATTERS FROM STAFF it will impact the travel route. were any,;,further comments or questions. by Commissioner Herrera, to ADOPT Resolution No. 18.03 with the -:City Council ADOPT Resolution 2018.11 for the approval of socjated Mitigated Negative Declaration. and Tang it Kim stated this motion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noe's. He explained City Council for consideration at a future date. 17 None 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS None 7. ADJOURNMENT Chair Dang adjourned the meeting at 8:32 pm. The next regular Planning Commission meeting to be held on Monday, February 19, 2018 will be cancelled. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, March 5, 2018, at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary Chair In E M F O S F 4; O CIVIC PRIDE 14/Cop, OP ITEO �9g Attachment D Planning Commission Resolution 18-03 PC RESOLUTION 18-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION 2018-11 TO APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW 16-04 AND ADOPT THE ASSOCIATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AT 8449 GARVEY AVENUE AND 3014 EARLE AVENUE (APN: 5288-004-041 AND 5288-004-057), IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OVERLAYS (C-31RC-MUDO/D-O) ZONE WHEREAS, on May 4, 2016, Gerard Ngo of Waikiki Property LLC submitted a Design Review application, requesting to construct a new residential/commercial mixed- use development at 8449 Garvey Avenue and 3014 Earle Avenue; WHEREAS, 8449 Garvey Avenue and 3014 Earle Avenue are located in a Medium Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Development and Design Overlays (C-3/RC-MUDO/D-O) zoning district; WHEREAS, Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the criteria for a Design Review; WHEREAS, Sections 65800 and 65900 of the California Government Code and Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve, or deny Design Review applications; WHEREAS, Section 17.84.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to approve projects requesting density bonuses, concessions, and/or incentives; WHEREAS, Section 17.120.030(B) of the Rosemead Municipal Code requires that multiple applications for the same project shall be processed concurrently, and shall be reviewed, and approved or denied by the highest review authority designated by the Rosemead Zoning Code for any of the applications; WHEREAS, on January 3, 2018, 60 notices were sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property, the notice was published in the Rosemead Reader, notices were posted in six public locations and on site, and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk, specifying the availability of the application, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for Design Review 16-04; WHEREAS, on February 5, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Design Review 16-04; 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 has sufficiently considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as the environmental clearance for Design Review 16- 04. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Design Review 16-04, in accordance with Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. FINDING: The configuration of the residential/commercial mixed-use development, as indicated on the plans, demonstrates proper consideration for the existing and approved site developments in the general neighborhood. The placement of commercial units and pedestrian access to the commercial portions of the project along Garvey Avenue further reinforces Garvey Avenue as an established commercial corridor in the City of Rosemead. The lack of commercial units along Earle Avenue, a street with primarily residential uses, creates a buffer between the commercial activity and existing residential uses located north of the project site. B. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. FINDING: The project is located within an established commercial corridor in the City of Rosemead. The commercial units are located along Garvey Avenue, which is aligned with the existing commercial uses. In doing so, a substantial buffer is created between the commercial activity and the existing residential uses located north of the project site. In addition, a combination of trees and wall would provide screening and protection between the parking area and such residential uses. Landscaping screening will be provided for visible mechanical elements, such as transformers. Conditions of approval and mitigation measures will be imposed on the project to protect surrounding properties against potential adverse effects. All construction work will be required to comply with the timeframe and decibel levels indicated in the City of Rosemead's Noise Ordinance. C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. FINDING: The development is aesthetically more appealing than the structures that it would replace and would likely improve the appearance and value of the local environment. The architectural style is modern and characterized by multi-story street- facing facades with strong, distinct lines and angles. The proposed color scheme consists of primarily of contrasting earth-tone colors, and the proposed exterior finish is predominantly stucco with complementary wood, stone, and metal details. The flat roofline utilizes varying heights to alleviate the bulk and mass of the structure. The overall design of the project takes a decidedly balanced, restrained approach in terms of massing, colors and materials, and architectural features, and does not utilize excessive or exaggerated design cues that may not be compatible with the community. D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially in those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style. FINDING: The project is located in area with the proper General Plan land use designation and zone for residential/commercial mixed-use development. The project site is not located in or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or education use, or land in any precise plan which indicates building shape, size, or style. Furthermore, the placement of commercial units and pedestrian access to the commercial portions of the project along Garvey Avenue further reinforces Garvey Avenue as an established commercial corridor in the City of Rosemead, while residential uses are above and behind the commercial uses. E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved. FINDING: The proposed development satisfies all of the standards of the Zoning Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the structures are involved. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaires and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development when viewed from the public streets. FINDING: The commercial units are located along Garvey Avenue, which is aligned with the existing commercial uses. In doing so, the commercial-oriented pedestrian foot traffic is concentrated along the established commercial corridor, Garvey Avenue. The commercial off-street parking area is located on the surface-level for ease of access to the commercial units, while the residential off-street parking area is located on the subterranean-level with a secured entry gate to prevent public access. The driveway for vehicles to access the development is located on Earle Avenue instead of Garvey Avenue, which promotes pedestrian walkability along the commercial corridor. A master sign program must be submitted and approved by the Planning Division to ensure the orderly design and placement of signage. Landscaping on the surface level is located along the perimeter of the development to soften the appearance of the structure and provide screening for the residential uses northerly of the project site. A mitigation measure has been imposed on the project to protect surrounding properties from luminaires on the project site. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS City Council approval of Design Review 16-04, for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed-use development, located at 8449 Garvey Avenue and 3014 Earle Avenue, and subject to Conditions of Approval. SECTION 4. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on February 5, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: DANG, ENG, HERRERA, LOPEZ, AND TANG NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicants and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 5th day of February, 2018. Sean Dang, Chair CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on the 5th day of February, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: DANG, ENG, HERRERA, LOPEZ, AND TANG NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE Ben Kim, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kane Thuyen, Planning Commission Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP ilal°M civic Fame K >ORATEO \0 69 Attachment E Resolution No. 2018-11 with Conditions of Approval RESOLUTION NO.2018-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 16-04 AND ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AT 8449 GARVEY AVENUE AND 3014 EARLE AVENUE (APN: 5288-004-041 AND 5288-004-057), IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OVERLAYS (C-3/RC-MUDO/D-O) ZONE WHEREAS, on May 4, 2016, Gerard Ngo of Waikiki Property LLC submitted a Design Review application,requesting to construct a new residential/commercial mixed-use development at 8449 Garvey Avenue and 3014 Earle Avenue; WHEREAS, 8449 Garvey Avenue and 3014 Earle Avenue are located in a Medium Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Development and Design Overlays(C-3/RC- MUDO/D-O) zoning district; WHEREAS, Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the criteria for a Design Review; WHEREAS, Sections 65800 and 65900 of the California Government Code and Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve, or deny Design Review applications; WHEREAS, Section 17.84.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to approve projects requesting density bonuses, concessions. and/or incentives; WHEREAS,Section 17.120.030(B)of the Rosemead Municipal Code requires that multiple applications for the same project shall be processed concurrently, and shall be reviewed, and approved or denied by the highest review authority designated by the Rosemead Zoning Code for any of the applications; WHEREAS, on February 5, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended approval of Design Review 16-04 to the City Council; WHEREAS, on February 15, 2018,60 notices were sent to property owners within a 300- foot radius from the subject property, the notice was published in the Rosemead Reader, notices were posted in six public locations and on site, and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk, specifying the availability of the application, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for Design Review 16-04; WHEREAS, on February 27, 2018, the City Council held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Design Review 16-04; WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered the Design Review application, Mitigated Negative Declaration,environmental findings, and all testimony presented to them; WHEREAS, City Council,having final approval authority over this project.has reviewed and considered all comments received during the public review period prior to the approval of this project. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council has sufficiently considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and HEREBY ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration as the environmental clearance for Design Review 16-04. SECTION 2. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Design Review 16-04, in accordance with Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A.The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. FINDING: The configuration of the residential/commercial mixed-use development, as indicated on the plans, demonstrates proper consideration for the existing and approved site developments in the general neighborhood. The placement of commercial units and pedestrian access to the commercial portions of the project along Garvey Avenue further reinforces Garvey Avenue as an established commercial corridor in the City of Rosemead. The lack of commercial units along Earle Avenue, a street with primarily residential uses, creates a buffer between the commercial activity and existing residential uses located north of the project site. B.The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. FINDING: The project is located within an established commercial corridor in the City of Rosemead. The commercial units are located along Garvey Avenue, which is aligned with the existing commercial uses. In doing so, a substantial buffer is created between the commercial activity and the existing residential uses located north of the project site.In addition,a combination of trees and wall would provide screening and protection between the parking area and such residential uses. Landscaping screening will be provided for visible mechanical elements, such as transformers. Conditions of approval and mitigation measures will be imposed on the project to protect surrounding properties against potential adverse effects. All construction work will be required to comply with the timeframe and decibel levels indicated in the City of Rosemead's Noise Ordinance. C.The proposed building or site development is not,in its exterior design and appearance,so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. FINDING: The development is aesthetically more appealing than the structures that it would replace and would likely improve the appearance and value of the local environment. The architectural style is modern and characterized by multi-story street-facing facades with strong, distinct lines and angles. The proposed color scheme consists of primarily of contrasting earth-tone colors, and the proposed exterior finish is predominantly stucco with complementary wood, stone, and metal details. The flat roofline utilizes varying heights to alleviate the bulk and mass of the structure.The overall design of the project takes a decidedly balanced,restrained approach in terms of massing, colors and materials, and architectural features, and does not utilize excessive or exaggerated design cues that may not be compatible with the community. D.The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially in those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use,or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style. FINDING: The project is located in area with the proper General Plan land use designation and zone for residential/commercial mixed-use development. The project site is not located in or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or education use,or land in any precise plan which indicates building shape,size,or style.Furthermore, the placement of commercial units and pedestrian access to the commercial portions of the project along Garvey Avenue further reinforces Garvey Avenue as an established commercial corridor in the City of Rosemead, while residential uses are above and behind the commercial uses. E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved. FINDING:The proposed development satisfies all of the standards of the Zoning Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the structures are involved. F.The site plan and the design of the buildings,parking areas,signs,landscaping,luminaires and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development,such as automobile and pedestrian circulation,and the visual effect of the development when viewed from the public streets. FINDING: The commercial units are located along Garvey Avenue,which is aligned with the existing commercial uses. In doing so, the commercial-oriented pedestrian foot traffic is concentrated along the established commercial corridor,Garvey Avenue.The commercial off-street parking area is located on the surface-level for ease of access to the commercial units, while the residential off-street parking area is located on the subterranean-level with a secured entry gate to prevent public access. The driveway for vehicles to access the development is located on Earle Avenue instead of Garvey Avenue, which promotes pedestrian walkability along the commercial corridor.A master sign program must be submitted and approved by the Planning Division to ensure the orderly design and placement of signage. Landscaping on the surface level is located along the perimeter of the development to soften the appearance of the structure and provide screening for the residential uses northerly of the project site. A mitigation measure has been imposed on the project to protect surrounding properties from luminaires on the project site. SECTION 3. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES Design Review 16-04, for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed-use development, located at 8449 Garvey Avenue and 3014 Earle Avenue, and subject to Conditions of Approval attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign this resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the adoption thereof. PASSED, APPROVED. AND ADOPTED this 27'x' day of February, 2018. Polly Low, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: Rachel Richman, City Attorney Marc Donohue, City Clerk 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. 2018-11, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California,at a regular meeting thereof held on the 27`h day of February, 2018,by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Marc Donohue,City Clerk ATTACHMENT "A" (CC RESOLUTION NO. 2018-11) DESIGN REVIEW 16-04 8449 GARVEY AVENUE AND 3014 EARLE AVENUE (APN: 5288-004-041 AND 5288-004-057) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 27, 2018 Standard Conditions of Approval I. Design Review 16-04 ("Project") is approved for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed-use development, located at 8449 Garvey Avenue and 3014 Earle Avenue,in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit`B",dated December 18,2017. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for Planning Division review and, if satisfactory, approval. 2. The conditions listed on this exhibit shall be copied directly onto any development plans. All conditions shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Planning Division prior to final approval of the associated plans, building permits, occupancy permits, or any other appropriate request. 3. 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 City Council approval date. 4. The on-site public hearing notice posting shall be removed by the end of the 10-day appeal period of Project. 5. Project is approved for a period of one (1) year. The applicant(s) shall commence the approved projector request an extension within 30 calendar days prior to expiration.The one (1) year initial approval period shall be effective from the City Council approval date. For the purpose of this petition, project commencement shall be defined as beginning the permitting process with the Planning and Building Divisions, so long as the project is not abandoned. If Project has been unused, abandoned, or discontinued for a period of one (1) year, it shall become null and void. 6. The City Council 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 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 right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City and its 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 and/or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Rosemead and/or its agents. officers, or employees to attack, set side. void, or annul, an approval of the 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 project, 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 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, without prior approval by the City. The applicant shall abide by the noise control sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code. 13. The Building Division,Planning Division,and Engineering Division shall have access to the project site at any time during construction to monitor progress. 14. All requirements of the Building and Safety Division, Planning Division,and Engineering Division shall he complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction. 15. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. Project Specific Conditions of Approval 16. All proposed fences and/or walls shall be consistent in design and complement the approved design of the primary building. All proposed fences, walls, and landscape screening shall comply with the Rosemead Municipal Code. 17. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti-free state. 18. The site shall be maintained in a clean,weed and litter-free state.All trash containers shall be stored in the approved trash enclosure at all times.All trash and garbage receptacles shall be regularly inspected and cleaned, and maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition. 19. All trash enclosures shall be designed to bean integral part of the overall project design,and utilize complementary colors and materials.All trash enclosures shall have a solid roof cover and doors shall be opaque, self-closing, and self-latching. Detailed elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review, and if satisfactory, approval, prior to submittal to the Building Division. 20. A final landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The new planting materials shall include a combination of colorful and drought tolerant trees,large potted plants,shrubs,and low growing flowers. The landscape and irrigation plan shall include a sprinkler system with automatic timers and moisture sensors. Project shall comply with the City of Rosemead Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and any other drought tolerant requirements in effect. All landscape areas shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 21. All 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 and/or adequately screened by landscaping or screening walls/parapets so as not to be seen from the public right-of-way and/or adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. Planning Division approved of said screening shall be obtained prior to installation. 22. All property that is vacant,under construction,or being demolished shall be totally enclosed around the perimeter by a fence that is a minimum of six(6)feet in height as measured from adjacent property,subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or other designated officials. The following requirements shall be satisfied: a. The required fence shall be adequately constructed from chain-link,lumber,masonry or other approved materials.The fence shall be entirely self-supporting and shall not encroach or utilize structures or fencing on any adjacent property without prior written approval of the adjacent property owner. b. The fence shall be installed prior to the initiation of any construction or demolition and shall be continuously maintained in good condition.c. Signs stating "PRIVATE PROPERTY,NO TRESPASSING" shall be posted on the fence. 23. The applicant(s)shall keep the electrical and mechanical equipment and/or emergency exits free of any debris,storage,furniture,etc..and maintain a minimum clearance of five(5)feet. 24. The commercial floor area shall be occupied by retail and/or service uses,with a maximum of 2.200 square feet of the commercial floor area may be occupied by public eating and/or drinking establishment use.Office uses are prohibited from occupying the commercial floor area. 25. A master sign program shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review, and if satisfactory, approval,prior to the installation of any signage. 26. The developer shall make all efforts within the first six (6) months of the leasing period to incorporate national or regional tenants into the commercial leasing spaces. 27. All open areas not covered by concrete, asphalt, or structures shall be landscaped and maintained on a regular basis. 28. The parking area, including loading and handicap accessible spaces, shall be paved and re- painted periodically to City of Rosemead standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. All designated parking stalls shall be double striped. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly manner. 29. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant(s) shall develop a comprehensive Construction Management Plan,subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division, Building and Safety Division,and Public Works Department.The Construction Management Plan shall address noise, vibrations, traffic control, parking, debris removal, staging, dust control, sanitary facilities,and other potential construction impacts,as well as other details involving the means and methods of completing the project, including the construction equipment route. The City of Rosemead has the authority to require modifications and amendments to the Construction Management Plan as deemed necessary throughout the course of the project and until the final inspection. 30. Before a density bonus granted by the City Council is effective,the developer must execute and record a density bonus housing agreement with the City for the six lower-income residential units. The density bonus housing agreement must include and identify the following: a. Type, size, and location of each target unit. b. The term of the agreement. c. The terms of the construction of the target units. d. Means of availability of the target units. Mitigation Measures Aesthetics 31. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project applicant shall submit a lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division that incorporates any of the following light reducing measures as applicable: a. Select lighting fixtures with more-precise optical control and/or different lighting distribution. b. Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures. c. Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures. d. Select lower-output lamp/lamp technologies e. A combination of the above. Air Quality 32. During construction, the contractor shall apply water three times daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas, unpaved road surfaces, and active construction areas. 33. The project developer 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 shall 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. 34. 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 shall be contacted and consulted and Native American construction monitoring should be initiated. The project developer and the 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. 35. The project developer 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 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 shall 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 shall be required.The project developer 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. 36. 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 project developer, 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. 37. The project developer shall retain a professional paleontologist,who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology,to 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. 38. The project developer 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 project developer 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. 39. In the event that paleontological resources and/or unique geological features arc 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 arca.The project developer and the 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. 40. 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 project developer, 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. 41. If human remains are unearthed during implementation of the project,the City of Rosemead and the project developer shall comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The City of Rosemead and the project developer 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 he 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 tile 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. Geology and Soils 42. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project shall be designed for a peak acceleration value of 0.953g and 0.519g for the 2% and 10% probability, respectively as recommended in the geotechnical engineering investigation and approved by the City Engineer. I lazards and Hazardous Materials 43. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any structure, the project developer shall provide a building survey to determine if asbestos or lead paint are present. The asbestos and lead paint survey shall be conducted by a Cal-OSHA Certified Asbestos consultant in accordance with sampling criteria of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). If lead paint and/or asbestos containing materials are found,all lead containing paint and/or asbestos shall be removed and disposed by a licensed and certified lead paint and/or asbestos removal contractor,as applicable in accordance with local,state,and federal regulations prior to the start of activities that would disturb any ACM containing materials or lead paint. Hydrology and Water Quality 44. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,the project developer shall submit a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan to the City for approval. All applicable erosion control measures including Best Management Practices to reduce erosion and minimize water quality impacts during grading and construction shall be installed and maintained during construction to control water quality impacts. 45. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space,the project developer shall install a surface storm water collection system to collect and treat the first' of an inch of surface water runoff from the site as approved by the City Engineer. 46. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install a biofiltration system with capacity to filter the first' inch of project generated storm water prior to its discharge to Earle Avenue. Noise 47. Project related operational hours for the following activities are recommended to be restricted as follows: a. There shall be no delivery vehicle(no trucks)deliveries between the hours of 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. b. Refuse collection vehicles shall restrict activity to between the hours of 7 a.m.and 7 p.m. c. Loading of boxes, crates and building materials is restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. adjacent to a residential property line. d. Construction activities are restricted by the City of Rosemead Noise Ordinance. While construction noise is not expected to exceed 85 dB at the nearest sensitive use (residences north of the site), construction noise can be minimized with the implementation of the following conditions: e. All motorized construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. f. Equipment and materials shall be staged in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and the noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. g. Haul truck and other construction-related trucks traveling to and from the project site shall be restricted to the same hours specified for the operation of construction equipment. h. To the extent feasible, construction haul routes shall not pass directly by sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. 48. An acoustical study shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit to show that all balconies facing Garvey Avenue have a transparent glass or plastic shield to create outdoor space that achieves the 65 dB CNEL or less. 49. Small bulldozers only shall be permitted to operate within 25 feet of the north and east property lines. Public Services 50. Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the project developer shall install surveillance cameras,proper lighting and secure doors and windows to the satisfaction of the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department. 51. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall pay any required student impact fee to the Garvey Unified School District. 52. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the project developer shall pay any required park fee to the City of Rosemead. Recreation 53. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the project developer shall pay any required park fee to the City of Rosemead. Transportation/Traffic 54. All delivery vehicles entering and exiting the site shall have a maximum height of 8'6". 55. No vehicle deliveries shall occur between the hours of 10 PM to 9 AM. 56. All delivery vehicles shall park in the designated loading area located on the ground-level commercial parking area. 57. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the project developer shall design the two project driveways in compliance with City driveway standards for site access and site distance. 58. All delivery vehicles(no trucks)entering the site from Earle Avenue shall have a maximum height of 8'6". 59. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) shall park in the designated Loading areas located within the commercial parking areas. Tribal Cultural Resources 60. The project developer shall retain a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleno Ancestry to conduct a Native American Indian Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of any excavation activities. The training session shall include a handout and focus on how to identify Native American resources encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures followed if resources are discovered, the duties of the Native American Monitor of Gabrieleno Ancestry and the general steps the Monitor would follow in conducting a salvage investigation. 61. The project developer shall retain a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleno Ancestry to be on-site during all project-related, ground-disturbing construction activities(e.g.,pavement removal. auguring, boring, grading, excavation, potholing, trenching, grubbing, and weed abatement) of previously undisturbed native soils to a maximum depth of 30 feet below ground surface,or the maximum depth of excavation. At their discretion,a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleno Ancestry can be present during the removal of dairy manure to native soil, but not at the developers' expense. 62. A qualified archaeologist and a Native American Monitor of Gabrielefio Ancestry shall evaluate all archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Tribe shall coordinate with the developer regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically. the Tribe will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. If archeological features are discovered. the archeologist shall report such findings to the Rosemead Community Development Director. If the archeological resources are found to be significant, the archeologist shall determine the appropriate sections, in cooperation with the City that shall be taken for exploration and/or salvage in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f). 63. Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities,the developer shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of Tribal human remains and/or ceremonial objects. All human skeletal material discoveries shall be reported immediately to the County Coroner. The Native American Monitor shall immediately divert work a minimum of 50 feet from the discovery site and place an exclusion zone around the burial. The Native American Monitor shall notify the construction manager who shall contact the Los Angeles County Coroner. All construction activity shall be diverted while the Los Angeles County Coroner determines if the remains are Native American. The discovery shall be confidential and secure to prevent further disturbance. If determined to be Native American. the Los Angeles County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as mandated by state law who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be documented and recovered on the same day,the remains shall be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard shall be posted outside working hours. The Tribe shall make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keep the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe. documentation shall be taken, which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches.Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Tribe for data recovery purposes.Cremations will either be removed in bulk or means necessary to ensure complete recovery of all material. If the discovery of human remains includes four(4)or more burials, the location is considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. The project developer shall consult with the tribe regarding avoidance of all cemetery sites.Once complete. a final report of all activities shall be submitted to the NAHC. 64. No scientific study or the utilization of any invasive diagnostics shall be allowed to any Native American human remains. 65. If the Los Angeles County Coroner determines the remains represent a historic non-Native American burial,the burial shall be treated in the same manner of respect with agreement of the Los Angeles County Coroner. Reburial will be in an appropriate setting. If the Los Angeles County Coroner determines the remains to be modern, the Los Angeles County Coroner shall take custody of the remains. 66. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony shall be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items shall he retained and reburied within six months of recovery.The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site,but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the developer and protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered. Utility and Service Systems 67. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install all State mandated low-flow water fixtures. Public Works/Enuineerinu Conditions of Approval General 68. Applicant shall submit a plan check fee in the amount of$ 17,400.00 for plans check fees and processing. Applicant shall be aware that they may be subject to other fees and charges for other services. 69. The tentative map and supporting plans,as submitted, propose to combine two (2)existing lots to create one(1)new parcel as lot line adjustment. An application needs to be submitted for processing. 70. 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. 71. A preliminary subdivision guarantee is required showing all fee interest holders and encumbrances. An updated title report shall be provided before the final parcel map is released for filing with the County Recorder. 72. Comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 73. 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. 74. 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. 75. Adjust, relocate and/or eliminate lot lines, lots, streets, easements or other physical improvements to comply with ordinances,policies and standards in effect at the date the City determined the application to be completed all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 76. A dedication to the City of Rosemead shall be required to widen the public right of way along the entire frontage of Earle Avenue. The applicant shall engage a licensed land surveyor (or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying) to prepare the legal descriptions and documents required for the proposed right of way dedication, all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Land Surveyor,and shall pay all costs for plan checking, etc.. 77. Install red curb and no parking signs at frontage of Earle Avenue. Grading and Drainage 78. Prior to performing any grading,obtain a permit from the Building Division.Submit grading and drainage plans pre the City's grading guidelines and the latest edition of the Los Angeles County Building Code. The plans shall be stamped and signed by a California State Registered Civil Engineer. 79. 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. 80. All grading and drainage plans 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. 81. 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. Applicant shall submit a plan check fee in the amount of $2,500.00 for plans check fees and approval. 82. All grading projects require an Erosion Control Plan as part of the grading plans. Grading permit will not he issued until and Erosion Control Plan is approved by the Engineering Department. 83. All cross lot drainage shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Roadway Improvements 84. New drive approaches shall be constructed at least 3'from any above-ground obstructions in the public right-of-way to the top of "x" or the obstruction shall be relocated. New drive approaches shall be limited to the frontage of the parcel.The drive approach is intended to serve, and is designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 85. All work proposed within the public right-of-way shall require permits from the Public Works Department. 86. Remove and replace existing curb and gutter from property line to property line. 87. Remove and replace with colored sidewalk from property line to property line,color shall be Barcelona Brown from Scofield Products or approved equal. 88. Remove and construct with colored driveway approaches as indicated on the plans, color shall be Barcelona Brown from Scofield or approved equal. 89. Proposed parkway tree should be 48-inches box min. Contact City Arborist for tree species recommendations. 90. A $2,000.00 fee will be required per each storm drain catch basin or inlets immediately downstream of the project for retro-fitting were necessary pursuant to Los Angeles River Trash TMDL requirements. 91. A Traffic Impact Analysis shall be submitted and prepared under the supervision of a California Registered Traffic Engineer for review and approval. Applicant shall submit a plan check fee in the amount of$2,500.00 for plans check fees and approval. 92. Submit a landscape plan for right of way proposed planting. 93. Submit a separate set of plans for street improvements. Sewer 94. Approval of this land division is contingent upon providing a separate house sewer lateral to serve each lot of the land division. 95. 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. This sewer analysis shall be submitted to Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Sewer Division for review and approval. Any existing deficiency or future deficiency on the sewer line found by this analysis shall be mitigated by the applicant at his/her own expenses. Applicant shall submit a plan check fee in the amount of$2,500.00 for plans check fees and approval. 96. All existing laterals to be abandoned shall be capped at the public right of way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Building Official of the City of Rosemead. Utilities 97. All power, telephone and cable television shall be underground. 9R. Any utilities that are in conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's expense. 99. Existing street lights are not shown on the proposed project plans, nor are proposed street lights shown. A street lighting plan shall be developed using ornamental lights with underground services as necessary to accommodate the proposed development and to obtain the approval of the City Engineer.The applicant shall bear all costs to provide street lighting, etc.,if required. In addition,all utility services to serve the proposed project shall be placed underground. Water 100. 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 Chief s fire flow requirements. 101. To provide fire protection for the proposed development,the project shall be approved by the Los Angeles County Fire Department for approval. 102. Water hydrants, water meter boxes and utilities boxes shall be located eight (8) feet away from parkway trees and three (3) feet away from driveway approaches. Los Angeles County Fire Department Conditions of Approval 103. NOTE: Additional requirements (may/will)be required pending information provided. 104. Security barriers,visual screen barriers or other obstructions shall not be installed on the roof of any building in such a manner as to obstruct firefighter access or egress in the event of fire or other emergency. Parapets shall not exceed 48 inches from the top of the parapet to the roof surface on more than two sides. Fire Code 504.5. ACTION REQUIRED: Clearly indicate the height of all parapets in a section view. 105. Multiple residential and commercial buildings having entrances to individual units not visible from the street or road shall have unit numbers displayed in groups for all units within each structure. Such numbers may be grouped on the wall of the structure or mounted on a post independent of the structure and shall be positioned to be plainly visible from the street or road as required by Fire Code 505.3 and in accordance with Fire Code 505.1. ACTION REQUIRED: Provide a detail of the selected display method, and identify the display location(s) on the site plan. 106. Every application for a building permit shall be accompanied by evidence indicating that the proposed structure is provided with a reliable water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow as required by Fire Code 507.1.1.ACTION REQUIRED: Complete and return the "Fire Flow Availability" Form 195 / 196, with fire flow information provided by the water purveyor from the closest fire hydrant along the lot frontage. 107. The required fire flow for fire hydrants at this location is 3,875 gpm, at 20 psi residual pressure, for a duration of 3 hours over and above maximum daily domestic demand. Fire Code 507.3 and Appendix B. ACTION REQUIRED: Provide the following calculation on site plan. 108. Provide fire barriers constructed in accordance with Section 707 to separate incidental accessory occupancies from the remainder of the building in accordance with Table 508.2.5. Building Code 508.2.5.ACTION REQUIRED : Show all fire barrier locations and their fire resistive ratings on the plans 109. The fire-resistance rating of exterior walls and openings with a fire separation distance shall comply with Building Code Table 602,Table 715.4,and Table 715.5. Building Code 602.1, 705.8.2.ACTION REQUIRED: Indicate fire resistance ratings of exterior walls on site plan, floor plan, and provide a construction detail. Also indicate opening protection in door/window schedule. 110. Fire-resistive assemblies for the protection of openings,when required by the Building Code shall comply with Table 715.4 and Table 715.5. Building Code Section 705.8.2. ACTION REQUIRED: indicate on floor plan and in door/window schedule. 111. Openings through a floor/ceiling assembly shall be protected by a shaft enclosure of fire- resistive construction as required by Building Code Section 708. Building Code 708.2. ACTION REQUIRED: Indicate fire-rated shafts on floor plans and provide construction detail. 112. Buildings and structures with one or more passenger service elevators shall be provided with not less than one medical emergency service elevator to all landings meeting the requirements of 3002.4.1a through 3002.4.7a. Building Code 3002.4a. ACTION REQUIRED : Provide note on site plan and indicate the elevator cab size 113. Provide an approved Class 2 Standpipe System as set forth by Building Code and Fire Code 905. Submit plans to the Sprinkler Plan Check Unit for review and approval prior to installation. Reason: Coverage from the ground Floor Parking Structure. ACTION REQUIRED: Provide note on site plan and indicate outlet locations on floor plans. 114. No point within a building requiring standpipes shall be more than 130 feet travel distance from a standpipe outlet connection. County Fire Code 905.2.1.3. ACTION REQUIRED: Provide note on site plan, and indicate standpipe outlet connections on floor plans. 115. The power supply for means of egress illumination shall normally be provided by the premises electrical supply. In the event of power supply failure.the emergency power system shall provide power for a duration of not less than 90 minutes and shall consist of storage batteries, unit equipment or an on-site generator. Building Code 1006.3. ACTION REQUIRED: Provide note on site plan and indicate the light fixtures with emergency power on reflected ceiling plan. 116. Interior exit stairways and exit ramps shall be enclosed with fire bathers constructed in accordance with Section 707 or horizontal assemblies constructed in accordance with Section 712,or both and shall not be used for any purpose other than as a means of egress.Building Code 1022. ACTION REQUIRED: Show exit enclosure on floor plans and provide construction detail. 117. In buildings located four or more stories in height above grade plane, one stairway shall extended to the roof surface, unless the roof has a slope steeper than 4 in 12 (33% slope). Stairway identification signs shall be located at each floor level stating the story of,direction of exit discharge and the availability of roof access from the stairway for the Fire • Department. Building Code 1009.13, 1022.8.1.ACTION REQUIRED: Indicate on floor plan and stair details. 118. Walls and soffits within enclosed usable spaces under enclosed and unenclosed stairways shall be protected by l-hour fire-resistance-rated construction or the fire-resistance rating of the stairway enclosure, whichever is greater. Building Code 1009.6.3. ACTION REQUIRED: Indicate on floor plan and provide stairway detail. 119. Fire door assemblies required to have a minimum fire protection rating of 20 minutes where located in corridor walls or smoke-barrier walls having a fire-resistance rating in accordance with Table 715.4, shall be tested - NFPA 252 or UL 10C. Fire door assemblies shall also meet the requirements for smoke and draft control door assembly tested in accordance with UL 1784. Glazing material in the door itself shall have a minimum fire protection rating of 20 minutes. Building Code 715.4.3,715.4.3.1 and 715.4.3.2.ACTION REQUIRED:Indicate on door/window schedule. 120. When an egress court serving a building or portion thereof serving an occupant load of 10 or more is less than 10 feet in width, the egress court walls shall be minimum one-hour fire- resistance rated construction for a distance of 10 feet above the floor of the court.Openings within such walls shall be protected by opening protective of not less than 1/4 hour.Building Code 1027.5.2. ACTION REQUIRED: Indicate on floor plan and door/window schedule. 121. Provide draft stops in floor-ceiling assemblies,attics and mansards as required in Building Code 717.3 and 717.4. ACTION REQUIRED: Show location on draft stops on reflected ceiling plan/floor plan and provide a construction detail. ILIM F CIVIC PRIDE NIMP / °4P ORA 9y4 Attachment F Mitigated Negative Declaration with Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION GARVEY EARLE PLAZA Design Review 16-04 T „moi nTi ��-fit= � � ' I 11 r i �r`t !� i�hf-' r'i hip -- w,. . iiiiiii , , , , .T-- ,- -,. :-...--:-;7. - ..,! 1 11: 11 LL #r Trill 711111111111 I rill Lead Agenci: City of Rosemead 8838 E.Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 (626)-569-2142 Project Proponent: Cindy Lau Waikiki Properly 120 E.Valley Boulevard San Gabriel, California 91776 (626) 307-0062 Environmental Consultant: Phil Martin &Associates . 4860 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 203 Irvine, California 92620 (714)454-1800 December 22, 2017 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 TABLE of CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 Location 1 1.3 Project Description 1 1.4 Intended Use of This Document 5 1.5 Environmental Setting 5 1.6 Cumulative Projects 11 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 17 3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 20 3.1 Aesthetics 20 3.2 Agricultural Resources 24 3.3 Air Quality 25 3.4 Biological Resources 34 3.5 Cultural Resources 36 3.6 Geology and Soils 41 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 43 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 46 3.9 Land Use 50 3.10 Mineral Resources 56 3.11 Noise 57 3.12 Population and Housing 67 3.13 Public Services 68 3.14 Recreation 70 3.15 Transportation/Traffic 71 3.16 Tribal Cultural Resources 83 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems 87 3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance 89 4.0 REFERENCES 91 Appendices Appendix A—Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis Appendix B — Geotechnical Report Appendix C — Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix D — Hydrology Report Appendix E — Noise Report Appendix F — Traffic Report Pagel City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 LIST of FIGURES Figure Page 1. Regional Location Map 2 2. Local Vicinity Map 3 3. Aerial Photo 4 4. Site Plan 6 5. North/East Building Elevations 7 6. South/West Building Elevations 8 7. Landscape Plan 9 8. Landscape Plan 10 9. On-Site Land Uses 12 10. Off-Site Land Uses 13 11. Photo Orientation Map 14 12. Cumulative Projects -Aerial Photo 16 13. Photometric Study 23 14. General Plan Map 52 15. Zoning Map 53 16. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Generation Levels 66 17. Study Area Intersection 74 . 18. Project Trip Distribution 75 19. Project AM Peak Trips 76 20. Project PM Peak Hour Trips 77 f 1 LIST of TABLES Table Page I 1. South Coast Air Basin Emission Forecasts (Emissions (tons/day) 26 2. Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2011-2015) 27 3. Daily Emission Thresholds 28 4. Construction Activity Equipment Fleet 29 5. Construction Activity Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day) 30 6. Daily Operational Impacts 30 7. LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day) 31 8. Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO2(e)) 32 9. Operational Emissions 33 10. Rosemead Noise Ordinance Limits 58 11. Measured Noise Levels (dBA) 59 12. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis (dBA CNEL at 50 feet from Centerline) 59 13. Project Traffic Noise Level Increases (dBA CNEL at 50 feet from Centerline) 60 14. Human Response to Transient Vibration 64 15. Vibration Levels from Project Construction Activities 64 16. Estimated Vibration Levels During Project Construction 64 17. Project Trip Generation 72 18. Existing 2017 Level of Service at Study Area Intersections 79 19. Baseline 2019 Level of Service at Study Area Intersections With and Without Project 80 20. Estimate Project Water Consumption 88 21. Estimated Project Wastewater Generation 88 Page ii City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE The City of Rosemead ("Lead Agency") has prepared this Mitigated Negative Declaration for the purpose of identifying and evaluating the potential impacts that could occur with proposed Design Review 16-04 (DR 16-04) for the construction of a mixed-use project. The project is located on approximately 0.874 acres and includes 35 residential units, 7,520 square feet of retail/restaurant use, and 116 parking spaces, including compact and handicap spaces, in a four-story building with one level of subterranean parking. The project proposes that 20% of the apartments will be low-income that allows a thirty-five percent (35%) density bonus. It is the intent of this environmental document to identify the potential environmental impacts that can be expected to occur with the development of the proposed project, including the demolition of the existing buildings and site improvements, and provide feasible mitigation measures, when required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Approval of the site plan is required by the City. 1.2 LOCATION The project site totals approximately 38,070 square feet (0.874 acres) and is located in the City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California as shown in Figure 1, Regional Map. The project site consists of two parcels (APN 5288-004-041,057) and is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Earle Avenue as shown in Figure 2 — Local Vicinity Map. An aerial photograph of the site is shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photo. The project site is designated in the General Plan as Mixed-use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac) and the zoning is C-3D and RC-MUDO (Medium Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed-use Design Overlays). The existing land use and zoning designations allow the uses proposed for the site. The General Plan land use designations adjacent to the site include Mixed-use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac) to the north, west, east and south. The zoning is C-3- MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed-use and Design Overlays) to the north, west, east, and south. 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is developed with a used car lot and two single-family residences. The project will require the demolition of the existing structures and site improvements to allow the construction of the proposed four-story, mixed-use development consisting of 7,520 square feet of retail/restaurant use on the first floor and 35 residential units on the second through fourth floors. Of the 35 apartments, excluding the manager's apartment, there will be eight apartments on the second floor, nine apartments on the second floor along with a gym, kid's room, lounge and library, and 13 apartments on both the third and fourth floors. The project includes a density bonus application under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, which allows density bonuses up to 35% for low-income housing. As a result, six (6) of the apartments will be available for low-income households for a minimum of 55 years and 29 market rate apartments for a total of 35 apartments. Page l Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. GARVEY EARLE PLAZA I CITY OF ROSEMEAD tet. „.._. , , . , Lack RbnO'.e C AWadena t bank a !V 7 eayfn•Gram/44 :.<•a } ur.r.. ... van. Glenda. fur Acadia - Glenda,, sok aocL PaaaM..t " ` Arvsa ` • _ - a Col ..� 1 law✓.r South Se.,Marino Y��Mx..�. crus 'l • JM Norlheeel1:13 Pasadena Trmpkchy L - • 1Q Angel - fl" Vw..�t Carter • OA,H } AlWini is • Covina P� ria semead CM ePark ��0endale Park - - • LA (m Monk.,ey ---"."`ft Ales ma®"_ 1 u'''' Park south u lien,.., los A - Monte va:-e•L, a::ceao a ._ 1w`; Caitiff KvM Erged.oaa «� „ ;.—as.Lw ``. Site Location . Hosec dm 1�< � a LA " MaHebello La Puente w.tlh•,an Warn. .1o,...1104 Hxuy,darm� art South os Hunknyion PKo River He,ghle y Whitiiee Rowland j •r �' An9 s Park veli tletgMs 4�t 1*_ t•Ioaence-5'ahs-1, IGardens la nnye • _ south Gate a 1. son* ,..,e,,,, i n_ yfidtier ,-,,,.aa Downey V - ..Lynv ood la Habra WAlowiroe4 T,«r,�, la Mirada (� a Oleo r Nawe r, t ton Comptonq Aron urn •I / I / 1 / 1 1 / . / 1 \'\ 0 . I I I I II QN 't / / N. \on'‘, ) ?L:____--------------— Source:Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. N Figure 1 ® Regional Map • PMA Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. GARVEY EARLE PLAZA I CITY OF ROSEMEAD "t:; .. Uurvlhy Si Dorothy 51 t4a.,fi y Si c. Yr ' Sunrhrrw Nursery O 4 C m L Q t1 - tJ C Willard i/eSlern Union Elc•menlety Scfioor O c o ;r P.,d.St k rrr the Box Project ' Location Paul Wu Body Shop 0 WAY,*Restew Anl s ocvs 0 SUutucAa F. 0 I I Storage Etc Bo ,.y Ave G:rIVr•yAt,. 1. T u:r:h:c 7.• a Ilk::5131.r(t IS AUIOZOne O n 0 Tire Shop Walgreens • Royale:nrr a r f a' y WIio eSJ!r 1*An;,,,t /ern F.c Sanchez f,_rt Beverage.o . tlemenlary Schonl o z _ © 0 !i ip!B(Ro(tcr V!I p iMennetliale School a? = G Source:Google Maps, 2017 N Figure 2 Local Vicinity Map ® T' 77F 7 vy l '17,- L - LI LLI Lf) VI c °, • ' * i i:• a*. --"" f iat ry `� *so CO ocl 111151 ` ` •1..., I ,1 j i., ilik ,e, '-, LJ— s illith41 3, i i 1 O • . a O " S < Il • ' �wftl. lLI L I CL ` , , 4. ` ' tr. - 1 - if -. - - _ , LLI , . i A4 MI Q 1 t 4 _ . -. L7 t '' i, Ar C • { ,•.--,r4o-4 a__ , - • . .. . , . , 4 .....• , , iii.. . t II.y, ilkb• Fi- I ' • „.-.•-., " .- 1 �, int �;: :; ! a i,,,,0". � `.arle Ave. R' t..- -. ,,_ t • t5 Carle Ave. ; :,T•• I. i t tri -; ' :41$ . i ' - i-A.la !t' 700.10 `'•.. . '1.,.'' : 1 '' . Q.1 4i ti v 1 f,• t 4u r_.aa i r• ,. x ; 1 t o City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 New landscaping will be provided within a 5'-wide landscape setback along the northern project boundary. A 0' setback is proposed along the east project boundary that abuts the footing for the existing motel to the east. A 12' public area consisting of a 5' landscape setback and 7' sidewalk is proposed along the west and southern project boundary to separate the project from the adjacent streets, which includes Earle Avenue to the west and Garvey Avenue to the south. The project proposes both surface and subterranean parking. The project proposes a total of 116 parking spaces, including 86 standard spaces, 25 compact spaces, four handicap spaces and one designated loading space for the commercial uses. Of the 116 parking spaces, 70 standard spaces, including two handicap spaces, for project residents are proposed for the subterranean parking structure and 46 standard spaces, including two handicap spaces and a commercial loading zone, are proposed for ground level parking. The project proposes eleven more parking spaces than required by the Rosemead Municipal Code. The project also proposes 14 bicycles spaces with 7 spaces on the first floor and 7 spaces on the subterranean level. The building is 55' in height, which includes the height of the decorative parapet. There is one point of access to the site, which is from Earle Avenue. The Earle Avenue entry provides an entrance to the surface and subterranean parking structure. An eleven foot, two-way driveway from Earle Avenue is located at the northwest corner of the site and will provide access to both the surface and subterranean parking. A portion of the surface parking level in the northeast area of the site will be open to the sky while the remaining area of the ground floor will be occupied by the commercial use, restaurant and retail space. Delivery vehicles for the retail and restaurant uses on the ground level will have access from Earle Avenue. Delivery trucks will be restricted to two axle trucks with a maximum height of 8'6". Delivery trucks will not be allowed to park along either Earle Avenue or Garvey Avenue. A 12' wide public realm is proposal along the south and west sides of the project and includes a five foot landscaped parkway and a 7' sidewalk. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 4. Building elevations of the proposed building are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The conceptual landscape plans showing the types of landscape materials proposed for the site are shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8. t4 INTENDED USE OF THIS DOCUMENT This document is intended to be used by the City of Rosemead as the Lead Agency to evaluate the project's environmental impacts and develop appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts, if any, to less than a significant level, according to the regulations set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines (Public Resources Code §21000 — 21177, and California Code of Regulations §1500 — 15387). 1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of Rosemead is a suburb within the Greater Los Angeles area located 10 miles east of the City of Los Angeles. It is bounded on the north by the City of Temple City, on the west by the City of San Gabriel, City of Monterey Park and the County of Los Angeles, on the south by the City of Montebello, and the City of El Monte and South El Monte on the east. The City of Rosemead is 5.5 square miles in size with a residential population of 54,947' people. ' Cities and Towns(Incorporated Places and Minor Civil Divisions), retrieved 02/23/2016 Page 5 PMA Phil Martin&Associates,Inc.. GARVEY EARLE PLAZA: I CITY OF ROSEMEAD RC MIDO 4 11 //.'%i' :./SLI , ✓.i,.F:TNi�r7rtl looRN \ I/ ft :u-iD 00 L.MW C FCTRK �-00 2o•-o• MS (q IS/ICS-C.4n USE 00 vACSCAn T,ut ,.>w.i.i0T mamma alb. 1 I by In.m• %Ifn i / / —:-- \ moa---'°' iirli) ' it rn: f,I• r-7:-7----. -'_ 111.•-a.t xc.14;ion.— Ii --_ ' rx— TRz.- _I ' _IF ��II 7,7 r-- 71 ili . nvrx � � i, .• .. IIII:��:Ij iii ° �S 11 iii 4, 1-a.'----.---...... AI 11-RMA f 1 I :► I._ftte IF LI --, •.. '- J `SI T C:CA CFDI ego- 0 / C11 g —i' I ® I Sgf AMC 0 !.�• OF 7'111• ,I �-- i - rstAYltiA. 4S' - - �II I :r, .. 'ijip :117, t, 1 Cl/AR aro — µ�wA ... 1=I L '�t I I r tafftl L! =MEW l'7 : :11:L ' __ l i I' r 1— ��.,.�' 41UC( A 1 �IOI C .Wa.k.:' I r - I,, , l 9 p1I1NG I Y-s' I mµ ' iw 71 '' I lI 1 -.- I�� ra..l 11� � `7�-'�t 1 �iu'�°� �l•�b s"'I � � 6r 1 ISI-•.I _ I 1 t•t 1 I --fl-1 _ ..,:.. � . 1 L I II 1 ._--__-._ - J f, v fii ;�; 1 a I:; L.a r Wil. 11 _ ... i. n n J e1 t.ivo JI txa..0 q l �i.i1 N i - 'r'-r'Y ` • f n� P.:1 � - �•PNDL' s.ACESF0RCCA+nl•?0,! ,-y _-•�/ IM, i RE31• •T L ` (F,TAKJ/J4.Si COI.W.1CI:26/Y4:)J:CAP:7iQkOMK:1T k C L088Y •\ 4 iV:�i `:#�f; t-�fa[ c u c Yt n L_ I S 84-04 ..,,l -t, I ' I 1s' •• 1 / CCP.1MERCIPL AFF-Ps(11-3.200 SF f C01,4AERCfAL;.REAI2Y.6,000 SF. 1.WW2- ^, I •I I •j- i f iii Vii: ,. d • i I z '‘'...;,'V IIXC.MO a Tit ; I II J I I 'Ml' 1 l' . ''� ww p ` _ 1 '11:7---r L.'. ' r II 4 1 , owr twx �_:7:7::.i• i N39S7 • .O - /•_ �9w 17...- `_or b il.--EtesfAG'�N . 7.."-------1-4 /:.:.:.:..., 1 F I ,�� olar '('• H e DTINX'Ismer- A I COSTA:Si REE: ! 1,, if!,TO ABM i / w Ping ff[twn ft y rx[TO IpVH to o uart Faa: -<.'� ow. _ g q I .� i R i. h.)s:�la¢E - 00 MIT HIKE t i00 "UST 011 r..-F*:n' P•)iTQY 7A¢ I f ' $ . it\ ..-, ......-_-..-. , _ - - GARVEY _AVENUE _ AmI iI _ .;.. • _ : ..-ii Source:Simon Lee&Assoc.,Architects N • ® Figure 4 site Plan INA Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. GARVEY EARLE PLAZA I CITY OF ROSEMEAD 1 . "Pr-, • _ .... ... :,1 1 1 --___-__ _ I I .. .: • • i 01111111iis "a i.it Pr" 1 J I i..-...t..- _ i ,. 1 ".f!f I ' I 1 , L .-•*- I I 1 I 1 It Fli-i , , v4,•••••:. • 1 . i . ..A.i . .4.,...r4 illi I • , „1 J...., ! g, • $. • r 1....... 7.:!?'"' • _ - - - - I .I . . EAST ELEVAT:r., Source:Simon Lee&Assoc.,Architects N el.9 Figure 5 -",Lai:L.ILL...-,.r.10..,:, iliavations .._, GIB Phil Martin Associates, GARVEY EARLE PLAZA I CITY OF ROSEMEAD - Pi' Nip air - - - - 17- I i - IF, . ‘. ... . Ir —.... r .E.....„ i i MITH -WWI =- SOUTH E-SVATION . � ---- -- - =jam` — I♦ ir. i e - — - i .t..14, 1 ! '; ki — ......., . , II ; ,.... p , , „ s emmiffirem dm . t --- --rte i• i :. .2.::. y WEST&LEVAT!ON _ I Source:Simon Lee&Assoc.,Architects N ® Figure 6 South/West Building E avati®ns 0 ______ – - w Z t3)ri: 1.1J (.1.1 fl, 0 CU 16.0 11- 0 g VI 15 0 ... A . ' ^ 6 5 —-–,– ---- tig.. .- i - v ,.., . ? • ;:',11 r 0 •,,K 1,.. ,n f.:: 11: 4 :It:: I 4i - L) i 4 P r n f. 0: 1;.11. i .,.: • •• 3 !1. ,i — .- ,i ;. .•. r, ;" 1;.;:4. 41. ;,...4 .... f.k., ! ti.. 2E1 .,,•_. r , : 1., - ' I, :.', '' . :•'44. i,*-!:,'• ''.1 s ii SLi: 'it r ?f '..' IV ,4 •.: E -'. /,• :-:i g i ti. ,,,_! z_,,ii ..7. .t ai :i,..... 11113 fti il i i g.4 ‘:.-:i f•i .1 ixi ril Lift41 1 tV! gig ioi Lt_ii , „i ..13 ; r , -- !;.• 4.• Al- 't 1_.•§. .. • tr i.)0 11'4 0 _J LLI , I, • i ' • ' 6)(.-) 0 -••'- o L 1 „.,. cc .... ... fl --- ' ___ < _ ___ ___„_,..... . _ .__ _ ___ ___,*;__ _______ ___ _ ....._..i. . 1 07 _______ 1 7 1 ____ T._ r--- ...._ ,-- _ . ...,, !, v , afek 1 _l'rl il , -;-•1 ' •r, „:1!..•.,4 gfol, . ....7 ....._____, t: .) _,.,,rthie-.i....,....__ ...._.._._____. LLI ,. ne,' it o '-, a , ., vt. 1 h . ,.., • ,,I._ • ,.._., ••. wt.. •i v oik 4 , li • 4:6 . Ill. . — —------ --! P 1 - . • 1 : 1 i ,, *.v., , , III • i LI ?‘ ,i\ i . lo ". ge 1... : ;• g • v ‘ . I *. .fI / .• tc- 1 -7=7. y I J ilf-----' t I i '1‘'• ti4,--I. i I. 4,-. 4 Ii I ,i•,.. 4 i § I II 01 inr___ . ..i,• • . - ‘1i 1 I -,.. 4., 0. _ Act - , ,', .1.61 II 11 i!- I ..e . . a' li P. -- -'-'...4.1c. ti T:, 1 1 111 It .21 —iiii;':- i14 re5,..,, .s••r,1.•,..:2. I1I 4 42n, :„aI„ .f•__ . -.., r__l ____ . 1I .4Ti 1— - I :I. . * '.k.'.-'-'.-.-2 t41k.I.I 4::;,7gM.•:•l...:...ii4i t ci; 1! IIi .r I .: inG I .. ,..,, i. (- _ •, ., _ e . . .'t Id 't” 111 ''' 4111 0 li 11110r. 1 ,. 1 __ “ , Y 1 r-M-7 Lt.: ..nki i C ,g ,. 4 •- ,.l''. • 1. ..A, .07 -"-- 1 ' \ LL-ILLO 'gr'''. - - 4 h vi 1 I_,..i i • • •' inif p,. I 14 "I ' ' I ''''. . 7 - • co - ,, e V3-, ... ....4.-,-,-.;.,-.7.7,.1 • ......, 1 ,. _ ; , ,„„is E .- - , .• ..,A, 1 4.. tz _ .; 1'• ••• •••.. ! 1------ ---,I i."1 9'i'I-;pi Eel..., 1 al 1 ... %.! Illg 1---.r 1 61' ' • ' . , g: r. L:--111!4 ,..:„ • i . ‘ . . : . II ik- i . , . • , - - : Fr. at • • 11: ,,,,‘,,..4,....ik .)-9--.ill; ti Q aglaik, _e,g.-...- ' ' ''.i a --, i,'-1 •cootiuo• °CFA--r"---• 1,7730;011, ••CCeth P.M1:9., - ‘legl...-. -,r,..4).... .-.:-.- ..,-.., i ft,, 1 --' - ' -.,., - --„,..„. --- - -- 1 • ,..., ..........,.....„ _va ._ -.J"ii„.46711.—*;--- S..-• I cu 3'.- • - ..- ':-'.., - ,C) O:3 ... 4; -.0 4 S.) t, . . 1 c, ,cn < = — iJJ r.3.)Cl. LL- 0 LU O. t.n z eil 0 ., U .. r'; N 4. _ ' . • g;' . w 13 LI_ tz- . r i II,- i 4 ...::s : "..:c eN .!• %.:, a cs " ..: 0 i g .. ...4 F,x,l'i xii.,1 ': la >- '"E it ., t, kt ii i, t Azi —I I— t .ial, i.. is.Z ',; Y,;; wi.,ag „ ., c:••• .1; .... § • .1•1!. ' l'i; t'l _. ;_•`-s' ii Lit#Vi i- .7...... ,.; f ;.. i! ""- *F-'• U g P.i,; _ 1 J.. —t . _.i..• =1! -..: 7-`r 9_ __ 0 ,.. ..„ .:, et !I n ,ie' •i ," tIS ra ,:t t3 .;3 slg t3 it 5 :,I ;A% 's'IS f.g ":. Lit 4 ^ "" '^ ^ - -1- - — ''' g c..- :f.. • .-- Is..I •-, ( • ) II. 1.0 !.."', Cr..) 0 C- c •':"., lf,, •IA 1.1. .---.—.. LU ---------------7-----------------7-7=-777":"-----,-- -=---- -------- ••- -1**11.PI ! . .i r-------* .riai , , /;-; •-.;5/,,,,, ,/.: **'7:!..r: '''."`s• It. .1 • CC 1• 1 ---I iiiiiv. • I ,......„1,1 . 0:1111r,i I .1 '— Vt.. . WH 1. • F,r' .,il._ , r. .,., 5* 4:7 ',L.... i Ititt.6 5 ' r',. 1_____1'„ _7.7.•1 ': ' ji >.- .. • . i Ode% :. ; Ltu .10:),,:y,L;:, R,11..._ _ ,.., , ja________ • i ,• i"0-j• -- '--;:'---i-, ; s 1 III 11111111 hill-, :r 1 ill I ct •. , ..... • ..,.. ••••-10 5. . . ---r 0 '1/4,F.,,••LIN• . P . ' 11 1! 'iliCii5, ' -6116 e ' ' t------ 17 • , / ;Aix L 1 , •,,n111 5,12, ., I • • . l'i ' •‘f?'6.pi Ze'4 • - • . ,?i • 1 1Ai..._...___. Lij nv ••'16-6• ,,,s c ---vi fk'• :.: •.,..•-..,,, • ,, , •i 1:''""---.. 11:: Illt. 11" .,•!2 • 61.1 a al„,..-,ft.6..0 i ... 2 .c I . / ii?, 7, "v4 Wol 4.. -- ..,_ . _ I . I. 1; _ ,., ! k 1119 ii I Ipterr° g i tx;g4 iri ,. i :i . ip, i L.°e k - .ft'Peicy-•I-1 ci3:AO.: at 1*.41.-_,..L 11 I i i ' , j f--- mill • ')‘ • Jiiiiiim ,,- .• _ _ . _ ,t.,,,,., •••slr emg.,..74 fi. . . • ', •1 T 4. I ' 0 r I ,p,...43, ., i :, rit _ ,,,, ......4:12, ,,1 • li , , ! i ,r,,,,._,:,,,,vg,_ ; • .„......_ i Htr- ..,_i fe?-4 i• e4.1 rop, ..? ,i,:•'1.: ..el ...,,),2,...ei 7,4*116 17,2,____._ ..."_, i ' ' 11111131: se T:'--- , _,._ _____ ,........ ;.afirr..i.!-,013.4:74,,,4r-.-4,,,,,,:_:,..,00 0.4.4 51.5,,V52.5f4 5 i . —-- - __ • ,,,.... .. ,,,..,„ ., . — ki . a -•%,,,g P- • _ t 04. . ,.. i 141-',.!i- ',. 4 1 •-• •• .! lc.,,,,.. i , --17.... -4-1 i kill= 1 r, i 65)1 I i _ I , 4 :i 1 p _,i.._ .ii.,.. .4.,.3 ________ ,....., i •_,,;•,_,-..,..4-1,PP ti I Tik. -L1- i- k-1-14_ I ' . ,I•j-•..+3 I , . !,.hot,,i, fr--lp , ,,i r„.. . • ---- - 0 •,.____T. ; : I 43 ••.-'-`.. L__>___I ui __ ____ ____1 1__ _ _r .. .. , . .1 , -ig,,, i rrilli,,,1 1 77 t' w • — '-- 11 1.N - 4e3 1 ._r Li j .. t t:Id all tr- , A ' I 1 - J. , .•:-,- ,,,, -'--- ,••-'• i I . . ,, ,_ F---- . . . ,. , i ft 1 r : . -;-.:. 1 6'0 1 e ) ._ 04 'F'11511' 'alit --'-' ; 1 ;d•t; ,:.: . :,. i----,0. - ' r :L. L ..1 - 1 i 1 --4-<'-'" ,,-/ : - -.? --,-e--"T,. :*------ ------- __-•-----,/ q .. _- ts o.> -•- .... 'R. . -- 0 o 1 €D ,--- 1 Cn City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 The project is located in an urbanized area that is developed with single-family detached homes to the north, commercial uses to the west, east, and south. Photographs of the project site and the surrounding land uses are shown in Figures 9 and 10. Figure 11 is a photo orientation aerial showing the locations of the photos in Figures 9 and 10. The land uses surrounding the site include: North General Plan — Mixed-use: Residential/Commercial (30-du/ac; 3 stories) Zoning — C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed-use and Design Overlay) Land Use — Single-family detached residence South General Plan — Mixed-use: Residential/Commercial (30-du/ac; 3 stories) Zoning — C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed-use and Design Overlay) Land Use — Commercial East General Plan - Mixed-use: Residential/Commercial (30-du/ac; 3 stories) Zoning - C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed-use and Design Overlay) Land Use - Commercial West General Plan - Mixed-use: Residential/Commercial (30-du/ac; 3 stories) Zoning - C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed-use and Design Overlay) Land Use — Commercial 1.6 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS The City of Rosemead identified four projects that, along with the proposed project, could have cumulative impacts. The four projects include: A. Garvey Garden Plaza — The project proposes to develop a 1.13-acre site at the southeast corner of the intersection of Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue with 46 residential units and 11,860 square feet of retail/office use in a four-story building with one level of subterranean parking. The site is currently developed with three commercial buildings and four residential homes. B. Garvey 168 Plaza - The project proposes to develop a 0.698-acre (30,397 square feet) site at 8479 Garvey Avenue with two buildings totaling 36,100 square feet with 24,725 square feet of residential condominiums and 11,375 square feet of commercial use. C. Garvey Del Mar Plaza — The project proposes to develop a 1.14-acre site at the northeast corner of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue with 60 residential units, including 12 low income units, and 15,553 square feet of retail space. D. 9048 Garvey Avenue — develop a 2.1-acre site with 48 residential units and 6,500 square feet of retail space. Page 11 01 VI K , v Q /, a, 0 IL‘ / a w - :it 1CC I � CU —. > ; 0 U 11- 1111 A". a Q f , c o > U cuc OC 76 • l7 i I v • ' c i' t l' o x c•w I , A .:. . .tet r, . .: tic -17 iiii i t ti ry i t :3_' C Q Q i ci uo 791 { p Q 01 1.1 v �, vi G] = a. N QN s fi I 0 a. a)- U s 4 Z3 a ) g' i o 1 V . ,- i f " • CI , L__1V+ �- { -- oh w a ...T 0 1 el H OihiL 2 a •A.. ti 4 SIA) .. c wvs o (A 'IV"' . 4., ,,.:11111111111111 V/ c •-. i - _ kJC s. ,,,-. 41 a) i IS ,4 y E L 00 101 .. , iiiiikElks . , . k i 4 !n i e � 4,-, (u 1 _ ti s jJ V CI z ,._, .'a ar... sice' c : v 0 ,,...1 . . ......., fr • ' 1..".. ':'* - • 1 :7- . RS 1• V/ M•. CC IIINI �a illF ,. O v CidI v rye!^' - _ . '� -- -----� • _;, t �!� 0 p N _ -+.J•�++IIi�ya` �/.r's_ i,v tiw- , tl, Ir4 _.. `t' LM- �' iizf ,iiagv 1 as , 1 L L c Q j - c„�ru), 7 ,f 'y �. .r c., 1 4- L L L L: tw ini : : 7. - k` , ice, t LLCC -5"Sr,' 4 ., ,. . __..... .._ ,..,. : _...r ,.. , w t ; Lf. 0 z 0 p 1" ..� - I ,,,�. , �`•,i �;" " - • ;.. + `Carle Ave. - ,'' f.,..f .I E I ►a •. Ia f , -1 , IVII im+ .• a , t' C'� 1 Ifrf• —I I 8 .11iEarle Ave. z' I.i �-� j 1' .f` II t __. 1/43 • lir ii,., ., ;- ,.. :_ iiim . .., _ . ...,.... .,.. . , „.. , . .. ..... ,.,,,, ,..„,,,,„, P 5 :51•0 ';',.05• • ,...,, _ ....,..s.., r4 • � `a � - , - �tia, a ,C , i . - �"'j► x �- _a _ �_ -_4- 47 1 --'..ft"4 _ '`n =;, City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 An aerial photograph showing the location of the four cumulative projects is provided in Figure 12. There are no additional cumulative projects that along with the proposed project could have potential cumulative impacts. Page 15 • C: 1 - 1"2 I _ , i t r- a gram 4; _ 11 _ -- 4- , i IIIEZ NGI - ''''.4 ...I A .-,.. = 4.-411 /IL- is•1111•N • .. Li CC k g f 1 - i it" , . Kgip,,: Q r 0 � �e,..1_1 �SIfI1 t t, 0J LI- '111 --• ,.:',#,si' t4II � _Ata ♦.sem aniuup:. >— - •• ., .,.,•,. *45_.0\11411Ph)- - ,eci. i Ilia IL h..._ ,, ,,, ,.. 2,,t., + i i C.11 6;'' ' 1 . ed, r - Z Ali.j/ ••.,,.0 L.-,. al mss • �1 oo'fa Ei. D a It _ ,-..:i:, (, - f'-'1 . ..i a 1 1 l $ ?-••• $edam to '�'1•`y,eor„�, c •}% " "7 -� to r I.a•,1'T��'.yl;. a,ti. 'IIS }I ...12_I '� I rd I 1F s 1 i cc n ■ � i " r • 1. / .I 1 '. , 'n,r:a' 1 w ii:Fel i Ct. w.f al r S l;. _,71111i -1,; 1 _ 1 IP: • r• I r,. F . _ ' � I1 id . � 'j b II _ • r, -.11)0,-r .- l• u� . �' ...11:77'r I. alr I..'�C 4 _ -�E-t i 131 �} n-Ga0! 0tl t ,r• tom' i C y' Y d • ro q' 1• i, y i, 1t-{ i_.- i ' it'll+ i(' ,- r . 1 Oy1, y ` „+� a+,+'1 ' IN If I _ N Iy'• r l -f A"+y' a l� IE!'. _�ry w,. 1 f )i'1{l r.�.1 !f ./ I' �. v T t 1'. (/ 1 ! 1 1 i _ �/t _ ;:i t.•C Yi1 I.; )11.r),. E 7�1 7 :":,,, SFr �•1 . O r } -� 4- ;*, i. f.'Es�µfJ k—x 1 _2. 'V£!z i�,Ii"a �tTI.•la a.•1•C,. •. • C, , 11 _11: . _ + _)fs', r • •S-vi • •r.i 4 f .�t a• 2 I . , I, * r a .tta .��Yr ti •1 1: City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 2.0 Environmental Checklist Environmental Factors That Could Result in a Potentially Significant Impact The environmental factors listed below are not checked because the proposed project would not result in a"potentially significant impact" as indicated by the preceding checklist and supported by substantial evidence provided in this document. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards& Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Utilities/Services Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: U I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. iXl I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Report is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. j I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signed Date Page 17 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) CEQA requires a brief explanation for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, and then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are ''Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. Page 18 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Page 19 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.1 Aesthetics Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ ❑ outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its ❑ ❑ ® ❑ surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or ❑ © ❑ Cl nighttime views in the area? 3.1 AESTHETICS a) No Impact. The project site and the surrounding properties are not designated a scenic vista by the City of Rosemead General Plan. The most predominant scenic vista open to the Rosemead community is the San Gabriel Valley mountain range approximately 8 miles north of Rosemead. The existing residents adjacent to and north of the project site will not have to look across the site to view the San Gabriel Mountains. The closest residents that will have to look across the site to the mounts are residents approximately 370 feet south of the project. Their direct views of the San Gabriel mountain range will not be significantly blocked by the project. The resident's south of the project will continue to have distant mountain views. The project will not have any significant scenic vista impacts because there are no City adopted scenic vistas that are visible from the area adjacent to or surrounding the site that would be significantly impacted by the project. b) No Impact. The project site is not located adjacent to or near a state-designated, or eligible scenic highway.2 The project will not impact any existing scenic resources, historic buildings, etc., within a state scenic highway. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is developed with a one-story building with a business for auto sales and rentals. The commercial building is located along the north property line with a parking lot between the building and Garvey Avenue. The existing auto repair building and all site improvements will be demolished for the project to be developed. The building setbacks along the south, west and north project boundary of the project will be landscaped with a combination of trees, shrubs and groundcover. The landscaping proposed along the west and south project boundary will provide improved aesthetic buffering of the project for motorists and pedestrians on Garvey and Earle Avenues 2 State of California Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, http://www.dot ca.gov./hq/LandArch/scenichighways/ Page 20 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 compared to the existing condition that has minimal landscape materials. Adjacent to the proposed 6' fence wall along most of the length of the north project boundary will be a combination of 24" box trees, shrubs and groundcover. Once mature, this landscaping will provide buffering of the project for the residents adjacent to and north of the site. A 42" fence wall is proposed for approximately 20' of the north project boundary from the west property line east to provide landscape buffering of a proposed electrical transformer at the northwest corner of the site. The 42" fence wall and landscaping will buffer the proposed 8'x10' electrical transformer pad from motorists and pedestrians that travel past the site on Earle Avenue and the residents immediately adjacent to and north of the site. There are no trees on the project site. However, there are seven existing street trees along the south side of the site within the Garvey Avenue right-of-way. The project proposes to remove four of the existing seven trees and plant five new replacement trees along the project frontage on Garvey Avenue. The project also proposes the plant three street trees along the west side of the site within the Earle Avenue right-of-way where currently there are no street trees. None of the four existing street trees along Garvey Avenue that will be removed are oak trees. In addition to planting eight new street trees, the project proposes to plant trees, shrubs and groundcover within the landscaped setback areas along the south, west and north project boundary. The project perimeter landscaping will improve the aesthetics of the project for pedestrians and motorists on Garvey Avenue and Earle Avenue compared to the existing condition. The project will improve the existing aesthetics of the site with the construction of a new multi-story building, new landscaping and site improvements. Elevations of the proposed building are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The proposed four-story building will be more visible to area residents and businesses compared to the existing one-story building due to the height and density of the new building. As stated previously, the proposed building is four stories in height compared to the existing one-story building on the site. Because of its height, the project will also be more visible to residents further from the site compared to the existing building. While the project will be more visible than the existing development on the property, the project will not significantly degrade the existing visual characteristics of either the site or the surrounding due to the variations of building relief and heights. The proposed building is mostly 50 feet in height, with the exception of the 5-foot parapet that extends the maximum height of the building to 55 feet. Other buildings in the area tare approximately 30 feet in height or less. The Rosemead Municipal Code allows a maximum height of 45 feet for mixed use buildings in the C-3D and RC-MUDO (Medium Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed-use Design Overlays) zone. The project applicant is requesting a concession to allow the development of the proposed 55 foot building with an allowed building height of 45 feet. The project will change and reduce the privacy of the resident's north of the project due to the height of the proposed four-story building. The proposed building will allow project residents along the north side of the building to have views of the residential units and rear yards of the residents to the north compared to no views of the resident's north of the site from the existing site. Views north of the site by the project residents would reduce the existing privacy of the residents that are closest to and north of the project. Per Rosemead Municipal Code 17.28.030, the project is not required to provide any setbacks from the property lines, with the exception of a minimum 10-foot setback from the residence north of the site. The project proposes a 12-foot "Public Realm" setback from Page 21 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 Earle Avenue and Garvey Avenue. The Public Realm will include existing and new street trees, concrete sidewalks, landscaping, street lighting, street furniture and other pedestrian- oriented amenities. Required street trees have a maximum distance of 30 feet or less, on center. Street trees are proposed along both Garvey Avenue and Earle Avenue adjacent to the site including four streets trees along Garvey Avenue and eight trees along Earle Avenue for a total of twelve street trees. The City will require that street trees are provided and comply with RMC Chapter 17.28.030and Chapter 12.48. The existing structure on the site is an older commercial building. The building is an older structure and show signs of delayed maintenance and repair compared to other buildings in the immediate project area. Compared to the existing development on the property, the project would improve the aesthetics of the site with a new building that is current with other newer development in Rosemead in terms of design and architecture. The replacement of the existing older building on the site with a new four-story building with residential units and ground floor commercial uses along with new site improvements, including landscaping, will significantly improve the existing aesthetics of the site. Project compliance with all applicable development standards in RMC 17.28.030 will reduce project aesthetic impacts for adjacent residents, businesses, pedestrians, and motorists on Earle Avenue and Garvey Avenue to less-than-significant. d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project will generate new sources of light and glare compared to the existing conditions with the increase in the amount of development proposed for the site. The increase in development proposed for the site will increase the amount of light and glare generated from the site compared to the existing light and glare on the site. Light In compliance with RMC 17.88.020, a photometric study was requested by the City. A photometric study was prepared and based on the proposed types and electronic technologies of the outdoor lighting fixtures, including light pole heights, to illuminate the site. The results of the photometric study are shown in Figure 13. The photometric analysis shows that the project will generate minimal off-site light to the residences north of the site. As shown, the foot candles of the light from the site to the residence adjacent to and north of the site is 0.0. The measured foot candles of light from the project on Earle Avenue is also 0.0. The measured foot candles of light from the project on Garvey Avenue adjacent to and south of the site ranges from a low of 0.0 to a maximum of 0.8. The central courtyard on the second level will have outdoor lighting on the building. The lighting within the central courtyard is calculated to have foot candle levels from a low of 0.6 at the north end of the courtyard and the north side of the proposed building to a high of 6.2 within the central courtyard adjacent to the building. The central courtyard lighting is not calculated to extend onto and significantly impact the residence adjacent to and north of the project. The lighting in the industry recognizes a maintenance horizontal luminance of 0.2 foot- candles. For comparison purposes, a medium to bright moon light is approximately 0.3 foot candles. Page 22 --- • G -- r) c n LU .01 tri O Um O ! _ 1_- p �' a ( rl 1�: ]N., J N-P i M I ° W ] H -..i J •D Z g D r)v^. O - 3 ., .. d _ i J 71 lCp :'t .f u a u J Q W '. v < I L. U. Y J W I - .. .. ap7 a fig � oiNg 00 . . _ S. J 6 NQ - a , . _ c . -< ma t ` a •. N, aq N, ,WW .CN Ep:11'1,11 F p JWDI 2uoo - I(Q.z z pyf-- L a- „t t a ,I O.q JJ a_O aaa 0- " 1.12':;O .P; CC'; s); o. z _ I y; . • _ r ) I C Ili 11j J o p i'd7 I eZzz ]4a ) f ¢qc:m - I j Y III r, - l j - V , ,iaN .. F =Q - i • Ar a CI't c a y i _ a -- ._ C 1Z o4. 5 o n „ EE ;°um . IA -IV) AOC; - - bQ :5": pp S w d. Cb U Q CO City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 Based on the photometric study, the lighting plan, as currently proposed, will generate light hotspots ranging from 0.6 to 6.2 foot candles within the on-site central courtyard. While the proposed building exterior wall-mounted lighting fixtures will have light hotspots closest to the building and gradually reduce as the light travels to the north of the courtyard, the photometric study shows that the project lighting will not extend off-site and impact the residence adjacent to and north of the site. However, aresults ofi the e type, heightc an d ddesign of the exterior building fixtures could change thudy. The following measure is recommended to reduce on- and off-site lighting impact to 0.1 foot candles and less than significant. Mitigation Measure No. 1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project applicant shall submit a lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division that incorporates the following light reducing measures as applicable: • Select lighting fixtures with more-precise optical control and/or different lighting distribution. ® Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures. • Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures. • Select lower-output lamp/lamp technologies • A combination of the above. Glare from the windows and metal surfaces of the proposed building could impact adjacent land uses that are glare-sensitive, especially the existing residences north of the site. A proposed 6-foot fence wall is proposed along the north project boundary from the east property line to approximately 20 feet east of Earle Avenue where the wall steps down to 42" tall. In addition, six trees are proposed to be planted in the 10-foot landscape set-back along the north property line. The 6-foot fence wall and the trees, once mature, will serve to block and eliminate ground level glare impacts to the residents adjacent to and north of the project. Glare from the apartment windows and metal building materials above the ground floor could extend to the resident's north of the project. For the most part, the windows on all building floors that could generate glare are recessed into the building. Because the windows are recessed and somewhat set-back into the building, glare from the windows will be minimal. Overall, glare by the project to area residents, pedestrians, and motorists will be less-than-significant. I Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With - Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.2 Agricultural Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant.environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Page 24 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland ❑ ❑ ❑ Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ❑ ❑ use, or a Williamson Act contract? ❑ c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or ❑ ❑ nature, could result in conversion of ❑ Farmland, to non-a.ricultural use? 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES a) No Impact. The project site is developed with a commercial use and two residences. There are no agricultural uses either on the site or within the immediate vicinity of the site. The California State Department of Conservation was contacted to determine the California State Important Farmlands Map designation for the site. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) considers the City of Rosemead an urban area. Therefore, none of the soils have been mapped and the NRCS has no plans to map the soil in the future. The project site has no farmland designation. Because there are no agricultural uses on or in close proximity to the site, the project will not impact existing farmland. b) No Impact. The project site is not zoned for agricultural use and the project applicant is not requesting a zone change to allow agriculture use on the property. The project site and the surrounding properties are developed, located in an urbanized area, and not used for agriculture. Therefore, none of the properties are in a Williamson Act contract. The project will not have a conflict or impact any agricultural use or land that is in a Williamson Act contract. The city does not have any zoning that allows commercial farming activities. c) No Impact. None of the proposed project activities could result in or encourage the conversion of agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses since there are no agricultural uses either on or adjacent to the site. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.3 Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the a•.licable air •ualit 'Ian? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ projected air quality violation? Page 25 (MIEN& City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air ❑ ❑ ® ❑ quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ® e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ substantial number of people? 3.3 AIR QUALITY An air quality and greenhouse assessment was prepared by Giroux & Associates. A copy of the air quality and greenhouse gas assessment is included as Appendix A. a) No Impact. The City of Rosemead is in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. Air quality in the South Coast Air Basin is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with air-sheds with "serious" or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised and approved over the past decade. The most current regional attainment emissions forecast for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter are shown in Table 1. Substantial reductions in emissions of ROG, NOx and CO are forecast to continue throughout the next several decades. Unless new particulate control programs are implemented, PM-10 and PM-2.5 are forecast to slightly increase. Table 1 South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts (Emissions Tons/Day) Pollutant 2010" 2015b J 2020b 2025b NOx 603 451 357 289 VOC 544 429 400 393 PM-10 160 155 161 165 - i PM-2.5 71 67 67 68 "2010 Base Year. °With current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts. Source:California Air Resources Board, California Emissions Projection Analysis Model,2009 The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) adopted an updated clean air "blueprint" in August 2003. The 2003 AQMP was approved by EPA in 2004. The Air Quality Page 26 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 Management Plan (AQMP) outlined the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health-based standards for ozone by 2010 and for particulates (PM-10) by 2006. The 2007 AQMP was adopted on June 1, 2007, after extensive public review. The 2007 AQMP recognizes the interaction between photochemical processes that create both ozone and the smallest airborne particulates (PM-2.5). The 2007 AQMP is therefore a coordinated plan for both pollutants. Development, such as the proposed mixed-use project, do not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing "general" development. Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts and programs relative to population, housing, employment and land use is the primary yardstick by which the impact significance of planned growth is determined. If a given project incorporates any available transportation control measures that can be implemented on a project-specific basis, and if the scope and phasing of a project are consistent with adopted forecasts as shown in the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), then the regional air quality impact of project growth would not be significant because of planning inconsistency. The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth-accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less-than-significant just because the proposed development is consistent with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed project has therefore been analyzed on a project-specific basis. The project will not significantly affect regional air quality plans because as shown in Table 6 below, the operations of the project will not generate any air emissions that exceed adopted SCAQMD thresholds. Because the project will not exceed and significantly impact adopted SCAQMD air emission thresholds, the project will not impact the AQMP. b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The air emissions that will be generated by the project are associated with the demolition of the existing on-site improvements, project construction and the operation of the project upon completion of construction. Because the project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, the SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is charged with controlling motor vehicle emissions. Long-term air quality monitoring is carried out by SCAQMD at various monitoring stations. There are no nearby stations that monitor the full spectrum of pollutants. Ozone, carbon monoxide, PM-2.5 and nitrogen oxides are monitored at the Pico Rivera air monitoring facility, while 10-micron diameter particulate matter (PM-10) is measured at the Azusa air monitoring station. Table 2 shows the last five years of monitoring data from a composite of the data resources. Table 2 Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2011-2015) Pollutant/Standard 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Ozone 1-Hour> 0.09 ppm (S) 1 5 2 7 6 8-Hour > 0.07 ppm (S) 1 6 3 7 11 8-Hour> 0.075 ppm (F) 0 0 0 5 2 Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.10 0.11 0.101 0.121 0.107 Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.092 0.081 Carbon Monoxide 1-Hour > 20. ppm(S) 0 0 0 0 0 Page 27 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 Pollutant/Standard 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 1-Hour> 9. ppm (S, F) 0 0 0 0 0 Max 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.5 1.7 Nitrogen Dioxide 1-Hour > 0.18 ppm (S) _ 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.07 Inhalable Particulates (PM-10) 24-Hour> 50 µg/m3 (S) 8/61 6/61 6/61 21/60 12/59 24-Hour> 150 µg/m3(F) 0/61 0/61 0/61 0/60 0/59 Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (µg/m3) 63 78 76 94 101 Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM-2.5) 24-Hour> 35 µg/m3 (F) 1/114 1/119 0/114 0/xx 3/118 Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (1.1.g/m3) 41.2 45.3 29.1 35.1 52.7 xx-data not available,S=State Standard, F=Federal Standard Source:South Coast AQMD—Pico Rivera Air Monitoring Station for Ozone,CO, NOx and PM-2.5 Azusa Monitoring Station for PM-10 data:www.arb.ca.gov/adam/ Because of the chemical complexity of primary versus secondary pollutants, the SCAQMD has designated significant emissions levels as surrogates for evaluating regional air quality impact significance independent of chemical transformation processes. Projects with daily emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds shown in Table 3 are recommended by the SCAQMD to be considered significant under CEQA. Table 3 Daily Emission Thresholds Pollutant Construction Operations ROG 75 55 NOx 100 55 CO 550 550 PM-10 150 150 PM-2.5 55 55 SOx 150 150 Lead 3 3 Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev. Construction Emissions. Dust is typically the primary pollutant of concern that is generated during grading activities. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called "fugitive emissions." Emission rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). Average daily PM-10 emissions during site grading and other disturbance average about 10 pounds per acre. This estimate presumes the use of reasonably available control measures (RACMs). The SCAQMD requires the use of best available control measures (BACMs) for fugitive dust from construction activities. With the use of BACMs, fugitive dust emissions can be reduced to 1-2 pounds per day per disturbed acre. Page 28 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 Current research in particulate-exposure health suggests that the most adverse effects derive from ultra-small diameter particulate matter comprised of chemically reactive pollutants such as sulfates, nitrates or organic material. A national clean air standard for particulate matter of 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter (called "PM-2.5") was adopted in 1997. A limited amount of construction activity particulate matter is in the PM-2.5 range. PM-2.5 emissions are estimated to comprise 10-20 percent of PM-10. In addition to fine particles that remain suspended in the atmosphere semi-indefinitely, construction activities generate many larger particles with shorter atmospheric residence times. This dust is comprised mainly of large diameter inert silicates that are chemically non-reactive and are further readily filtered out by human breathing passages. These fugitive dust particles are therefore more of a potential soiling nuisance as they settle out on parked cars, outdoor furniture or landscape foliage rather than causing any adverse health hazard. The CalEEMod was developed by SCAQMD to provide a model to calculate construction emissions and operational emissions for a residential or commercial project. CaIEEMod calculates both the daily maximum and annual average emissions for criteria pollutants as well as total or annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The CalEEMod 2013.2.2 computer model was used to calculate emissions from the default construction equipment fleet and schedule anticipated by CalEEMod as shown in Table 4. Table 4 Construction Activity Equipment Fleet Phase Name and Duration Equipment Demolition (10 days) 1 Concrete Saw 2 Loader/Backhoes _ 1 Dozer Grading (2 days) 1 Concrete Saw 1 Dozer 2 Loader/Backhoes 1 Small Crane Construction (100 days) 2 Loader/Backhoes 3 Loader/Backhoes 4 Concrete Mixers Paving (5 days) 1 Paver 1 Roller 1 Loader/Backhoe Utilizing the equipment fleet in Table 4, the following estimated worst-case daily construction emissions are listed in Table 5. Page 29 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 Table 5 Construction Activity Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day) 2018 _ � --ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5 Maximal Construction Emissions 60.5 12.7 10.5 0.0 1.8 1.0 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 As shown in Table 5, the peak daily construction activity emissions are estimated to be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds without the need for mitigation. The only model-based mitigation measure applied to the project was to water all exposed dirt at least three times per day during construction as required per SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), to minimize the generation of fugitive dust. The incorporation of the following measure will reduce project construction emission impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure No. 2 During construction, the contractor shall apply water three times daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas, unpaved road surfaces, and active construction areas. Operational Emissions The operational emissions for the proposed uses were calculated using CalEEMod2016.3.1 for a project build-out year of 2019. The operational emissions for the project are shown in Table 6. Table 6 Daily Operational Impacts Operational Emissions (lbs./day) Source ROG _ NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5 CO2 Area 2.7* 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 889.1 Energy 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 172.9 Mobile 2.2 5.8 24.0 0.1 3.7 1.1 4,823.1 Total 4.9 5.9 30.0 0.1 3.8 1.1 5,885.1 SCAQMD 55 55 550 150 150 55 - Threshold Exceeds No No No No No No NA Threshold? Source: CaIEEMod Output in Appendix *Assumes natural gas hearths for residential use In addition to motor vehicles, general development causes smaller amounts of "area source" air pollution to be generated from on-site energy consumption (primarily landscaping) and from off-site electrical generation (lighting). These sources represent a minimal percentage of the total project NOx and CO burdens, and a few percent other pollutants. The inclusion of these emissions adds negligibly to the total significant project-related emissions. Page 30 I City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 As shown in Table 6, the project will not exceed any SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds. As a result, the project operational emission impacts will be less-than- significant. LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS The SCAQMD has developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local level in addition to the more regional emissions-based thresholds of significance. These analysis elements are called Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs were developed in response to Governing Board's Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative 1-4 and the LST methodology was provisionally adopted in October 2003 and formally approved by SCAQMD's Mobile Source Committee in February 2005. For the project, the primary source of possible LST impact would occur during demolition and construction activities. LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM-10 and PM- 2.5). LSTs represent the maximum emissions that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The SCAQMD has issued guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs. LST pollutant screening level concentration data is currently published for 1, 2 and 5-acre disturbance sites for varying distances. For this project, the most stringent thresholds for a 1-acre site were used. The applicable thresholds and project construction emissions are shown in Table 7. The LST emissions thresholds were compared to the maximum daily construction activities. As shown in Table 7, all on-site project emissions are below the LST for demolition and construction. The project will have less-than-significant LST emissions. Table 7 LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day) LST 1 acre/25 meters CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5 South San Gabriel Valley LST Thresholds 673 83 _ _ 5 • 4 Max On-Site Emissions 11 13 2 1 CaIEEMod Output in Appendix ' "excludes construction commuting, vendor deliveries and possible emissions associated with haul trucking. Greenhouse Gas Emissions "Greenhouse gases" (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as "global warming." Greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation in some parts of the infrared spectrum. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of planning and regulation, Section 15364.5 of the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Fossil fuel Page 31 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions. Statewide, the framework to develop implementing regulations for AB 32 is under way. Maximum GHG reductions are expected to derive from increased vehicle fuel efficiency, from greater use of renewable energy and from increased structural energy efficiency. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significance Thresholds In response to the requirements of SB97, the State Resources Agency developed guidelines for the treatment of GHG emissions under CEQA. These new guidelines became state laws as part of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in March, 2010. The CEQA Appendix G guidelines were modified to include GHG as a required analysis element. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it: o Generates GHG emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or o Conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions. Section 15064.4 of the Code specifies how significance of GHG emissions is to be evaluated. The process is divided into quantification of project-related GHG emissions, making a determination of significance, and specification of any appropriate mitigation if impacts are found to be potentially significant. At each of these steps, the new GHG guidelines afford the lead agency with substantial flexibility. Emissions identification may be quantitative, qualitative or based on performance standards. CEQA guidelines allow the lead agency to "select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate". The most common practice for transportation/combustion GHG emissions quantification is to use a computer model such as CaIEEMod. The selection of a threshold of significance must take into consideration the level of GHG emissions that would be cumulatively considerable. In September 2010, the SCAQMD Working Group recommended a threshold of 3,000 MTCO2(e) for mixed-use projects. This 3,000 MT/year recommendation has been used as a guideline for this analysis. Construction Activity GHG Emissions The build-out timetable for this project is estimated by CaIEEMod to be two years. During project construction, the CaIEEMod2013.2.2 computer model predicts that the construction activities will generate the annual CO2(e) emissions shown in Table 8. Table 8 Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO2(e)) --- --- CO2(e) Year 2018 106.8 Amortized 3.6 "CaIEEMod Output provided in appendix Page 32 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 The SCAQMD GHG emissions policy for construction activities is to amortize construction emissions over a 30-year lifetime. As shown, the estimated GHG emissions from project construction activities are 106.8 MTCO2(e) per year, which is less than the threshold of 3,000 MTCO2(e). Therefore, the project GHG impacts are less than significant. Operational GHG Emissions The operational and annualized construction emissions were calculated and shown in Table 9. The annual GHG emissions are calculated to be 977.4 metric tons CO2(e)/year, which is less than the significance threshold of 3,000 MT. The operational GHG emissions are less than significant. Table 9 Operational Emissions Consumption Source MT CO2(e)tons/year Area Sources* 11.8 Energy Utilization 175.2 Mobile Source 738.1 Solid Waste Generation 24.1 Water Consumption 24.6 Amortized Construction _ 3.6 Total 977.4 Significance Threshold 3,000 Exceed Threshold No • Assumes natural gas hearths for residential use Consistency with GHG Plans, Programs and Policies The City of Rosemead has not developed or adopted a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan for the purpose to reduce GHGs. Therefore, the applicable GHG planning document for the project is AB-32. As shown above, the project will not have a significant increase in construction or operational GHG emissions. As a result, the project will generate GHG emissions below the recommended SCAQMD 3,000 ton/year threshold. Thus, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation to reduce GHG emissions. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.3 "b)" above, the air emissions generated by the project during demolition, construction and the life of the project will not exceed any State air emission thresholds. SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of cumulative construction or operational emissions, nor provides separate methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess cumulative construction or operational impacts. Rather, SCAQMD recommends a project's contribution to cumulative impacts should be assessed using the same significance criteria as those for the project's specific impacts. Since none of the project's daily construction or operational air emissions will exceed the thresholds recommended by SCAQMD, the project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Air quality impacts are analyzed relative to those persons with the greatest sensitivity to air pollution exposure. Such persons are called "sensitive receptors". Sensitive population groups include young children, the elderly and the acutely and chronically ill (especially those with cardio-respiratory disease). Page 33 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 Residential areas are considered to be sensitive to air pollution exposure because they may be occupied for extended periods, and residents may be outdoors when exposure is highest. Existing off-site residences abutting the site are considered pollution-sensitive to any project related emissions. The residences east and south of the project are considered sensitive receptors to air emissions. Although air emissions will be generated during project construction, as presented in the air quality assessment, the project emissions will not exceed adopted air emission thresholds. The project will not exceed air emission thresholds as discussed in section 3.3 "b)" above, and as a result, will not expose sensitive receptors to any substantial pollutant concentrations. e) Less Than Significant Impact. During construction the residents adjacent to the construction activity may detect some odors from the operation of the on-site motorized construction equipment. There will be less than nine pieces of construction equipment operating on the site at any time. The potential for all nine pieces of equipment to operate simultaneously is considered to be low. Therefore, the odors that will be generated by the operation of the construction equipment are not anticipated to significantly impact area residents. Once construction is completed all odors from the operation of construction equipment will cease. The California Building Code (CBC) will require the installation of mechanical equipment to reduce odors of any restaurants that operate within the building. The installation of all CBC required mechanical equipment for all restaurants will reduce odors as required by the CBC. The project is not anticipated to have any odors that would significantly impact area residents or pedestrians in the area. Odors by the project will be less than significant. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.4 Biological Resources Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local ❑ ❑ ❑ or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ------- b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional ❑ ❑ ❑ plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal ❑ ❑ ❑ pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? –— Page 34 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native ❑ ❑ ❑ resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nurser sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, ❑ ❑ ❑ such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other ❑ ❑ ❑ approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation 'Ian? 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) No Impact. The site is disturbed and completely developed with a commercial building, paved parking lot and other commercial site improvements. There is no landscaping or trees on the property. There is no native habitat on the site to support native wildlife. materials are not classified or considered to be rare or endangered plant species. In addition, there are no wetlands on or adjacent to the site. Any wildlife that may exist on the site would be non-native wildlife associated with urban development, such as domestic dogs and cats, rabbits, opossum, raccoons, mockingbirds, etc. There are no plants or wildlife on the site that are designated or will qualify as a sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The project will not impact any biological resources, including plants or animals. b) No Impact. The project site and the surrounding area are developed with commercial and residential uses. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities either on the site or on any of the adjacent surrounding properties. The project will not impact riparian or sensitive habitat. c) No Impact. There are no wetlands either on or adjacent to the site. The project will not impact wetlands. d) No Impact. The project is developed with a one-story commercial building, a paved parking lot and commercial site improvements. The surrounding properties are developed with residential and commercial uses. There is no native vegetation or bodies of water on or surrounding the site. Therefore, neither the project site nor adjacent properties support the movement of migratory fish or wildlife or support a nursery for wildlife. The project will not impact or interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites since there is no habitat on or adjacent to the site that supports wildlife. e) No Impact. There are no trees on the site. However, there are eight trees in the street right-of-way of Earle Avenue and Garvey Avenue adjacent to the site. The project proposes to plant eight new trees along Earle and Garvey Avenues and retain three of the existing Page 35 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 street trees along Garvey Avenue. Thus, the project will provide eleven street trees adjacent to the site. There are no oak trees on the site. Therefore, no oak trees will require protection or replacement in compliance with the Rosemead Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The project will not have any oak tree impacts. f) No Impact. The City of Rosemead is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The project will not impact any habitat or natural community conservation plan. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.5 Cultural Resources Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as ❑ ❑ El defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ❑ ❑ pursuant to_§15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ® ❑ ❑ — — geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ® ❑ ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES a) No Impact. The existing building on the site is not classified as, or a candidate as a historical resource by either the City of Rosemead or the State because they do not meet the criteria for a historical resource. The demolition of the existing building and other site improvements would not have any historical resource impacts. b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project site is located in an urbanized area that has been disturbed due to development activities on both the project site and the adjacent properties. Because the project site has been disturbed in the past associated with grading and construction of a commercial building, any cultural resources that may have existed near the surface have been previously unearthed or disturbed. There are no records of any recorded archaeological resources either on or adjacent to the project site. Despite previous disturbances of the project site in the past that may have displaced archaeological resources on the surface, it is possible that intact archaeological resources could exist below the surface area of the site that was previously undisturbed during grading. As a result, Mitigation Measures No. 3 through 6 are recommended to reduce potentially significant archaeological and Tribal resource impacts to previously undiscovered resources that may be encountered during project grading and construction to less than significant. Mitigation Measure No. 3 The project developer shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Page 36 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 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 shall 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. Mitigation Measure No. 4 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 shall be contacted and consulted and Native American construction monitoring should be initiated. The project developer and the 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. Mitigation Measure No. 5 The project developer 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 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 shall 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 shall be required. The project developer shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional archaeologist, who meets the qualifications set Page 37 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 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. Mitigation Measure No. 6 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 project developer, 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 With Mitigation. The project site is located in an urbanized area that has been previously disturbed by past development 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. No paleontological resources are known to exist within the immediate project area. However, two previously recorded fossil localities (LACM 7701-7702 and LACM 6350-6361) are located within a three-mile radius of the project site. While paleontological resources are not anticipated to occur in shallow areas of the site, deeper on-site excavations may uncover vertebrate fossil remains that could be considered significant. 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. As a result, the following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce potentially significant paleontological impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure No. 7 The project developer shall retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to 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 Page 38 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 paleontologist wound follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary. Mitigation Measure No. 8 The project developer 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 project developer 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. Mitigation Measure No. 9 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 project developer and the 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, Page 39 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 the grading and excavation contractor shall assist in removing rock samples for initial processing. Mitigation Measure No. 10 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 project developer, 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 With Mitigation. No known human remains exist or are anticipated to exist on the site. Because the project site has been disturbed, no human remains or cemeteries are anticipated to be disturbed or impacted by the project. Any buried human remains would have been uncovered, collected, and/or destroyed at that time of the initial grading and development of the site. However, these findings do not preclude the existence of previously unknown human remains below the ground surface, which may be encountered during construction and excavation 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, the following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce potentially human remain impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure No. 11 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 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 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 No. 11 If human remains are unearthed during implementation of the project, the City of Rosemead and the project developer shall comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The City of Rosemead and the project developer 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 Page 40 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 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. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.6 Geology and Soils Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving__ _--- i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. --- ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ including liquefaction?—_ —_ iv) Landslides? 0 El --�---- b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss ❑ ❑ ❑ • of topsoil? ——----- ------ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result ❑ ❑ ❑ in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ---`--d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code ❑ ❑ ❑ (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems ❑ ❑ ❑ where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Page 41 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS A geotechnical engineering investigation was prepared by Geotechnical Engineering Investigation.3 A copy of the geotechnical investigation is included in Appendix B. a i) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Rosemead is in a seismically active region. The nearest known active fault to the project site is the Upper Elysian Park Fault located approximately one mile away. The Upper Elysian Park fault is considered to have the most significant effect to the site from a design standpoint.' There is a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone in the south-central area of the city.' The project is located approximately one-half mile north of and outside the designed Fault Zone. As identified in the City of Rosemead (2008) Safety Element, the project site is not located within or near a fault hazard management zone.6 The potential for a surface rupture on the project site is considered low due to the absence of known active faults at the site.' a ii) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The seismic ground motions at the subject site were calculated based on existing seismic hazard maps published by the California Geological Survey. The peak ground alluvium acceleration at the site for a 2% and 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years is estimated to be approximately 0.9538 and 0.519g, respectively.9 To ensure the project is properly designed to take into account the identified peak acceleration value in the geotechnical report, the following mitigation measure is recommended. Mitigation Measure No. 12 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project shall be designed for a peak acceleration value of 0.953g and 0.519g for the 2% and 10% probability, respectively as recommended in the geotechnical engineering investigation and approved by the City Engineer. a iii) Less Than Significant Impact. The site is located within the western area of a liquefaction zone based on the State Seismic Hazard Zone map (El Monte).1° The potential for liquefaction at the site was evaluated using a computer program, subsurface data from on-site borings, the design earthquake (M =7.0), and ground acceleration of 0.953g (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) and a calculated ground water level to the depth of 5 feet below the existing ground surface. Although the computer program referenced a ground water depth of 5 feet below the existing ground surface, no ground water was encountered in the deepest ground boring on the site of 51.5 feet. Based on the laboratory 3 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed 4-Story Mixed Use Building, 8449 Garvey Avenue, Cal Land Engineering Inc., April 4, 2017, Cal Land Engineering, Inc., October 10, 2017 and Cal Land Engineering, Inc., September 14,2017. 4 'bid, page 6. 5 City of Rosemead General Plan Update,June 2010, Figure 5-3. 6 City of Rosemead General Plan Update,June 2010, Figure 5-2. 7 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed 4-Story Mixed Use Building, 8449 Garvey Avenue, Cal Land Engineering Inc.,April 4,2017, page 8. 8 Cal Land Engineering, Inc., September 14, 2017, page 1. 9 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed 4-Story Mixed Use Building, 8449 Garvey Avenue, Cal Land Engineering Inc.,April 4, 2017,page 6. 10 http://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Maps/EL_MONTE_EZRIM.pdf. Page 42 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 test results and the computer program, the geotechnical consultant determined the site is not susceptible to liquefaction." a iv) No Impact. The site is flat. The existing development surrounding the site is also flat. The project will not be impacted by a landslide or impact any adjacent properties due to an on-site landslide. b) No Impact. The City will require the project developer to install and provide all appropriate erosion control measures prior to the start of any on-site demolition or construction and maintain the erosion control measures throughout project construction. The incorporation of all applicable standard erosion control measures such as the use of sand bags around the project perimeter and other measures deemed appropriate by the City will reduce and minimize soil erosion. The project will not have any significant soil erosion impacts. c) No Impact. The site is developed with a one-story commercial building. Neither the existing building nor the site improvements show evidence of unstable on-site soil conditions. The project proposes to construct a four-story building with underground parking and other site improvements. Based on the geotechnical report, the grading and construction activities required to develop the project are not anticipated to cause any unstable soil conditions either on or off-site. The project will not have any significant unstable soil impacts. d) No Impact. Neither the Rosemead General Plan or the geotechnical report identify any expansive soils on the site. The subsurface soils at the basement garage floor level consist generally of fine to coarse, silty sand and have no expansion potential. The project will not be impacted by expansive soils. e) No Impact. The site is currently served by the public sewer system. The City will require the project to connect to and continue to be served by the public sewer system. The project will not impact any soils resulting from alternative disposal systems. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine ❑ ❑ ❑ transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions ❑ ❑ ❑ involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? " Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed 4-Story Mixed Use Building, 8449 Garvey Avenue, Cal Land Engineering Inc.,April 4,2017, page 7. Page 43 • City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 • Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, ❑ ❑ ❑ (21 substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located within one-quarter mile of a facility that might reasonably be anticipated ® ❑ to emit hazardous emissions or handle ❑ hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste? e) Be located on a site of a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site unless wastes have been removed from the former disposal site; or 2) that could release a hazardous ❑ ❑ substance as identified by the State ❑ Department of Health Services in a current list adopted pursuant to Section 25356 for removal or remedial action pursuant to Chapter 6.8 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code? f) Be located on land that is, or can be made, sufficiently free of hazardous materials soEl 0 as to be suitable for development and use as a school? g) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public ❑ airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? h) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety ❑ hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESA)12 was prepared and is included in Appendix C. a) Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the Phase I ESA, the existing uses on the site use and generate hazardous materials associated with the existing shops and car wash on the site and an abandoned aboveground hydraulic lift. Petroleum based oils, low emission solvents, and coolant are stored in 55-gallon drums or smaller containers inside secondary containment barriers. A floor drain in the car wash area connects to a multi-stage clarifier. During the site investigation to prepare the ESA, no soil or concrete staining, corrosion or 12 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Light Industrial Property, 8449 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead California, 91770, DCI Environmental Services,June 5,2017. Page 44 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 other signs of chemical release were observed.13 The project does not propose to use or generate any hazardous materials that would significantly impact the public or the environment. The project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. b) No Impact. As stated in 3.7 "a)" above, the proposed project will not create a significant hazard from a release of hazardous materials into the environment. c) No Impact. Sanchez Elementary and Roger Temple Intermediate schools are approximately a quarter mile south of the project. Willard Elementary School is approximately one-quarter mile northeast of the site and the Rosemead Education Center is approximately a quarter mile to the east. The project does not propose any use that would emit or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials or substances and impact any schools, including Sanchez Elementary, Roger Temple Intermediate, Willard Elementary, or Rosemead Education Center. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The site is currently developed with a commercial building that is occupied by an automobile sales and car rental company. As discussed above in section 3.7 a), petroleum based oils, low emission solvents, and coolant are stored in 55-gallon drums or smaller containers inside secondary containment barriers and an abandoned aboveground hydraulic life are located in the building occupied by the automobile sales and car rental company. No soil or concrete staining, corrosion or other signs of chemical release were observed on the site. The Regulatory Records Research identified several properties with contamination issues located within a 1/3rd mile radius of the project site. The listing closest to the project site is a 'case closed" Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) approximately 500 feet west of the project at the Laidlaw Harley Davidson company at 8399 E. Garvey Avenue. Soil only contamination was mitigated at this facility in 2008. Based on the Phase I ESA, there are no observed conditions on the project site that indicate the site has been impacted by the Laidlaw Harley Davison property.14 As a result, the potential for the project to be significantly impacted by hazardous materials from the property at 8399 Garvey Avenue is less than significant. e) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. As discussed in 3.7 "d" above, the project site is not located on a former or current hazardous waste site. Based on the Phase I ESA, while one of the uses on the property uses and stores hazardous materials there is no presence that hazardous materials have been spilled on the property.15 The project site has not been used as a hazardous waste site in the past. Furthermore, there are no liens listed in the United Sates Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)'s Federal Superfund Liens List, and no known recorded land-use environmental deed restrictions pertaining to the subject site listed in the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) liens database. Due to the age of the buildings, including the two single-family residences, there is the potential for asbestos and lead based paint to exist. The following measure is recommended to mitigate the potential for the presence of asbestos and/or lead based paint to less than significant. 73 Ibid, page 5. 14 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Light Industrial Property, 8449 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead California, 91770, DCI Environmental Services, June 5,2017,page 27. 15 Ibid, page 5. Page 45 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 Mitigation Measure No. 13 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any structure, the project developer shall provide a building survey to determine if asbestos or lead paint are present. The asbestos and lead paint survey shall be conducted by a Cal-OSHA Certified Asbestos consultant in accordance with sampling criteria of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). If lead paint and/or asbestos containing materials are found, all lead containing paint and/or asbestos shall be removed and disposed by a licensed and certified lead paint and/or asbestos removal contractor, as applicable in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations prior to the start of activities that would disturb any ACM containing materials or lead paint. f) No Impact. The site is sufficiently free of hazardous materials, except for the potential for the presence of asbestos or lead paint in the buildings and the single-family residences. If asbestos or lead paint are present, the incorporation of Mitigation Measure No. 13 above will reduce potential asbestos and lead paint impacts to less-than-significant. From a hazards standpoint, the site could be used as a school. There are no existing hazards or anticipated hazards associated with the proposed project that would prevent the site from being used as a school or the proposed project. g) No Impact. The closest airport to the site is El Monte Airport, which is approximately 4 miles northeast of the project. The project will not impact airport operations at El Monte Airport or result in any safety hazards for project residents and employees. h) No Impact. There are no private airports within two miles of the project. The project will not impact or be impacted by operations at any private airport. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: 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? Page 46 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, �❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or ❑ ❑ ❑ provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ ® ❑ quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood ❑ ❑ ❑ Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect ❑ ❑ ❑ flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving ❑ ❑ ❑ flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Hydraulic calculations16 were prepared for the project and are included in Appendix D. a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project could generate silt and other debris with surface water runoff during project demolition and construction, especially if demolition and construction occur during the winter months (November — April) when rainfall typically occurs. The quality of storm water runoff generated from the site is regulated under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES storm water permit provides a mechanism for monitoring the discharge of pollutants and establishing appropriate controls to minimize the entrance of such pollutants into storm water runoff. As a co-permitee to the County of Los Angeles, (NPDES No. CAS614001) the City of Rosemead requires all development projects in its jurisdiction to comply with the NPDES 6 Hydraulic Calculations, 8449 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead,CA 91770, Cal Land Engineering, Inc.,April 5,2017. Page 47 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 requirements for construction and operations as appropriate. Therefore, the project will be required to install and maintain all applicable soil erosion control measures, including Best Management Practices (BMP's), to reduce erosion and minimize water quality impacts during grading and construction. The project developer will be required to submit the completed Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) to the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit to ensure that all applicable erosion control measures are installed and maintained during construction to control water quality impacts. To control surface water pollution, the project will be required, by law, to install a surface storm water collection system to collect and treat the first 3/4 of an inch of surface water runoff from the site prior to off-site discharge. To comply with the law, all project run-off from the roof, landscape areas and parking areas will be captured and diverted by downspouts from the roof and catch basins from landscaped and parking areas to a biofiltration system that will be installed in the northwest corner of the site under the subterranean parking. After treatment, the stormwater will be pumped and discharged to Earle Avenue adjacent to the site. Overflow from the biofiltration system will also drain to Earle Avenue. The proposed biofiltration system in conjunction with the incorporation of all required BMPs will allow the project to meet and comply with all applicable water quality and water discharge requirements. The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce water quality impacts to less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure No. 14 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project developer shall submit a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan to the City for approval. All applicable erosion control measures including Best Management Practices to reduce erosion and minimize water quality impacts during grading and construction shall be installed and maintained during construction to control water quality impacts. Mitigation Measure No. 15 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install a surface storm water collection system to collect and treat the first 3/ of an inch of surface water runoff from the site as approved by the City Engineer. Mitigation Measure No. 16 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install a biofiltration system with capacity to filter the first % inch of project generated storm water prior to its discharge to Earle Avenue. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes landscaping along the south, west and north project boundary and street trees along Garvey Avenue and Earle Avenue and allow on-site water percolation. The project will collect and direct the first 3/ inch of rainfall to a biofiltration system proposed for the northwest corner of the site under the subterranean parking structure. Once treated, the stormwater will then be pumped and discharged into Earle Avenue adjacent to the site. Based on the SUSMP, the project will increase the amount of the site that is pervious and available for stormwater percolation by approximately 4.68% compared to the existing condition. Therefore, the project will not deplete Page 48 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, but rather allow more on-site runoff to percolate into the local groundwater compared to the existing condition. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The existing storm water drainage pattern of the site is generally towards the south with surface water draining mostly to the curb and gutter in Garvey Avenue adjacent to and south of the site. As discussed in 3.8 "a)" above, while small quantities of project generated surface water runoff from the sidewalks and driveways will continue to be directed towards Earle and Garvey Avenues, the majority of the runoff will be collected and discharged into a biofiltration system that is proposed to be installed in the northwest corner of the site under the subterranean parking structure for treatment and discharge. The project will alter the existing drainage pattern on the site from a southerly direction to the biofiltration system proposed in the northwest corner of the site. Although the project will change the existing surface water flow on the site, the change is flow will not cause erosion or siltation of a stream or river because the proposed biofiltration and discharge system proposed by the project will reduce the amount of existing runoff from the site that is directed to the local storm drain system. The increased pervious areas on the site for stormwater percolation compared to the existing condition will allow more stormwater runoff to percolate into the local groundwater. By reducing the amount of runoff that will be generated from the site, the project will reduce and have a less than significant impact to erosion or siltation either on or off the site. d) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.8 "c)" above, surface water drainage from the sidewalks and project driveways will continue to flow west to the existing curb and gutter system in Earle Avenue and south to Garvey Avenue. The project is estimated to generate approximately 0.189 cubic feet per second (CFS) of runoff less to the local storm drain system compared to the existing condition due to the increase in the permeable surface area proposed by the project. The project will discharge most of the surface water runoff into a proposed biofiltration system in the northwest corner of the site for water quality treatment prior to discharge to the local storm drain system in Earle Avenue adjacent to and west of the site. The proposed landscaped areas throughout the site will allow on-site percolation of storm water and reduce the amount of surface water runoff that is currently generated from the site. By collecting and directing most of the surface runoff of the project to the on-site biofiltration system and providing more on-site landscaped areas throughout the site than the existing condition, the potential flooding impact by the project would be less than significant. e) No Impact. As discussed in 3.8 "d)" above and based on the SUSMP, the project will generate approximately 0.189 cfs less runoff to the local storm drain system compared to the existing condition. This reduction in surface water from the site will not exceed and will actually incrementally increase the capacity of the existing storm water drainage system that currently serves the project. The existing local storm drain system (curb and gutter) in Earle Avenue and Garvey Avenue, along with the regional downstream storm drain facilities that serve this area of Rosemead have capacity to handle the 2.723 cubic feet per second of surface water that is calculated to be generated by the project. The discharge of the first % inch of rainfall to the on-site biofiltration system in the northwest corner of the site for water quality treatment and an increase by approximately 4.68% of the permeable area on the site for stormwater percolation will reduce the amount of surface currently discharged from the site. The project will not have any storm drain capacity impacts. f) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.8 "a)" above, the quality of storm water runoff from the project is regulated under NPDES. The project will be required by law to Page 49 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 collect and treat the first 3/4 of an inch of storm water runoff to remove debris and other pollutants. The project proposes to install a biofiltration system in the northwest corner of the site to collect and filter the project runoff prior to its discharge in the Earle Avenue adjacent to and west of the site. In addition, the project proposes approximately 4.68% more permeable area than the current condition in the form of landscaping throughout the site to filter stormwater and allow runoff to percolate into the soil. Most of the project runoff will be filtered and discharged after being filtered by the proposed biofiltration system in the northwest corner of the site. During periods of high rainfall, storm water that overflows the biofiltration system will be discharged by a drainage pipe into Earle Avenue adjacent to the site. The project impact to surface water quality will be less than significant. g) No Impact. The project site is not in a flood hazard zone. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designates Rosemead to be in Zone "X", which is outside the 100-year flood plain." The project will not place any housing in a flood hazard area. h) No Impact. As noted in 3.8 "g)" above, the project is not located in a 100-year flood zone. The proposed project is not subject to flooding and will not have an impact by redirecting or impeding flood flows. i) No Impact. There are no levees or dams upstream of the project that will flood the site in the event of a levee or dam failure. j) No Impact. There are no water bodies either on or adjacent to the project site that will impact the site due to a seiche. The site is approximately twenty miles east of the Pacific Ocean and will not be impacted by a tsunami. The site and the surrounding areas are flat and not exposed to mudslides. Less Than - Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.9 Land Use and Planning Would the project: a) Physically divide an established ❑ community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but ❑ 111 ® ❑ not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community's ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan? 17 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 06037C1665FF, September 26, 2008. Page 50 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING a) No Impact. Examples of "dividing a community" include new roads, rail lines, transmission corridors, or a major development project encompassing numerous city blocks that creates a physical barrier between established neighborhoods or business districts. The project proposes to construct a mixed-use project with 7,520 square feet of retail on the first floor and 35 residential units on the second through fourth floors. The project will not divide the established surrounding community. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Rosemead General Plan designates the site as Mixed-use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac; 3 stories) as shown in Figure 14, Land Use Map. As shown in Figure 15, Zoning Map the zoning for the site is C-3-MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed-use and Design Overlays). The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and zoning designations for the site and will not require a General Plan Amendment or zone change. General Plan The Mixed-use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac; 3 stories) land use designation allows a maximum development of 26 units on the site18 and a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.6:1 with up to 60,912 square feet of development. The project proposes 35 residential units, including six low-income (affordable) units that total 44,400 square feet of residential use and 7,520 square feet of retail use on the first floor for a total development of 51,920 square feet. The project proposes a FAR of 1.4:1, which is less than the maximum 1.6:1 FAR allowed for the site by the Mixed-use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac; 3 stories) land use. The project is consistent with the current Mixed-use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac; 3 stories) land use designation. Zoning The project is consistent with and meets the standards for development in the RC-MUDO zone, including the height of the building. The height of the proposed four-story building is 50 feet and with the proposed 5-foot parapet the total building height is 55 feet. The project applicant is requesting a concession to allow the development of the proposed 55 foot building in the RC-MUDO zone with a maximum allowed building height of 45 feet. Other than the requested building height concession, the project meets and complies with all other applicable development standards, including minimum lot area, minimum lot width/depth, setbacks and floor area ratio (FAR). Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Development Overlay(RCMUDO) The purpose of the RCMUDO is to provide opportunities for well-designed development projects that combine residential with nonresidential uses, including, retail, business services, personal services, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities designated with the mixed-use land use designations in the City of Rosemead General Plan, and consistent with the policy direction in the General Plan.19 18 Based on a 0.87-acre site and 30-du/acre. 19 RMC 17.28.010 C Page 51 c � ; pit' a 1.1J a' u" y v - U C' // 03 L �., L.L. /w E CI > - ` Is.� •.. Po UJUJ :� 1ilil a fa .i%1 I , i ■ -- m r �`i .... '' -RAI IE!WIIIIIIIIlI _ - `5 o i`- .).A"' ^ �I 1111..x'11161' co, _ MI 1 :4 -'II nil 1 _ • ,r ,- ,'•� Ire/I UIl lltttt J ro c H 1 /�IIilrrill 14:1 Ik1II111111:•'.II i .(„44 t _ Lt' ■i.rm ? U J II' ■ .•. •'i a�law r�YH^62D. „ 14 CC ..�� 1 lid f'K: 1 1111 Hlfii L! I_i hi �.■i i t lun=a.�•t•:Ii !1111111111111111111 Uuumn unfiuul = o .. I � umn °� min mi. finial - •`" :. -= ,-"ri : Ay aaa .!g hi ' 11-11 `ly, >r Illllll 1Ni 1 ill minium, �. : _. MI9 i'1111IfI11"'NI NN " '''-"it UH111H11111111111 ZI HM 9 rat 'N -N = �� 8 I' = ' '';I!.! .ulIluluHlalu I c '-' _ = C`- �1? '"I:II■111JIIHVIIIIC:112111 r;+l1aus�11 hull nm R j ? _ OX I:71 iltrtr4 .IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII t =' e d p�, A��B�OValle* . MEI € N L y T 7 • �i lnunl . t 5• z 2 i HOBO ... ill ) NI= <s NL_111 im 1111 , iar. ur , =11 =rrrn sel_ _III i,g lu nl gale `��, _r : At1_eIla_ 0 d UMW �y 8h onum ° � , h x • a>poNe4 ■ mIIIA, 1111111r'00'-'5:- I:oll tori 1011.11i1 =Fg AvSacpI • tE :t ` u -N u s i -7.,,,,,. IIIIW ...., c C 72 -I Z 0 ofa \• �buo;uea 3 l iIuI:7., >. t -'7'.5-. ' o a A. J ' r d..,' j �� ped M v= _....-: t ti.i*- �� —, L �, �� T eye ° a � ■ �_ —7T�1'U – .� v 1 ut . Mr 1611111 o 1 z 'b _r waile� ' y �� Tr�Wo mil= 5r Ab8 isidZIMIllirgi to / or :� '�� U --- - — - — --- --- %� frr P 1 C' 01 C �" 1 *4 , ice , _ . • 4'. ;rr E ill 11111fU�IIP"il 441 .1 �� t. s h go?..,.---,t,2,,...,::.../4.--;--.7,-,4".:7.--r- I. ) ,i n, MI 1' r Imo` ) I 'I" nl ,rl, : IIS II _ • - as C-- i MI11111111-ow"II 1111 <. �IIIIe1Ir II1( .,11:11110311"11 11 n 1�,�u11�,,Lows ,� _ `J I ■ .ria.,J �i.� /hq - - - 7G -. E. U i tilt Haan w- -, A 9 -'I-:! T c- v I IIIfl11I1i1111111 -fifir-' 11 .g F ' S.w u LIIIIIII' ' I C " 11 = r . Ii ° rrTflA Z c, :1 :.rginn111111111(T (J1lI�11i1�jC & 7 AMII I . 101 1= oll Mr IJIINIlflIlR v ;u g cIl ulJ aUI ' NIIIIItl111MI t -, -' =. r- - -7 .1 Aj/-8A J��IIUIgM C u w a` _r.,7rrr,i � ‘ _ I I) u — ii I�1I _ Ype EMIR. � i , o L__ 1l, Fii ��, -.�.-Mi ■ isn. SNMI =1fl. e ISM H ; Ab eltaai� .L nn t ;a 111111 -,, .,i , EaP 11M° j; &VLP!dY3 — - m'",: •` 'l ifti _lira r1111111 ,�-� Alf APES I , 'Al- -u480 U=S "MI Rim" ..., - 1 IlliVIC r- L ,/ x ' r` -� 1111112A '1 BUIL C.) ,5 ID = ■ 4 L�? `l\ AV UO;U GO J .J II U I _�p, o'_,;; Mar p�l.2, 11111111119n h. ! _ II �, dal • •• ..3 iti Q- 7 1.31 ilkJ wrIl 1 - 611a 1114.1 i _ I Jar' 'mower M v US e. , A�edSOJd !Q�_ _ ' L V Ay MaN I z€D o - o City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 The intent of the RCMUDO is to accomplish the following objectives: 1. Create a viable, walkable urban environment that encourages pedestrian activity and reduces dependence on the automobile, through a streetscape that is connected, attractive, safe and engaging. 2. Provide complementary residential and commercial uses within walking distance of each other. 3. Develop an overall urban design framework to ensure that the quality, appearance and effects of buildings, improvements and uses are compatible with the City design criteria and goals. 4. Create quality residential/commercial mixed-use development that maintains value through buildings with architectural qualities that create attractive street scenes and enhance the public realm. 5. Provide a variety of open space, including private, recreation areas and public open space and parks. 6. Revitalize commercial corridors with residential/commercial mixed-use developments that attract and encourage market-driven private investment. 7. Encourage parking solutions that are incentives for creative planning and sustainable neighborhood design. The RCMUDO is an overlay zone, which may be applied to existing zoning districts as designated in the General Plan. The RCMUDO Zone district provides the option of developing a property under the base zone district, or developing a residential/commercial mixed-use development under the overlay zone. In this case, the RCMUDO zone is applied to the C-3 zone and the project as proposed is consistent with the C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed-use and Design Overlay) Zone. Residential/commercial mixed-use development shall combine and integrate residential uses with commercial, institutional, and office uses utilizing a strong pedestrian orientation. The mix of uses may be combined in a vertical residential/commercial mixed-use building or combined in separate buildings located on one property and/or under unified control. The mix of uses percentage shall be as designated in the General PIan.20 The types of uses allowed with the RCMUDO zone include a variety of commercial uses, including retail stores and businesses as allowed by RMC 17.28.030. The retail and business uses proposed for the project have not specifically been identified at this time. However, all future approved business for the site would have to comply with the businesses permitted by RMC 17.28.030. Consistent with RMC 17.28.030 C-6, the proposed 35 residential units are located on three floors above the proposed first floor of commercial use. The project, as proposed, meets and complies with all of the applicable RCMUDO development standards, with the exception 20 RMC 17.28.030. Page 54 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 of the types of commercial uses allowed for the site. As noted above, all allowed commercial uses must meet the permitted uses in RMC 17.28.030. Design Overlay The purpose of the design overlay zone is to assure orderly development and that buildings, structures, signs and landscaping will be harmonious within a specified area; to prevent the development of structures or uses which are not of acceptable exterior design or appearance or are of inferior quality or likely to have a depreciating or negative effect on the local environment or surrounding area by reasons of use, design, appearance or other criteria affecting value.21 The Design Overlay requires the precise plan for the project be approved by the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. The design review of the precise development plan includes architecture and design, number of stories, height, fences, landscape, color, signage, proposed uses, mechanical equipment screening, etc.22. The review and approval of the precise development plan in compliance with the design requirements of RMC Chapter 17.28 would ensure the project meets the City's design requirements for development in the Design Overlay Zone. Density Bonus The project proposes six low-income units as part of the proposed 35 residential units that allows the applicant a 35% density bonus. The proposed six low-income residential units represents 23% of the 26 proposed units. While the C-3 zone allows a maximum of 26 units for the site, the 35% density bonus along with the proposed six low-income units, the project is allowed to develop up to 35 residential units. Therefore, with the density bonus the project is consistent with the C-3 zoning. Project Concessions The 35% density bonus allows the project applicant up to two development concessions, if necessary. Due to several site constraints, the project applicant is requesting two concessions from the RCMUDO development standards. 1. The RCMUDO zone allows three stories and a maximum building height of 45 feet. The project proposes four stories, including a ground floor of retail use and three stories of apartments above the ground floor of retail for a total overall building height of 55 feet, which includes a 50-foot tall building and a 5-foot parapet. The project applicant is requesting a building concession from three to four stories and an overall building height of 55 feet rather than 45 feet. 2. The RCMUDO zone allows a maximum density of 67% of residential and 33% of commercial use. The density proposed by the project totals 85.5% residential and 14.5% commercial use. Therefore, the project exceeds and does not meet the maximum ratio of residential and commercial use. The project meets the development standards for the RCMUDO zone, with the exception of the two requested concessions. Although the project is requesting two concessions, the 71 RMC 17.28.010. 72 RMC 17.28.010 Page 55 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 project as proposed, including the allowance of the two development concessions as allowed due to the 35% density bonus, would not result in any significant land use impacts. The compliance of the project with all other required development standards would ensure the project meets all requirements for development in the RCMUDO zone. The project is not anticipated to have any significant land use impacts. c) No Impact. The City does not have any areas with adopted habitat or natural community conservation plans. The project will not impact any natural communities or conservation plans since none exist on or adjacent to the project. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.10 Mineral Resources Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to ❑ ❑ ❑ the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site ❑ ❑ ❑ delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 3.10 MINERAL RESOURCES a) No Impact. The State Mining and Geology Board classify land in California on the availability of mineral resources. There are four Mineral Resources Zone (MRZ) designations for the classification of sand, gravel, and crushed rock resources. According to the Rosemead General Plan Update (Figure 4-2) the project site is within the MRZ-3. The MRZ-3 classification states the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data. As Rosemead is completely urbanized and the State has not identified any significant recoverable mineral resources, no mineral extraction activities are permitted within the City limits. There are no mining activities on the site or the properties surrounding and adjacent to the site. The project will not have a significant impact to mineral resources of value to the region or residents of the state. b) No Impact. Based on information in 3.10 "a)" above, there are no locally important mineral resources in Rosemead, which includes the project site. The project will not impact any locally important mineral resource. Page 56 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Im•act Miti•ation Im•act Im•act 3.11 Noise Would the project result in: • a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground ❑ ® ❑ ❑ borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ❑ ❑ ® ❑ above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ❑ ❑ ® ❑ above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people ❑ ❑ ❑ residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 3.11 NOISE A noise report23 was prepared and is included in Appendix E. a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project is located in an urbanized area and adjacent to Earle Avenue, which is a local roadway on the west side of the project and Garvey Avenue on the south that is a Major Arterial. The existing noise levels on the site are due to the on-site activities, traffic on Earle Avenue and Garvey Avenue and daily activities of residential and commercial uses in the vicinity of the site. Noise Standards For noise generated on one property affecting an adjacent use, the City of Rosemead limits the amount of noise crossing the boundary between the two uses. For regulated on-site sources of noise generation, the Rosemead noise ordinance prescribes limits that are considered an acceptable exposure for residential uses in proximity to regulated noise sources. The L50 metric used in the Rosemead noise ordinance is the level exceeded 50% of the 23 Noise Impact Analysis, Garvey Earle Plaza,Giroux&Associates, May 30,2017. Page 57 City of Rosemead Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 measurement period of thirty minutes in an hour. One-half of all readings may exceed this average standard with larger excursions from the average allowed for progressively shorter periods. The larger the deviation, the shorter the allowed duration up to a never-to-exceed 20 dB increase above the 50th percentile standard. Nighttime noise levels limits are reduced by 5 dB to reflect the increased sensitivity to noise occurring during that time period. The City L50 noise standard for residential uses is 60 dB during the day (7 a.m. — 10 p.m.), and 45 dB at night (10 p.m. —7 a.m.). For commercial uses the L50 standard is 65 dB during the day (7 a.m. — 10 p.m.), and 60 dB at night (10 p.m. — 7 a.m.). These noise standards for residential and commercial uses are shown in Table 10. In the the standards shallevent increased to reblect thelambient level exceeds any of the noise standard noise level. The Ordinance also restricts hours of construction to hours of lesser noise sensitivity with heavy equipment to not operate residentialm ropertyrrlineduring (8.36.030.A.3). nd on Construction yss and not to not exceed 85 dB at anyp permitted on Sundays or Federal Holidays. Table 10 Rosemead Noise Ordinance Limits (Exterior Noise Level not to be Exceeded) Residential Use Commercial Use Maximum Allowable 7 AM to 10 PM 10 PM to 7 AM 7 AM to 10 PM 10PM to 7 AM Duration of Exceedance (Daytime) (Nighttime) (Daytime) (Nighttime) 45 dB 65 dB 60 dB 60 dB 30 minutes/Hour (L50) 50 dB 70 dB 65 dB 11 15 minutes/Hour (L25) 65 dB 70 dB ' 5 minutes/Hour (L8) 70 dB 55 dB 75 dB 60 dB 80 dB 75 dB 75 dB 1 minute/Hour (L1) Never (Lmax) 80 dB 65 dB 85 dB 80 dB Source: Municipal Code Section 8.36.060 Baseline Noise Levels •1 Short term on-site noise measurements were made to document the existing baseline levels at the site and the project area. The baseline noise levels are used as the basis to calculate future noise levels by the project to the surrounding community and existing noise levels from the community on the project. Noise measurements were taken at the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Delta Avenue in close proximity to the site. The noise levels that were measured are shown in Table 11. The noise measurement location is representative of the noise levels that exist along Garvey Avenue adjacent to the project site and reflect the existing worst case on-site noise levels. The measured noise levels were approximately 71-72 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline of Garvey Avenue. The City of Rosemead considers CNELS up to 70 dB to be conditionally acceptable for residential use and requires a noise analysis. Page 58 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 Table 11 Measured Noise Levels (dBA) 71-ii Lmax Lmin L10 L33 L50 L90 69[-- ----1 79 56 I 72 70 67 59 Off-Site Project-Related Vehicular Noise Impacts The long-term vehicle noise impacts of the project were determined using the California specific vehicle noise curves (CALVENO) in the federal roadway noise model (FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-RD-77-108). Table 12 summarizes the calculated 24-hour CNEL level at 50 feet from the roadway centerline along project area roadway segments under existing conditions and with the project. Four traffic scenarios were evaluated; the 2019 existing conditions "with project" and "without project" and 2017 "with project" and "without project". Table 12 Traffic Noise Impact Analysis (dBA CNEL at 50 Feet from Centerline) ExistingExisting Segment With 2019 No 2019 With No Project Project Project Project Hellman Ave San Gabriel-Gladys 62.4 62.4 62.5 62.5 Stallo-Willard 61.8 61.8 62.0 62.0 Willard-Walnut Grove 64.3 64.3 64.5 64.5 Garvey Ave/ Charlotte-Delta 71.5 71.6 71.8 71.9 Earle-Willard 70.9 71.0 71.2 71.2 _ San Gabriel Blvd/ N of I-10 72.6 72.6 72.8 72.8 N of Hellman 72.6 72.6 72.7 72.7 Hellman-Dorothy 69.6 69.6 69.7 69.8 Park-Garvey 69.5 69.5 69.6 69.7 Walnut Grove/ N of I-10 69.5 69.5 69.6 69.6 N of Hellman 69.2 69.2 69.3 69.3 Hellman-Dorothy 68.0 68.1 68.2 68.2 Dorothy-Garvey 68.2 68.2 _ 68.3 68.3 Garvey-Fern 67.9 67.9 68.0 68,0 Delta Ave/ Garvey-Fern 60.3 60.6 61.1 61.3 Table 13 shows the change in the noise levels due specifically to the project. As shown, the 2019 project opening year noise levels do not significantly increase. The largest project related noise level increase is +0.1 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline of the adjacent roadways and most segments show no discernable noise level increase. Because the area is built out, the addition of project traffic to area roadways does not significantly increase and impact the existing traffic noise environment. The cumulative analysis compares the "future with project" to "existing" conditions and shows a maximum noise level increase of+0.32 dB CNEL at 50 feet from roadway centerlines. Page 59 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 Table 13 Project Traffic Noise Level Increases* (dBA CNEL at 50 feet from centerline) Segment Existing 2019 Cumulative Impact Impact Impact Hellman Ave San Gabriel-Gladys 0.0 0.0 0.1 Stallo-Willard 0.0 0.0 0.1 Willard-Walnut Grove 0.0 0.0 0.2 Garvey Ave/ Charlotte-Delta 0.1 0.1 0.3 Earle-Willard 0.0 0.0 0.3 San Gabriel Blvd/ N of I-10 0.0 0.0 0.2 N of Hellman 0.0 0.0 0.1 Hellman-Dorothy 0.0 0.0 0.2 Park-Garvey 0.0 0.0 0.2 Walnut Grove/ N of I-10 0.0 0.0 0.1 N of Hellman 0.0 0.0 0.1 Hellman-Dorothy 0.0 0.0 0.2 Dorothy-Garvey 0.0 0.0 0.2 Garvey-Fern 0.0 0.0 0.1 Delta Ave/ Garvey-Fern 0.2 0.2 1.0 *May differ by+1-0.1 due to rounding. Under ambient conditions, people generally do not clearly perceive noise level changes until there is a 3 dB difference. A threshold of 3 dB is commonly used to define "substantial increase." An increase of +3 dBA CNEL in traffic noise would be considered a significant impact. Based on the information in Table 14, the maximum noise level increase by the project and cumulative projects is calculated to be +0.2 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the roadway centerlines. Therefore, the project and the cumulative noise level impacts are less- than-significant. On-Site Project-Related Vehicular Noise Impacts Although the City of Rosemead guidelines allows exterior noise levels of up to 70 dB CNEL, a noise level of 65 dB is the level at which ambient noise begins to interfere with one's ability to carry on a normal conversation at reasonable separation without raising one's voice. A noise exposure of 65 dB CNEL is typically the exterior noise land use compatibility guideline for new residential dwellings in California. The noise level on the site adjacent to Garvey Avenue is calculated to reach 72 dB CNEL at 50 feet from roadway centerline. The proposed residential units along Garvey Avenue have balconies that front Garvey Avenue. The closest residential patios are approximately 60 feet from the centerline of Garvey Avenue. At 60 feet, the exterior noise level is estimated to be 71 dB CNEL. If the patios of the units that front Garvey Avenue are required to meet the established 65 dBA CNEL noise threshold, noise mitigation would be required. In this case, a shield would break the line-of-sight between the receiver and noise source. A transparent 5.5' tall plexi-glass wall would reduce noise levels to 66 dBA CNEL and still allow views by the residents through the plexi-glass. Page 60 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 The central garden and recreational facility proposed for the north side of the building is protected from off-site noise by the perimeter structures such that noise levels are calculated to be less than 65 dBA CNEL. The interior residential noise standard is 45 dB CNEL. For typical wood-framed construction with stucco and gypsum board wall assemblies, the exterior to interior noise level reduction is as follows: • Partly open windows— 12 dB e Closed single-paned windows— 20 dB • Closed dual-paned windows — 30 dB The use of dual-paned windows for new residential construction is required by the California Building Code (CBC) for energy conservation. The interior noise standards of the proposed units will be met as long as the residents have the option to close their windows. Where window closure is necessary to reduce exterior noise, supplemental ventilation is required by the CBC with some specified gradation of fresh air. Central air conditioning or a fresh air inlet on a whole house fan would meet this requirement. Because the project commercial uses are not proposed to be occupied on a 24-hour basis, the exterior noise exposure standard for less sensitive land uses is generally less stringent. Unless a commercial project includes a noise-sensitive use, such as outdoor dining, the potential noise exposure and noise impact is generally not considered a commercial facility siting constraint for typical project area noise levels. Since the project does not propose any outdoor commercial dining space, the proposed commercial uses are not anticipated to be significantly impacted by either existing or future noise levels. Site Operational Noise The daily operations of the project will generate a variety of noises from a several sources. In areas where commercial and residential uses share a common property line, it is often not the overall magnitude of the noise that leads to noise impacts, but rather some unique aspect of the noise event that causes a noise impact. Early morning deliveries and back-up alarms are several sources that can create noise impacts in a mixed-use environment. Also, late evening commercial activities, such as clean-up operations when trash is dumped, etc. can generate noise and impact on-site and adjacent residents. Refuse collection vehicles could be restricted to daytime hours to reduce potential commercial noise activities to on- and off-site residents. All residential uses require sufficient distance separation from commercial buildings to prevent HVAC mechanical equipment on building roofs from being a nuisance. If not possible, the HVAC equipment will need to be shielded. A typical HVAC equipment noise level is 50 dB at 10 feet from the source. The City's daytime noise standard is 46 dB L50 and the nighttime residential ordinance standard is 45 dB L50. The 45 dB L50 standard is met approximately 30 feet from a single mechanical equipment source. Multiple mechanical units may have a larger noise impact "envelope." The operation of multiple HVAC or other mechanical equipment units, therefore, must be screened from a direct line-of-sight to any off-site residences. Ingress and egress for the project is from Earle Avenue at the west project boundary. The main project drive aisle is approximately 50 feet from the nearest sensitive use, which are Page 61 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 the residences adjacent to and north of the site. The project proposes a 6-foot wall along the north property line that will attenuate noise from the parking area to the residents to the north. According to the traffic report, the peak morning and afternoon traffic volume is 25 vehicles entering or leaving the site. The noise level associated with 25 vehicles is 44 dB Leq at a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The proposed 6-foot wall would reduce noise by 5 dB with a resulting noise level of 39 dB at the residents immediately north of the site. This noise level is below the 60 dB city noise standard. The project includes a retail and restaurant use on the first level. The noise generated by the use of the retail space is not anticipated to significantly impact any sensitive land use adjacent to the site. Similarly, the noise from the use of the proposed restaurant use is controlled by a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which typically requires conditions to minimize noise impacts to area sensitive uses. Although the exact mix of commercial tenants is unknown at this time, city mechanisms are in place to ensure that the users of the commercial space will meet and comply with the city's noise ordinance. The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce noise impacts to less-than- significant. Mitigation Measure No. 17 Project related operational hours for the following activities are recommended to be restricted as follows: • There shall be no delivery vehicle (no trucks) deliveries between the hours of 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. • Refuse collection vehicles shall restrict activity to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. • Loading of boxes, crates and building materials is restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. adjacent to a residential property line. • Construction activities are restricted by the City of Rosemead Noise Ordinance. While construction noise is not expected to exceed 85 dB at the nearest sensitive use (residences north of the site), construction noise can be minimized with the implementation of the following conditions: • All motorized construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. • Equipment and materials shall be staged in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction- related noise sources and the noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. • Haul truck and other construction-related trucks traveling to and from the project site shall be restricted to the same hours specified for the operation of construction equipment. • To the extent feasible, construction haul routes shall not pass directly by sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. Page 62 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration . Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 Mitigation Measure No. 18 An acoustical study shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit to show that all balconies facing Garvey Avenue have a transparent glass or plastic shield to create outdoor space that achieves the 65 dB CNEL or less. b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Vibration is a trembling, quivering, or oscillating motion of the earth. Like noise, vibration is transmitted in waves, but in this case through the earth or solid objects rather than the air. Unlike noise, vibration is typically at a frequency that is felt rather than heard. Vibration can be either natural (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, or landslides) or man-made (e.g., explosions, the action of heavy machinery, or heavy vehicles such as trains). Construction activities generate ground-borne vibration when heavy equipment travels over unpaved surfaces or when it is engaged in soil movement. The effects of ground-borne vibration include discernable movement of building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. Within the 'soft" sedimentary surfaces of much of Southern California, ground vibration is quickly damped. Because vibration is typically not an issue, very few jurisdictions have adopted vibration significance thresholds. Vibration thresholds have been adopted for major public works construction projects, but these relate mostly to structural protection (cracking foundations or stucco) rather than to human annoyance. As with noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Amplitude may be characterized in three ways, including displacement, velocity, and acceleration. Particle displacement is a measure of the distance that a vibrated particle travels from its original position and, for the purposes of soil displacement, is typically measured in inches or millimeters. Particle velocity is the rate of speed at which soil particles move in inches per second or millimeters per second. Particle acceleration is the rate of change in velocity with respect to time and is measured in inches per second or millimeters per second. Typically, particle velocity (measured in inches or millimeters per second) and/or acceleration (measured in gravities) are used to describe vibration. Vibration is most commonly expressed in terms of the root mean square (RMS) velocity of a vibrating object. RMS velocities are expressed in units of vibration decibels. The range of vibration decibels (VdB) is as follows: 65 VdB - threshold of human perception 72 VdB - annoyance due to frequent events 80 VdB - annoyance due to infrequent events 100 VdB - minor cosmetic damage A vibration descriptor commonly used to determine structural damage is the peak particle velocity (ppv), which is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration signal, usually measured in in/sec. Vibration ranges are shown in Table 14. Page 63 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 Table 14 Human Response To Transient Vibration Average Human Response ppv (in/sec) Severe 2.000 __^ Strongly perceptible 0.900 Distinctly perceptible 0.240 Barely perceptible 0.035 Source: Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual,2013. To determine the potential vibration impacts of project construction activities, estimates of vibration levels induced by the construction equipment at various distances are presented in Table 15. Table 15 Vibration Levels from Project Construction Activities Approximate Vibration Levels (VdB)* Equipment 25 feet 50 feet 100 feet 200 feet Large Bulldozer 87 81 75 69 Loaded Truck 86 80 74 68 Jackhammer 79 73 67 61 Small Bulldozer 58 52 46 40 *(FTA Transit Noise&Vibration Assessment, Chapter 12,Construction, 1995) According to Caltrans, the threshold for structural vibration damage for modern structures is 0.5 in/sec for intermittent sources, which include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1990) identifies maximum vibration levels for preventing damage to structures from intermittent construction or maintenance activities for residential buildings in good repair with gypsum board walls to be 0.4-0.5 in/sec. The damage threshold criterion of 0.2 in/sec is appropriate for fragile buildings. Below this level there is virtually no risk of building damage. The estimated vibration levels generated by construction equipment are shown below in Table 16. Table 16 Estimated Vibration Levels During Project Construction PPV PPV PPV PPV PPV PPV Equipment at 15 ft. at 25 ft. at 50 ft. at 60 ft. at 75 ft. at 100 ft. (in/sec) (in/sec) (in/sec) (in/sec) (inlsec) (inlsec) Large Bulldozer 0.191 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 Loaded trucks 0.152 0.076 0.027 0.020 0.015 0.010 Jackhammer 0.070 0.035 0.012 0.009 0.007 0.004 Small Bulldozer 0.006 0.003 0.001 0.001 _ <0.001 <0.000 Source: FHWA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment The closest residence to the project is the residence adjacent to and north of site, which is approximately 25 feet from the closest building façade of the project. At 15', the calculated vibration levels generated by the project construction equipment would be below levels Page 64 City of Rosemead Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 that create structural damage in fragile buildings (i.e., 0.2 in/sec). However, effects of vibration perception such as rattling windows could occur at the nearest residences. The Palms Motel is adjacent to and extends along the east project boundary. Only large dozers would generate vibration levels that could impact residents of the motel. Any grading along and near the north and east property lines should be performed with small bulldozers, which are shown above in Table 16 to have less than 30 VdB vibration. To ensure adequate vibration annoyance protection, the following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce construction activity vibration impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure No. 19 Small bulldozers only shall be permitted to operate within 25 feet of the north and east property lines. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.11 "a)" above, project generated noise must comply with the City of Rosemead Noise Ordinance in terms of the allowable noise levels crossing the boundary between the two uses, including noise from the movement of vehicles on private property. The specific noise limits that are considered an acceptable exposure for residential uses in proximity to regulated noise sources were shown in Table 11. As shown in Table 14 earlier, the project generated noise levels are not projected to increase significantly and impact area residents or businesses. Thus, the project will not significantly change or increase the existing levels of noise that exist on the site. The project will not have a substantial permanent increase in the existing (ambient) noise levels on or adjacent to the site. There will be noise generated within the parking structure. The noise that is typically associated with a parking structure include car starts, car doors shutting, people talking, car alarms, car horns, tire squeal, and cars entering and leaving the structure. Based on the estimated noise levels, the proposed 6-foot wall along the north property line will reduce noise within the parking structure and not significantly impact resident's north of the project. The noise generated by the project is not anticipated to substantially increase the ambient noise level either on the site or the immediate vicinity of the site and significantly impact area residents. The potential noise impacts of the project will be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate short-term noise during project demolition of the existing site improvements and grading and construction of the project, including site improvements. Figure 16 shows the typical range of construction equipment noise during various construction phases. The earth-moving sources are seen to be the noisiest with equipment noise ranging up to about 95 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source. Existing buildings and other noise barriers to interrupt line-of-sight conditions, the potential "noise envelope" around individual construction sites is reduced. The Noise Ordinance also restricts hours of construction to hours of lesser noise sensitivity with heavy equipment to not operate from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. during the week and on Saturdays, and to not exceed 85 dB at any residential property line (8.36.030.A.3). Construction is not permitted on Sunday or a federal holiday. Construction noise impacts can be mitigated to less than significant by compliance with RMC 8.36.030 A.3 that restricts construction from 7 AM to 8 PM Monday through Saturday and no construction on Sunday or a federal holiday. e) No Impact. The closest airport is El Monte Airport, which is approximately 4 miles northeast of the site. Operations at the El Monte Airport will not expose project residents, Page 65 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 FIGURE 16 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Generation Levels Noise Level(dBA)at 50 Feet 70 80 90 100 Compactors(Rollers) Front Loaders innimiumm a 0) Backhoes 5 w E Tractors W Scrapers.Graders EmuPavers U Trucks memo Concrete Mixers _a Fo Concrete Pumps a 75Cranes(Movable) ap a)E co Cranes(Derrick) w Pumps lllll� T o Generators Compressors Pneumatic Wrenches Immo n 0- Jack Hammers and Rock Drills E ._ IT Pile Drivers(Peaks) immomommli Vibrator 1mmimmimi o Saws mmommili Source: EPA PB 206717,Environmental Protection Agency,December 31,1971,'Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations.' Page 66 City of Rosernead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 employees or customers to excessive noise levels. The project will not be impacted by or impact operations at the El Monte Airport f) No Impact. See response to 3.11 "e" above. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than _ Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.12 Population and Housing Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new El homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people El El necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes to replace the existing commercial buildings and residences on the site with a mixed-use building consisting of retail space and 35 apartments. The 35 apartments include 26 two-bedroom apartments and 9 one-bedroom apartments. Based on the type of units proposed, it is anticipated that many of the future project residents are existing Rosemead residents and currently live in Rosemead. Any existing Rosemead residents that move to and relocate from their existing residence in Rosemead to the project will not increase the city's population. For those future project residents that live outside Rosemead and move to the site, the city's population is not anticipated to increase significantly. However, at this time, it is not anticipated that a significant number of the project residents currently live outside Rosemead and when they move to the site will significantly increase the population of the city. As a result, the project is not anticipated to substantially increase or induce a population growth in Rosernead. The project will have a less-than-significant impact to the population of Rosemead. b) No Impact. The project will require the demolition of commercial building and two existing single-family residences on the site. The existing residents will be displaced and required to find suitable replacement housing in Rosemead, or other areas. The displacement of the families that currently reside on the site will not require the construction of replacement housing because comparable replacement housing is available in Rosemead. The project, once constructed, could provide suitable housing for the families that will be displaced by Page 67 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 the project. The City of Rosemead Housing Department provides various forms of housing assistance and is available to assist any project residents that are displaced. The City Housing Department can assist to provide replacement rental housing, senior housing, down payment assistance, and other assistance to find suitable replacement housing in Rosemead. As of April 1, 2010, Rosemead had a total of 14,805 residential units, including single-family detached, single-family attached, apartments and mobile homes and a vacancy rate of 3.8%.24 Based on a 3.8% vacancy rate, in 2010 there were approximately 562 vacant residential units city-wide available for purchase or rent. Assuming the vacancy rate in Rosemead is still 3.8%, or close to this vacancy rate, there is an adequate supply of vacant housing in Rosemead to provide suitable replacement housing for the residents that would be displaced by the project. Therefore, the existing housing that would be demolished by the project would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing. c) No Impact. As noted in 3.12 "(b)" above, there is suitable housing in Rosemead for the families that will be displaced by the project without the need to construct suitable replacement housing. The apartments that are proposed by the project could provide replacement housing for the displaced families once the apartments are constructed. The project would have less than significant impacts to the displaced family. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation —Impact Impact 3.13 Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire Protection? ❑ ❑ _®_. 0---- b) Police Protection? ❑ ❑ c) Schools? El —_® - --- d) Parks? Cl ® - e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES a) Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection services are provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Replacing the existing older building on the site with a new building that meets all applicable California Building Codes (CBC) could reduce the need for fire protection services at the site by the Los Angeles County Fire Department in the future. As a result, the project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the Los Angeles County Fire Department. b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation, Police protection services are provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department. The Temple Sheriff's Station located at 8838 Las 24 California Department of Finance,Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates,4/1/2010. Page 68 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 Tunas Drive serves the project site. Compared to the existing condition, the project is anticipated to increase calls for police protection due to more people and increased activity on the site. The incorporation of security measures, such as surveillance cameras, proper lighting, and secure doors and windows will minimize the increase in service calls to the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department. The incorporation of the following measure will reduce police protection impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure No. 20 Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the project developer shall install surveillance cameras, proper lighting and secure doors and windows to the satisfaction of the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department. c) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project is in the Garvey School District. The development of 46 Lesidential units will generate students to schools in the District. The District does not have a student generation rate for the types of residential units proposed. Typically, multi-family residences generate fewer students than single-family detached residences. The District does not differentiate between single-family detached units and multi-family units in terms of student generation. The District collects a development fee for residential and commercial development. The student impact fee is used by schools to provided additional classrooms to accommodate the students generated by residential and commercial/industrial development projects. The project developer will be required to pay the State mandated student impact fee to the District before building permits are issued for construction. The following mitigation measure is recommended to mitigate the impact of the students generated by the project to the Garvey Unified School District to less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure No. 21 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall pay any required student impact fee to the Garvey Unified School District. d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project is required to provide 5,250 square feet of common outdoor open space. The project proposes approximately 8,500 square feet of common open space in the form of a courtyard, library, recreation center and landscaping, or 3,250 square feet more common open space than required. The project is also required to provide 2,100 square feet of private open space and the project proposes 3,166 square feet, or 1,066 more square feet of private open space in the form of private decks and covered balconies than required by the Municipal Code. The private open space also includes the private balconies for each apartment. Therefore, the project will exceed the amount of public and private open space that is required for the site. It is anticipated that any existing Rosemead residents that move to the project will not significantly increase their use of City park and recreational facilities. For those residents that move to the site from outside Rosemead, there could be an increase in the use of City park and recreational facilities. It is anticipated that most of the project residents will not use City park and recreational facilities to a level that will significantly impact the existing facilities. The project developer will be required to pay the city-required park fee of $880 per apartment as required by RMC 12.44.020. The park fee will be used by the City to provide Page 69 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 new park and recreational facilities or upgrade existing facilities for use by the residents. The following mitigation measure is recommended to mitigate project impacts to City park and recreational facilities to less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure No. 22 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall pay any required park fee to the City of Rosemead. e) No Impact. There are no activities associated with the project that will require or need public facilities or result in an impact to public facilities. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.14 Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ❑ Li ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ LJ might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 3.14 RECREATION a) No Impact. The residents of the project could increase the use of and impact existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities in Rosemead or other community in the area. The project residents could increase the use of area parks and include Zapopan Park, a neighborhood park that is less than a quarter mile north of the site. Other parks in Rosemead that would be available to project residents include Rosemead Park and as well as other neighborhood and mini parks. Rosemead also has the 3.5 acre Jess Gonzales Sports Complex park that is available for use by its residents. Rosemead residents can also use the Whittier Narrows Recreation Area, which is a 1,000 regional park and located southeast of Rosemead and provides a mixture of recreational opportunities including a golf course, fishing, shooting ranges, picnic areas, etc. As discussed in Section 3.13 d)' above, the project does not propose to provide any public park or recreational facilities and payment of the required park fee will be used by the City to provide public recreational facilities that can be used by the project residents. The project is not anticipated to have any recreational impacts with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure No. 22. Mitigation Measure No. 23 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall pay any required park fee to the City of Rosemead. b) No Impact. As discussed in 3.14 "a)" above, the project does not propose to construct any recreational facilities. Therefore, the project will not construct new or expand any Page 70 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 existing city recreational facilities that could have a physical effect on the environment. The project will not have any recreational facility construction impacts. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact. 3.15 Transportation/Traffic Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the county congestion management agency _ - — for designated roads or highways? c) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative ❑ ❑ ® ❑ transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 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? ❑ ❑ ® 0 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑- - ❑ ❑ 3.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC A traffic report was prepared for the project by Stantec and is included in Appendix F. a) Less Than Significant Impact. The traffic study estimates the project will generate approximately 740 average daily vehicle trips, including 48 AM peak hour trips and 66 PM peak hour trips as shown in Table 17. The project is proposed to be constructed in a single phase and completed in 2019. Baseline 2019 traffic volumes, the estimated opening year of the project, were developed by factoring existing 2017 volumes by an ambient growth rate of 1% and then adding traffic from future cumulative development projects in the area. Page 71 NI O / Ntr) / d © co r- \ 2 ' I ° tv I ƒ ƒ � % = c im / / / A w co # S O. $ 2 E a fl 2 / / / / q \ \ $ \ / y 0 = `Cl. q % CO o 2 % $ o N O t § �_ (t / / y % co / o C 7Nq \ # ~I / I 22 « - « c 7 % $ 7E13- / o \ 2 CC 6 6 / I- � ■ $ e c / 0 RI � .-- c / 0 0 a (0 I- CD o % E co N- ■ n CO k CO N N / a q . . a 'r. -0 a -0 % \ N w o & CO G 0 0 / D ± E \ c N o 5 \ CO ® CO OA = co LO ( A o ; •-.0 5 } « I- 77 . ƒ\ /$ � a) 2 ]\ D_ - 2 Ta § j 3G E�al \ / _ 22 E _ = E _ al a t •— \\ Ca Q / / al Q k tY , w N Cr) w ) N c City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 As a mixed-use development, some internal trip capture can be expected such as tenants patronizing the proposed commercial uses. The credit of the internal trips would reduce the number of external trips occurring on the surrounding roadway network. For mixed-use projects like the proposed project, internal capture rates of 9% and 39% for the AM and PM peak hours are acceptable. However, for the worst case condition, no internal trip capture was considered in the traffic analysis. Although the project site is served by public transit and proposes on-site bike stalls and is within walking distance of other residential development in the immediate area, the traffic study assumed that all external trips arrive by motor vehicle. As a result, the estimated project trip generation reflects a worst-case condition. The traffic report studied 10 area intersections as shown in Figure 17. The ten studied intersections include: 1. San Gabriel at 1-10 Westbound Ramps (stop controlled); 2. San Gabriel Boulevard at 1-10 Eastbound Ramps (stop controlled); 3. San Gabriel Boulevard at Hellman Avenue (signalized); 4. San Gabriel Boulevard at Garvey Avenue (signalized); 5. Delta Avenue at Garvey Avenue (signalized); 6. Walnut Grove Avenue at 1-10 Westbound Ramps (stop controlled); 7. Walnut Grove Avenue at Hellman Avenue (signalized); 8. 1-10 Eastbound off-ramp at Hellman Avenue (signalized); 9. Walnut Grove Avenue at Garvey Avenue (signalized); and 10. Walnut Grove Avenue at Fern Avenue (signalized). Trip Distribution and Assignment Figure 18 shows the distribution and assignment of the estimated traffic by the project. As shown, 10% of the project traffic is assigned to/from both the east and west via the 1-10 Freeway with 20% each assigned to/from the east and west on Garvey Avenue. Ten percent (10%) and 15% of the estimated project traffic is assigned to/from the north and south, respectively, along San Gabriel Boulevard. Five percent (5%) of the project traffic each is assigned to/from the north and south via Walnut Grove Avenue and 5% to/from Delta Avenue to the south. Project Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement and Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes Based on the estimated trip generation and project trip distribution, the project traffic volumes are shown in Figures 19 and 20 for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. To evaluate the levels of service at the 10 study area intersections with Existing 2017 and Baseline 2019 with project conditions, the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method was used to evaluate the existing and future levels of service (LOS) for signalized intersections and the LOS for unsignalized intersection was determined by the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) operations method. The target level of service to be maintained throughout the project study area has been established by the City of Rosemead as Level of Service D. All of the studied stop-controlled intersections are located within the 1-10 Freeway interchange corridor and operated by Caltrans. The HCM operations method is consistent with Caltrans requirements for unsignalized intersection analysis. The 2000 HCM operations level of service method is based on worst-case delay for the controlled Page 73 wnrllik �I c I, a, O 41:4 L-02'-'6.. ... 6"ilLI. s v) T. i ®1 ,®-.cc sl-___n t'''''Y a c a m ul ,- r c ° i- .° " 113 ° v d cr 6: 3.. Q 'if}�► � I )N O to ®O®_ in a orsi 0 0 r d-41-j-fr. Q (17:j. 14).- 3 C� n + -�'� to 01 - T /�. LLJ W �4fr- �---4r� ÷r ac 0 0 0 0 cc 1 r________ _._ ___ ___,. , :n y 1410:Anw 6.: xV:I•u,cy � n 1 -Q any enoro inulom : 0 Q r —S V- Q I ® any prgl!M -� an;p.-J!N CAP R. g• i1 any•31.103 j 3n; • ;;rDa ,snv cy01$ anvo3 1 OW 81.103 and aµnvoto any 011x0 fr _ Ow 01180 env 01180 fl( I (J 3, Go ♦__ -- 1 ]� :,1) °Ay snlabuv N ;AY a11q.1040 S 'a . O lJ I Li 6:N O � ti ! 8! `^v ollofiOV:r ow allol�4� ✓ any uopAoo p i� i I d i < ++ � an'u!M eev sApOIE.1 r� any SdPOi;�/ ar.v�.�MJ �_ 6 "v o 0 t9 1 7X: PM81al+Q0`J:N i () • C — < 5ny?valuoly Z § i `1 t ISCu!d S 01wo1103 ; [_-_-• ; ) e_eAy,:JIi o5 6ea Q i > ___ anyWel t3u{ID3 ' :° cs / 671ili Y O € PMA Phil Martin&Associates,lnc. GARVEY EARLE PLAZA I CITY OF ROSEMEAD • 10� = > 15% O O� > o z > °i' 6 m Loftus Dr o o a U / c '> r 9 p N b- :„.,. t- o U N r 0 H a o w Saxon Ave 1 0% /� Olney St Olney S '1441' Artson St V I J a o > > a < fi c m Hellman Ave - "' A 00 a> �j a> ' a a> a> < a oaa tio a o § o a a w a o h < Dorothy Si o a c > m > a> / i I Emerson PI �' v ¢ < > a` v < a> 8 ° S > ar v a c a L`o m < ¢ t Whitmore St o U U a a o e> 6 '>) m a el< Pork St o t 0 Project 20% Site 20% H © Garvey Ave® A O H a) > r > I v >> <> a> 1 v a a) > > <> o < a 0 0 0 5% a - r 5� a C� / ' (-) o w s Newmark/Ave \ = 15% Fern Ave \ Ferr Ave o o Source:Stantec " Figure 18 ® Project Trip Distribution CN H r , (--i- c. a LU D ' LU4 —r ®-.6- 9 i —i �—l 1 ® Q AS U !L N ,......„) / ti'lfCL 7, II T2 C LL a 1,- \ N o a� v ri:Dt. M N N< L —+�/Id 9 OL I.100�`J Om • \\N j. N / 1 \\.....________Ia r" / J0a cc ,...., r„...... -,,, . o 0 c (---- -: Cc.) 3 Z --... d! ) 4i ® L -.l rr�- 3 c > ! / ` ! N ti J T r t a,.aJoni 1 env telo3sow __ /Pi .a.sv:.,-,::afl O an any I1=111o9 d.y \ ucun9 et !I �® ~•^ y'a/x.0 4 40M 0 _• 0 e ow plaVA y...v plc.;p V Z 4 enya!lo3 enyepo3 anyoloIq \ aAVauc3 r DAV 2.:1:r3 o,V apoA.o9) env Opel I any ol1go Vand ol{,iO [ci _ ®O •N L` `( , O,.y m{a6uy _O any 001c40 S H 5 O_v) N C d 5 4.,,v,a.i0Jou^.. • WV alloIl040 V any uoPAoI 8 'C _.- �� m v. ut {` ( 6nWS ? dnysAper,J/ eM1V V'anlI'I�� ) Z < (k pI. p T. P/4A IeuGog voS c, ----qco _ i \, ) . 5 rc: 1 <. A,ypm:�m;•; b a) °' -C 1 a I Y ` G W 1 1 O { • • CS 01J10 1 O JAy 1.04Y,0� lS LIoJ ! _ r E c / J JM1V)oOl�Uf{Oj I Enc { // z u o Z€D ,7-------Ts. i,----,:-----\. .0 0 V) w l J (:.-1. IDS 1._ Q. 15 1.17. ..,,Ijt 1 Y) < 6 .., Q ;� sr:cc N. — ® . ---- U al 13 U r (- ice- (-- 7.--I—. FEN Ei3 N b —�® S a (\ ) 1.Woo i 0 a LU 4 a CC 7------ Vcrjl Z E z 4 r �, ► w = 30 LU a —r•(1x _-- G 19 ® 9 9 -+ ® ..._£ (' — — —.— t g O Y C j 1 .` 1 , - . 0.):.1,--1-.Da s ...•. _ I,, t L\ 9n 101I 04 lir * p �� ----. 0 _ 1 ow:poi .' 5�3 I e•.•v�ioli c 1• J 41 C9 I\ anV ainoun — L_.___ w.....:,,,, f 8AV 0480 DE _ :n Bny:Nadu y ( co vi anV AN011M/3 S — .7. c 0_ N d t i t env a lcvo4J W any alloucy3 Q / v. i !—_ •U dAV uyn� I 1 Any vMJ €,...v S.iOU;t,� A 0AV SAA01 j _O1 ¢ ` l J©� e* 4l ®° . q „6,Fv?wtHV p� I y y a C' l b -- u r IS:."qc as 0 IS ottoolilop ri 1cn J ew pal 6uvoj LL iti x. z€1) City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 approaches. However, Caltrans uses average control delay as the basis of LOS and generally significantly lower than worst-case delay. Therefore, the delay and LOS associated with both values are shown for the studied unsignalized intersections. Baseline 2017 with Project Conditions Table 18 shows the results of intersection level of service analysis for the study area intersections with the existing 2017 conditions. As shown, all of the studied intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours with the exception of San Gabriel Boulevard at Garvey Avenue. This intersection currently operates at LOS E in the PM peak hour. Table 19 shows the results of the intersection level of service analysis for the Baseline 2019 conditions both with and without the project. In Table 18, the Baseline 2019 peak hour volumes with the project shows that all of the intersections will continue to operate at LOS D or better, with the exception of San Gabriel Boulevard/Garvey Avenue that will operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour, which is the same as the current condition. Roadway Capacities The existing weekday 24-hour traffic volumes on Garvey Avenue are approximately 27,000 and 29,000 vehicles per day to the east and west of the project, respectively. These volumes are below capacity of this roadway (approximately 40,000 vehicles per day). The weekday 24-hour volume along San Gabriel Boulevard south of the 1-10 Freeway is approximately 33,000 vehicles per day. The capacity of San Gabriel Boulevard is approximately 40,000 vehicles per day along the segment adjacent to the site. The existing weekday volumes on Walnut Grove Avenue vary from approximately 19,800 vehicles per day south of Garvey Avenue to 30,500 vehicles per day at the 1-10 Freeway interchange. Walnut Grove Avenue has a daily capacity of approximately 30,000 vehicles. The existing volumes on Delta Avenue and Fern Avenue are below the approximate 5,000 vehicles per day capacity of these local streets. The Baseline 2019 weekday 24-hour volumes on the roadways surrounding the project are forecast to remain below theoretical capacity, except for traffic volumes on San Gabriel Boulevard and Walnut Grove Avenue within the 1-10 interchange areas. The forecast Baseline 2019 volumes in the interchange areas are above capacity of the roadways based on regular cross-sections within the City of Rosemead. However, it would not be unusual for these roadways to carry higher volumes within the interchange area due to the presence of unrestricted turning movements at freeway on-ramps. The roadways adjacent to the project are calculated to operate below their capacity based on 24-hour traffic volumes for the Baseline 2019 condition with the project, except for the San Gabriel Boulevard and Walnut Grove Avenue intersection. However, as previously discussed, the actual daily roadway capacities in these areas are anticipated to be somewhat higher than the theoretical capacities used in the V/C analysis because of the unrestricted ramp turning movements. Page 78 a, N. a, ro a co ' O U 00w p co p Q O Q < < < a 0 0 o = `) Wim .= ULo 0 rnncoCocoLU � coco n co co co p CVO O O O O O O ci c: d N CO CV drd yi C O C Q N N C7 - C C V) C U) to x ` O U 0 Q 0 m U Q X 0 < < < < U O• W 0 W 0 I I 13, ✓ .co Y al o N U fC .. Ll. _ N- t U N- CO to d O ,- co co O O O O O V N ,- CO L6 (3 > u L a V 4- oO ' N 0 c � 4- 0 To > m `� co J p 7a-)N Uti) p p 13 Co o Cl) '6.3m c c ;, (q p o N c) VI a) C U) U N 2 2= U 2 (1 p o C j tL 13 a)1 m CO CCO U ra N N W w _ rn N � u) °' C c- a. a u) cn a za m a a ay > 0 E cc Z E 0 w C - w� c� > = E O O 0 LLr ("5 > a) I a� > ;° o-a a� > - > < a > > > > Cll -` mm a) < > co m co m Q 0 c�a civ C7 oo (x$ U 0 @ C CO C c U C� 5 Zcn Cn 0 i CO 0-) cn cO U C7 c7 .4 to co pj O0 (D •D (6 U �- N N c0 0 03 m a> m O U w: m o m ❑ a W 9 < a < a a 5 5 0 0 = x _ T.. T G1 O: 41 0C,i .- a N V o a 0 a o c o o N •o Z a a r) o• csi csi U t a... C, a) .o 'p dTom._ _ y N in N a 0 u ❑ a u m u a 0 a o < a a < u d - _ g, _ 0 N o COm o o t o a N. N. Lc) N.Lc, co N. 0.N. M 0 o\ o N ,0 a a — p O O O O O O O a 01 g 0 p.<5- s- 0 0 p Uas W ¢ o m o a w. o < < < < n L 7 - 7 > d Y 3 a o a r) o a o r) o v a o o (N y.! N. P N co d Co v) U 0 V Q o P csi (l) Cl- r a U o o O o a 0 a o acp. ol ICO e- p o 01 Csi N o • � C_ N Cin o -J U o a v m u < 0 & < 0 < < < 0 co a C m m 0 Ox° _ Y d At 0 E cS J 0.' n N N Z O N 'Oco a O O O O co O O th _ Q5-. 0) r 0 o N v ra 4) o ea C L N a) m cl N 3 _ N I3 W >' O T Tc) 13 D U C -O sa o O O m N a N s CD x =T. x 7:3v N C m d ac CZ m = > C '45)" w a '0 a) m y E E ° a o ce rn ~ c < o> t< < 0 m m m m 3 to y C3 C E Z °/ m c ° a�E Z 0) 0 0 0 0 a •c , D) < x l7 a Ti i i m N 6.5 V o 2 < Q < -o U m A 0 < `n m C) > n > o n .2 13 o N •_LU .0 _ o 0 o 0 n o 0 0 o 2 0 C0 (� l� o c w 5 0 c c c c C. w (dO N N V 5 C7 t74 h n W O• O 4 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis A traffic signal warrant analysis based on peak hour volumes was performed for the studied non-signalized study area intersections for both the existing 2017 with the project condition and the baseline 2019 with the project condition. The Walnut Grove Avenue at the Caltrans 1-10 westbound off-ramp signal was satisfied for both the AM and PM peak hours for the existing 2017 conditions and for all subsequent scenarios. The conclusion of this traffic signal warrants indicates more rigorous 4-hour and 8-hour signal warrants may be justified for the existing condition at this intersection. However, project traffic will not impact this intersection and no mitigation is required. The project traffic will not cause any of the studied intersections to exceed an unacceptable level of service or exceed their existing level of service. All area roadways will continue to operate within their design capacity. The project traffic will have less than significant traffic impacts. b) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.15 "a)" above, the project is estimated to generate 740 daily vehicle trips. The traffic report reference 2019 as the traffic analysis baseline based on the date the project is scheduled to be completed and operational. The 2019 baseline traffic volumes were calculated by factoring the existing 2017 traffic volumes with an ambient growth rate of 1% and traffic from the cumulative development projects in the project area. The 2019 cumulative traffic volumes were used to determine the potential project traffic impact to the area transportation system. The 2019 traffic volumes shown previously in Figures 22 and 23 take into the account the 1% estimated growth in area traffic and traffic from the cumulative projects. As discussed in Section 3.15 "a" above, the project will not have any significant cumulative traffic impacts. All area intersections will continue to operate at City acceptable levels of service with the project and the four cumulative projects. The project will not cause any roadways or intersections to exceed, either individually or cumulatively, their current level of service. As a result, the project will have less than significant cumulative traffic impacts to any area intersections that serve the project. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is served by Metro bus lines 70 and 770 and Rosemead Explorer fixed-route shuttle service. There are existing bus stops in close proximity to the project at the northeast and southwest corners of the intersection of Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue with concrete bus pads and bus shelters. There are no bus stops along the project frontage on Garvey Avenue. The project will not impact the existing bus stops on Garvey Avenue at Delta Avenue. The project does not propose to construct or install any new bus stops along the project frontage on Garvey Avenue. Project residents and retail tenants and customers can use the two existing bus shelters south of the site on Garvey Avenue for site access. The two existing bus shelters will encourage residents, retail employees, and customers to use public transportation to travel to and from the project. In addition, the project proposes a total of fourteen (14) bicycle stalls, including seven (7) on the ground floor and seven (7) in the level parking as required by the RCMUDO zone overlay for a viable alternative for the use of motor vehicles. The project will not have any significant conflicts or impacts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The project will have a positive impact by provided the required bicycle parking stalls as required by the City. Page 81 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project will be served by the existing adjacent streets and intersection without any changes or modifications. The project does not propose to change or modify any curves or other existing features to the adjacent streets that would create a traffic hazard. The project access driveway at Earle Avenue and the parking aisles of the parking area are configured for adequate traffic ingress/egress and traffic volume movement throughout the parking area in accordance with applicable agency standards. Sight distance requirements at the project driveway at Earle Avenue and the Earle Avenue at Garvey Avenue intersection meets agency standards. The parking proposed by the project exceeds the required parking spaces by the City parking code. Because of potential height restriction of 8'6" to enter the parking area from Earle Avenue, its proximity to area residences and to mitigate potential on-site circulation impacts, the following measures are recommended to mitigate potential circulation impacts associated with commercial deliveries to the proposed on-site commercial uses. Mitigation Measure No. 24 All delivery vehicles entering and exiting the site shall have a maximum height of 8'6". Mitigation Measure No. 25 No vehicle deliveries shall occur between the hours of 10 PM to 9 AM. Mitigation Measure No. 26 All delivery vehicles shall park in the designated loading area located on the ground-level commercial parking area. All project driveways must meet City driveway standards for adequate site access and site distance. The following mitigation measure will ensure the project driveways meet City driveway standards and reduce traffic hazard impacts to less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure No. 27 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall design the two project driveways in compliance with City driveway standards for site access and site distance. On-Site Circulation The proposed project driveways and parking aisles are appropriately sized and configured for the project volumes and must meet City of Rosemead design standards before a building permit will be issued. In addition, sight-distance requirements at the project driveways must meet City design standards before issuance of a building permit. The height of the entry at the driveway from Earle Avenue to the subterranean parking and the ramp at the west side of the project to the subterranean level will restrict the height of vehicles that can safely access the subterranean parking structure, including delivery vehicles for the retail/commercial uses. Because of the restricted driveway heights, the following measures are recommended to reduce potential impacts associated with delivery vehicles to less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure No. 28 All delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering the site from Delta Avenue shall have a maximum height of 8'6". Page 82 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 To ensure that retail/commercial deliveries do not impact the parking spaces that are designed for customers and employees, the following measure is recommended to reduce delivery vehicle loading area impacts to less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure No. 29 All delivery vehicles (no trucks) shall park in the designated Loading areas located within the commercial parking areas. e) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in 3.15 "d" above, the project proposes a single ingress/egress driveway to the site from Earle Avenue. The proposed driveway from Earle Avenue will provide adequate ingress and egress for the police and fire departments and other emergency equipment to enter the site in case of an emergency. The proposed driveway will be required to meet City building standards prior to the issuance of a building permit. The project does not pose any unique conditions that raise concerns for emergency access, such as narrow, winding roads or dead-end streets. The site plan was reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic Consultant and the Los Angeles County Fire Department to ensure that site access complies with all emergency access standards. Based on site plan review by the City's Traffic Consultant and Los Angeles County Fire Department, the project will not have any significant emergency access impacts. f) No Impact. The project proposes 116 parking spaces, including 70 residential spaces and 46 commercial spaces. The total parking count also includes four handicap spaces and one delivery truck (loading) space. The City parking code (RMC Chapter 17.112.040) requires 105 total parking spaces, including handicap and delivery trucks. The project proposes 11 parking spaces more than required by the City parking code. The project also proposes 14 bicycle spaces with seven spaces on the first floor and seven bicycle spaces on the subterranean parking level to encourage the use of bicycles by project residents and the commercial uses. The project exceeds the four bicycle spaces required for the project by RMC 12.32.030. The project meets the motor vehicle and bicycle parking requirements of the Rosemead Municipal Code. The project will not have any parking impacts. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.16 Tribal Cultural Resources Would the project: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 (k).? Page 83 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 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 Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? 3.16 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. As required by AB 52, the City mailed letters to the area Native American Indians that are on record with the city that may have cultural resources associated with the site. To date, only the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation responded to the City, or requested consultation on the project. In their May 9, 2017 letter, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation requested consultation with the City of Rosemead. Based on information from Mr. Salas, the project site is within the ancestral territory of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation. Although the project site has been disturbed in the past with the development of the existing use on the property, it is possible that areas of the site that were previously undisturbed could have Tribal Cultural Resources that are important to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation. Since the project will require excavation up to approximately 20 feet below the surface for the subterranean parking garage, it is possible that Tribal resources could exist on the site. On July 26, 2017, Mr. Cory Hanh with the City talked with Chairman Andrew Salas on the telephone to discuss potential adverse effects to tribal resources that may exist on the site and could be impacted during project development. The City subsequently submitted mitigation measures to Chairman Salas for his review that could be applied to the project to protect tribal resources, if present. The mitigation measures below are acceptable to Chairman Salas and the City to protect Tribal Cultural Resources on the site and recommended to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure No. 30 The project developer shall retain a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleno Ancestry to conduct a Native American Indian Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of any excavation activities. The training session shall include a handout and focus on how to identify Native American resources encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures followed if resources are discovered, the duties of the Native American Monitor of Gabrieleno Ancestry and the general steps the Monitor would follow in conducting a salvage investigation. Page 84 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 Mitigation Measure No. 31 The project developer shall retain a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleno Ancestry to be on-site during all project-related, ground-disturbing construction activities (e.g., pavement removal, auguring, boring, grading, excavation, potholing, trenching, grubbing, and weed abatement) of previously undisturbed native soils to a maximum depth of 30 feet below ground surface, or the maximum depth of excavation. At their discretion, a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleno Ancestry can be present during the removal of dairy manure to native soil, but not at the developers' expense. Mitigation Measure No. 32 A qualified archaeologist and a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleno Ancestry shall evaluate all archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Tribe shall coordinate with the developer regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. If archeological features are discovered, the archeologist shall report such findings to the Rosemead Community Development Director. If the archeological resources are found to be significant, the archeologist shall determine the appropriate actions, in cooperation with the City that shall be taken for exploration and/or salvage in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f). Mitigation Measure No. 33 Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the developer shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of Tribal human remains and/or ceremonial objects. All human skeletal material discoveries shall be reported immediately to the County Coroner. The Native American Monitor shall immediately divert work a minimum of 50 feet from the discovery site and place an exclusion zone around the burial. The Native American Monitor shall notify the construction manager who shall contact the Los Angeles County Coroner. All construction activity shall be diverted while the Los Angeles County Coroner determines if the remains are Native American. The discovery shall be confidential and secure to prevent further disturbance. If determined to be Native American, the Los Angeles County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as mandated by state law who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be documented and recovered on the same day, the remains shall be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation Page 85 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard shall be posted outside working hours. The Tribe shall make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keep the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be taken, which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Tribe for data recovery purposes. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or means necessary to ensure complete recovery of all material. If the discovery of human remains includes four (4) or more burials, the location is considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. The project developer shall consult with the Tribe regarding avoidance of all cemetery sites. Once complete, a final report of all activities shall be submitted to the NAHC. Mitigation Measure No. 34 No scientific study or the utilization of any invasive diagnostics shall be allowed to any Native American human remains. Mitigation Measure No. 35 If the Los Angeles County Coroner determines the remains represent a historic non-Native American burial, the burial shall be treated in the same manner of respect with agreement of the Los Angeles County Coroner. Reburial will be in an appropriate setting. If the Los Angeles County Coroner determines the remains to be modern, the Los Angeles County Coroner shall take custody of the remains. Mitigation Measure No. 36 Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony shall be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items shall be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site, but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the developer and protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered. b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. As discussed in Section 3.16. a) above, there is a potential for Tribal Cultural Resources to be present on the project site and exposed during project construction. The recommended Mitigation Measures 30-36 in Section 3.16 a) above will reduce potential Native American cultural resource impacts to less than significant. Page 86 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 • Less Than • Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional ❑ ❑ ❑ Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ❑ n ® ❑ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it ❑ ® ❑ ❑ has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid ❑ ❑ ❑ waste? 3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) No Impact. The quality of the wastewater that would be generated by the mixed-use project is not anticipated to include any materials that would cause the wastewater treatment plant that would serve the project to exceed the wastewater treatment requirements established by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project will be required to connect to the same public wastewater treatment system that currently serves the site. The quality of wastewater that would be generated by the residential and commercial uses proposed and allowed for the site by the Rosemead Municipal Code would not impact the quality of wastewater of the receiving wastewater treatment plant and cause the treatment plant to exceed the wastewater treatment requirements that are established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project will not impact wastewater treatment requirements. Page 87 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will consume more water and generate more wastewater than the existing uses on the site due to more proposed development that the existing uses on the property. The project is estimated to consume approximately 11,155 gallons of water per day and 10,971 gallons of wastewater per day as shown in Tables 20 and 21, respectively. The project water and wastewater needs can be accommodated by the existing facilities and construction of new or expanded water or wastewater facilities will not be required. The project will be required to install State mandated low flow water fixtures to minimize water consumption and wastewater generation. The project will not require the construction of any sewer or water lines and have any significantly environmental impacts. Table 20 Estimated Project Water Consumption Residential 46 units 160 gallons/day/unit 7,360 gallons/day Retail 11,860 sq. ft. 320 gallons/day/1,000 sq. ft. 3,795 gallons/day Total 11,155 gallons/day Table 21 Estimated Project Wastewater Generation Residential 46 units 156 gallons/day/unit 7,176 gallons/day Retail 11,860 sq. ft. 320 gallons/day/1,000 sq. ft. 3,795 gallons/day Total 10,971 gallons/day c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.8 "a", the project will not generate more storm water runoff than the existing storm drain facilities can handle. The project will not be required to construct any new off-site storm drain or surface water collection facilities. The first % of an inch of rainfall of any rainfall event will be retained and discharged to a planter in the landscaping along the southern project boundary. The planter area will treat the first 3/ inch of rainfall and allow percolation into the local groundwater. The project will be required to retain on-site all increased surface water due to the project with no increase in the amount of water generated from the site. Therefore, the project will not require the construction of any storm water facilities and have a less-than-significant impact to storm drain facilities. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Water will be consumed by the retail stores, project residents and landscape irrigation. The installation of State required low flow water fixtures in the retail stores and residences will reduce the quantity of water that is consumed on-site. The project will not have a significant impact on the local water supply or require new or expanded water supplies. e) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project will generate more wastewater to the local sewer collection system than the current on-site uses. The project site is currently served by an 8-inch sewer line in Garvey Avenue and the sewer line has capacity to serve the proposed project. The project will be required to install State mandated low-flow water 25 City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering. 25 County of Los Angeles Sanitation District No. 15, Service Charge Loadings,July 1,2014-June 30,2014. Page 88 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 fixtures to minimize water consumption and wastewater generation. The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County has capacity to collect and treat the wastewater generated by the project without the need to install large sewer lines or expand the capacity of the existing wastewater treatment plant. The project is not anticipated to significantly impact the capacity of the local wastewater treatment plant with the implementation of the following mitigation measure to reduce wastewater impacts to less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure No. 37 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install all State mandated low-flow water fixtures. f) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate more solid waste from the site than the current uses due to an increase in the amount of proposed development. The solid waste from the project will be hauled to the Puente Hills Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in the City of Whittier and operated by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. The MRF separates recyclable material from municipal solid waste and all residual waste is hauled to permitted landfills and all recovered recyclable materials are recycled. The Puente Hills MRF is permitted to accept up to 4,400 tons per day (8,800,000 pounds/day) of municipal solid waste. The project is estimated to generate approximately 126 pounds per day of solid waste27 of which approximately 50% is recycled and the remaining 50% is hauled to a permitted landfill. The municipal solid waste generated by the project is not anticipated to significantly impact the permitted capacity of any Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts landfills. Solid waste collection will be required to conform to RMC 17.74.050 B.7 in terms of collection hours, trash enclosures, screening, etc. The project will not have any significant solid waste impacts. g) No Impact. The project will comply with all applicable solid waste regulations and have no solid waste regulation impact. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ❑ i=] ❑ animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 27 Based on a solid waste generate ration rate of 3.6 pounds/day/unit, California Department of Resources and Recycling (CalRecycle), Estimated Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Rates. Page 89 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 f Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues __ Impact Mitigation Impact Impact b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.4, the project will not have any impacts to special status species, stream habitat, and wildlife dispersal and migration because no rare or endangered plant or animals exist on the site. The project will not affect the local, regional, or national populations or ranges of any plant or animal species and will not threaten any plant communities because no native plants or animals exist on the property. As discussed in Section 3.5, the project will not eliminate any examples of California history or prehistory or substantially impact historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources since none of these resources either exist or are suspected to exist on the site. The project will not have any biological or cultural resource impacts. b) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no aspects of the project that have the potential to contribute to cumulative hydrology (surface water runoff), water quality, air quality, noise, traffic, public service or public utility impacts due to the small scale of the project. The project will not have any cumulative considerable impacts. c) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no aspects of the project that will cause or expose people to environmental effects. The development of the project as proposed will not cause or have the potential to cause any adverse effects either directly or indirectly on human beings. Page 90 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Earle Plaza-Design Review 16-04 4.0 REFERENCES 1. City of Rosemead General Plan, April 13, 2012 2. City of Rosemead Municipal Code 3. Giroux & Associates, Air Quality and GHG Impact Analysis, Garvey Earle Plaza, City of Rosemead, California, May 30, 2017. 4. Giroux & Associates, Noise Impact Analysis, Garvey Earle Plaza, City of Rosemead, California, May 30, 2017. 5. Stantec, Garvey Earle Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Rosemead, California, May 2017. 6. DCI Environmental Services, Phase I Environmental Assessment Report, 8449 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead California, June 5, 2017. 7. Cal Land Engineering, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed 4- . Story Mixed Use Building, 8449 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead California, April 4, 2017. 8. Cal Land Engineering, Hydraulic Calculations, 8449 Garvey Avenue, April 5, 2017. 9. OMB Electrical Engineers, Inc. Outdoor Lighting Study — Garvey Earle Plaza, 8449 Garvey Street, Rosemead, California, June 1, 2017. Page 91 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM GARVEY EARLE PLAZA Design Review 16-04 E ' 1 - - rai—siti 1"16"."1:-1=_Ele--T - VI - -- ' -mr, i gr-!101 1 I ' Lfi p tol 11 1.11 1 I _III! ,_ �_i_i►�rr I I tri . 1 f 1 I_l l hr ilal-� I UI . - LrTj! !llL . i. Lead Agency: City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 (626)-569-2142 Project Proponent: Cindy Lau Waikiki Property 120 E. Valley Boulevard San Gabriel, California 91776 (626) 307-0062 Environmental Consultant: Phil Martin &Associates 4860 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 203 Irvine, California 92620 (714) 454-1800 January 23, 2018 1.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 1.1 Introduction This is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Garvey Earle Plaza project. It has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code §21081.6 which, among other things, states that when a governmental agency adopts or certifies a CEQA document that contains the environmental review of a proposed project, "The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation." The City of Rosemead is the lead agency for the project, and is therefore, responsible for administering and implementing the MMRP. The decision-makers must define specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements that will be enforced during project implementation and prior to final approval of the project. 1.2 Project Overview The project includes a proposed Design Review 16-04 to allow the construction of a four-story mixed-use development consisting of 7,520 square feet of retail/restaurant use on the first floor and 35 apartments on the second through fourth floors. Six of the 35 apartments will be available for lower-income households for a minimum of 55 years and the remaining 29 apartments will be market rate units. The project includes 116 parking spaces including 86 standard spaces and 25 compact spaces, four handicap spaces and one designated loading space for the commercial uses and 14 bicycle spaces. 1.3 Monitoring and Reporting Procedures This MMRP includes the following information: (1) mitigation measures that will either eliminate or lessen the potential impact from the project; (2) the monitoring milestone or phase during which the measure should be complied with or carried out; (3) the enforcement agency responsible for monitoring mitigation measure compliance; and (4) the initials of the person verifying the mitigation measure was completed and the date of verification. The MMRP will be in place through all phases of a project including project design (preconstruction), project approval, project construction, and operation (both prior to and post- occupancy). The City will ensure that all monitoring is documented through periodic reports and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. The designated environmental monitor will track and document compliance with mitigation measures, note any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to rectify problems. Each mitigation measure is listed and categorized by impact area,with an accompanying discussion of: • The phase of the project during which the measure should be monitored; ❑ Project review and prior to project approval u During grading or building plan check review and prior to issuance of a grading or building permit ❑ On-going during construction o Throughout the life of the project • The enforcement agency;and • The initials of the person verifying completion of the mitigation measure and date. The MIVIRP is provided as Table 1 (Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program). Garvey Earle Plaza-Mitigated Negative DeclarationJanuary 23,2018 Page 3 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Table 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Enforcement Verification of Measure No. Milestone Agency Compliance Aesthetics 1. Prior to the issuance of a building Prior to the City of permit the project applicant shall issuance of a Rosemead submit a lighting plan for approval by building the Planning Division that incorporates permit. Initial any of the following light reducing measures as applicable: • Select lighting fixtures with more- Date precise optical control and/or different lighting distribution. • Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures. • Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures. • Select lower-output lamp/lamp technologies •A combination of the above. Air Quality 2. During construction, the contractor Prior to the City of shall apply water three times daily, or start of Rosemead non-toxic soil stabilizers according to construction manufacturers' specifications, to all and on-going Initial unpaved parking or staging areas, during unpaved road surfaces, and active construction. construction areas. Date 3. The project developer shall retain a Prior to the City of qualified professional archaeologist start of Rosemead who meets U.S. Secretary of the excavation Interior's Professional Qualifications activities. Initial and Standards, to conduct an Archaeological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to Date 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 shall include a handout and will focus on how to identify archaeological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures to be Garvey Earle Plaza-Mitigated Negative Declaration January 23,2018 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 4 Cultural Resources 3. (con't) 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. 4. In the event that archaeological On-going City of resources are unearthed during ground- throughout Rosemead disturbing activities, ground-disturbing construction. activities shall be halted or diverted Initial away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be Date 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 shall be contacted and consulted and Native American construction monitoring should be initiated. The project developer and the 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. 5. The project developer shall retain a On-going City of qualified professional archaeologist, during Rosemead who meets the U.S. Secretary of the construction. Interior's Professional Qualifications Initial and Standards to conduct periodic Archaeological Spot Checks beginning at depths below 2' feet to determine if Date construction excavations have exposed or have a high probability to expose archaeological resources. After the Garvey Earle Plaza-Mitigated Negative Declaration January 23,2018 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 5 5. (con't) initial Archaeological Spot Check, On-going further periodic checks shall be during conducted at the discretion of the construction. qualified archaeologist. If the qualified Initial archaeologist determines that construction excavations have exposed or have a high probability to expose Date archaeological artifacts construction monitoring for Archaeological Resources shall be required. The project developer 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. 6. The archaeological monitor, under the Once City of direction of a qualified professional archaeological Rosemead archaeologist who meets the U.S. monitoring is Secretary of the Interior's Professional completed. Initial Qualifications and Standards, shall prepare a final report at the conclusion of archaeological monitoring. The Date report shall be submitted to the project developer, 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. Garvey Earle Plaza-Mitigated Negative Declaration January 23,2018 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 6 7. The project developer shall retain a Prior to the City of professional paleontologist,who meets start of Rosemead the qualifications set forth by the excavation Initial Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to activities. conduct a Paleontological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation Date 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. 8. The project developer shall retain a On-going City of professional paleontologist, who during Rosemead meets the qualifications set forth by the construction. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, Initial shall conduct periodic Paleontological Spot Checks beginning at depths below six(6) feet to determine if construction Date 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 project developer 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 Garvey Earle Plaza-Mitigated Negative Declaration January 23,2018 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 7 8.(con't) 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. 9. In the event that paleontological On-going City of resources and/or unique geological during Rosemead features are unearthed during ground- construction. disturbing activities, ground-disturbing I�itial activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A Date 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 project developer and the 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. Garvey Earle Plaza-Mitigated Negative Declaration January 23,2018 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 8 10. Upon completion of the above Once City of activities, the professional paleontological Rosemead paleontologist shall prepare a report monitoring is Initial summarizing the results of the completed. monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, as Date well as a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report shall be submitted to the project developer,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. 11. If human remains are unearthed during On-going City of implementation of the project, the City during Rosemead of Rosemead and the project developer construction. Initial shall comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The City of Rosemead and the project developer Date 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 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 January 23,2018 Garvey Earle Plaza-Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 9 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program 11. (con't) 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. Geology and Soils 12. Prior to the issuance of a building Prior to the City of permit, the project shall be designed issuance of a Rosemead for a peak acceleration value of 0.953g building permit. Initial and 0.519g for the 2% and 10% probability, respectively as recommended in the geotechnical Date engineering investigation and approved by the City Engineer. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 13. Prior to the issuance of a demolition Prior to the City of permit for any structure, the project issuance of a Rosemead developer shall provide a building demolition I�itial survey to determine if asbestos or lead permit. paint are present. The asbestos and lead paint survey shall be conducted by Date a Cal-OSHA Certified Asbestos consultant in accordance with sampling criteria of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). If lead paint and/or asbestos containing materials are found, all lead containing paint and/or asbestos shall be removed and disposed by a licensed and certified lead paint and/or asbestos removal contractor, as applicable in accordance with local,state,and federal regulations prior to the start of activities that would disturb any ACM containing materials or lead paint. Hydrology and Water Quality 14. Prior to the issuance of a grading Prior to the City of permit, the project developer shall issuance of a Rosemead submit a Standard Urban Stormwatcr grading permit. Mitigation Plan to the City for Initial approval. All applicable erosion control measures including Best Management Practices to reduce Date erosion and minimize water quality impacts during grading and construction shall be installed and maintained during construction to control water quality impacts. Garvey Earle Plaza-Mitigated Negative Declaration January 23,2018 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 10 15. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of Prior to the City of occupancy for the first residential unit issuance of a Rosemead or leasing the first retail space, the certificate of Initial project developer shall install a surface occupancy. storm water collection system to collect and treat the first 3/4 of an inch Date of surface water runoff from the site as approved by the City Engineer. 16. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of Prior to the City of occupancy for the first residential unit issuance of a Rosemead or leasing the first retail space, the certificate of Initial project developer shall install a occupancy. biofiltration system with capacity to filter the first 3/4 inch of project Date generated storm water prior to its discharge to Earle Avenue. Noise 17. Project related operational hours for On-going during City of the following activities are the life of the Rosemead recommended to be restricted as project. Icutial follows: • There shall be no delivery vehicle (no trucks) deliveries between Date the hours of 10 p.m.to 9 a.m. • Refuse collection vehicles shall restrict activity to between the hours of 7 a.m.and 7 p.m. • Loading of boxes, crates and building materials is restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. adjacent to a residential property line. • Construction activities are restricted by the City of Rosemead Noise Ordinance. While construction noise is not expected to exceed 85 dB at the nearest sensitive use (residences north of the site), construction noise can be minimized with the implementation of the following conditions: • All motorized construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. • Equipment and materials shall be staged in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and the noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. January 23,2018 Garvey Earle Plaza-Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 118 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program 17. (con't) • Haul truck and other construction- related trucks traveling to and from the project site shall be restricted to the same hours specified for the operation of construction equipment. • To the extent feasible, construction haul routes shall not pass directly by sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. 18. An acoustical study shall be submitted Prior to the City of to the City prior to the issuance of a issuance of a Rosetnead building permit to show that all building permit. balconies facing Garvey Avenue have Initial a transparent glass or plastic shield to create outdoor space that achieves the 65 dB CNEL or less. Date 19. Small bulldozers only shall be On-going during City of permitted to operate within 25 feet of project Rosemead the north and east property lines. construction. Initial Date Public Services 20. Prior to the issuance of the first Prior to the City of occupancy permit, the project issuance of the Rosemead developer shall install surveillance first occupancy cameras, proper lighting and secure permit. Initial doors and windows to the satisfaction of the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department. Date 21. Prior to the issuance of a building Prior to the City of permit,the project developer shall pay issuance of a Rosemead any required student impact fee to the building permit. Garvey Unified School District. Initial Date 22. Prior to the issuance of a building Prior to the City of permit,the project developer shall pay issuance of a Rosemead any required park fee to the City of building permit. Rosemead. Initial Date Garvey Earle Plaza-Mitigated Negative Declaration January 23,2018 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 12 • Recreation 23. Prior to the issuance of a building Prior to the City of permit,the project developer shall pay issuance of a Rosemead Initial any required park fee to the City of building permit. Rosemead. Date Transportation/Traffic - 24. All delivery vehicles entering and On-going during City of exiting the site shall have a maximum the life of the Rosemead height of 8'6". project. Initial Date 25. No vehicle deliveries shall occur On-going during City of between the hours of 10 PM to 9 AM. the life of the Rosemead project. Initial Date 26. All delivery vehicles shall park in the On-going during City of designated loading area located on the the life of the Rosemead ground-level commercial parking area. project. Initial Date 27. Prior to the issuance of a building Prior to the City of permit, the project developer shall issuance of a Rosemead design the two project driveways in building permit. Initial compliance with City driveway standards for site access and site distance. Date 28. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) On-going during City of entering the site from Earle Avenue the life of the Rosemead shall have a maximum height of 8'6". project. Initial Date 29, All delivery vehicles (no trucks) shall On-going during City of park in the designated Loading areas the life of the Rosemead located within the commercial parking project. Initial areas. Date January 23,2018 Garvey Earle Plaza-Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 13 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Tribal Cultural Resources 30. The project developer shall retain a On-going during City of Native American Monitor of construction. Rosemead Gabrieleno Ancestry to conduct a Native American Indian Sensitivity Initial Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of any excavation activities. The training Date session shall include a handout and focus on how to identify Native American resources encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures followed if resources are discovered, the duties of the Native American Monitor of Gabrieleno Ancestry and the general steps the Monitor would follow in conducting a salvage investigation. 31. The project developer shall retain a On-going during City of Native American Monitor of construction. Rosemead Gabrieleno Ancestry to be on-site during all project-related, ground- Initial disturbing construction activities (e.g., pavement removal, auguring, boring, grading, excavation, potholing, Date trenching, grubbing, and weed abatement) of previously undisturbed native soils to a maximum depth of 30 feet below ground surface, or the • maximum depth of excavation. At their discretion, a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleno Ancestry can be present during the removal of dairy manure to native soil, but not at the developers'expense. 32. A qualified archaeologist and a Native On-going during City of American Monitor of Gabrieleno construction. Rosemead Ancestry shall evaluate all archaeological resources unearthed by Initial project construction activities. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Tribe shall coordinate with Date the developer regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. If archeological features are discovered, the archeologist shall report such findings to the Rosemead Community Development Director. If the archeological resources are found to be significant, the archeologist shall determine the appropriate sections,in cooperation Garvey Earle Plaza-Mitigated Negative Declaration January 23,2018 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 14 32.(con't) with the City that shall be taken for On-going during exploration and/or salvage in construction. compliance with CEQA Guidelines Initial Section 15064.5(f). Date 33. Prior to the start of ground disturbing On-going during City of activities,the developer shall arrange a construction. Rosemead designated site location within the Initial footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of Tribal human remains and/or ceremonial objects. All human skeletal material discoveries Date shall be reported immediately to the County Coroner. The Native American Monitor shall immediately divert work a minimum of 50 feet from the discovery site and place an exclusion zone around the burial. The Native American Monitor shall notify the construction manager who shall contact the Los Angeles County Coroner. All construction activity shall be diverted while the Los Angeles County Coroner determines if the remains are Native American. The discovery shall be confidential and secure to prevent further disturbance. If determined to be Native American, the Los Angeles County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC) as mandated by state law who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be documented and recovered on the same day,the remains shall be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard shall be posted outside working hours. The Tribe shall make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keep the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted,it may be determined that burials will be removed. January 23,2018 Garvey Earle Plaza-Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 15 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program If data recovery is approved by the Tribe,documentation shall be taken, which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Tribe for data recovery purposes.Cremations will either be removed in bulk or means necessary to ensure complete recovery of all material.If the discovery of human remains includes four(4)or more burials,the location is considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created.The project developer shall consult with the tribe regarding avoidance of all cemetery sites. Once complete,a final report of all activities shall be submitted to the NAHC. 34. no scientific study or the utilization of On-going during City of any invasive diagnostics shall be construction. Rosemead allowed to any Native American human remains. Initial Date 35. If the Los Angeles County Coroner On-going during City of determines the remains represent a construction. Rosemead historic non-Native American burial, the burial shall be treated in the same Initial manner of respect with agreement of the Los Angeles County Coroner. Reburial will be in an appropriate Date setting. If the Los Angeles County Coroner determines the remains to be modern, the Los Angeles County Coroner shall take custody of the remains. 36. Each occurrence of human remains On-going during City of and associated funerary objects shall construction. Rosemead be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, Initial sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony shall be removed to a secure container on site if possible. Date These items shall be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site, but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the developer and protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered. Utility and Service Systems Garvey Earle Plaza-Mitigated Negative Declaration January 23,2018 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 16 37. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of Prior to the City of occupancy for the first residential unit issuance of a Rosemead or leasing the first retail space, the certificate of project developer shall install all State occupancy for Initial mandated low-flow water fixtures. the first residential unit or leasing the first Date retail space. Garvey Earle Plaza-Mitigated Negative Declaration January 23,2018 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 17 E N E vic Fame �Yi� „toRaoeAT j9h9 Attachment G Letter of Request for Density Bonus, Proforma, and Affordable Housing Agreement ti171 •,roup 633 W. 511 Street, 2611 Floor Los Angeles,CA 90071 213.300.2805 October 19, 2017 Mr. Cory Hanh Associate Planner City of Rosemead 8836 East Valley Boulevard P.O. Box 399 Rosemead,California 91770 Re: Garvey Earle Plaza, 8449 Garvey Avenue,Rosemead Density Bonus Application—Statement of Concessions (REVISED) Dear Cory: This letter is submitted on behalf of Waikiki Property,LLC ("Applicant")in support of its revised Density Bonus Application for the above-referenced property and details the Applicant's requested concessions, how each concession relates to the affordability of the property and how each concession changes the project description under the base case. The Applicant is proposing to construct a four-story mixed-use building with three stories of residential units over one-story of commercial/retail space, comprising of approximately seven (7) commercial units and thirty-five (35) residential apartments (the"Project"). The Applicant is requesting two (2) incentives/concessions in connection with this project, in exchange for which the Applicant would agree to make six (6) apartment units available for rent at an affordable cost by eligible lower income households for a period of fifty-five (55) years. Requested Concession#1: The Applicant is requesting an increase in the maximum number of floors in order to construct a four-story, mixed-use building with a height of 44 feet to the top of flat roof, a height of 50 feet to the top of parapet, and a height of 55 feet to the top of decorative tower, in a zone where development standards (Section 17.28.030.D.13.a.1 of the Municipal Code) otherwise restrict development to 3 stories and a maximum building height of 45 feet to top of flat roof,with a maximum height of 50 feet to the top of a decorative roof structure. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.84.070.k1, Applicants may seek reduction of development standards, including an increase in maximum building height and floors, if that results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. City of Rosemead October 19, 2017 Page 2 How requested concession#1 will affect affordability: The additional story constructed by increasing the maximum building height and number of floors from 3 to 4 in this zone will allow the Applicant to include additional residential units which will increase the financial feasibility of providing affordable housing on-site. The inclusion of an additional residential floor will result in actual cost reductions as follows: • Spreading the cost of construction over greater floor area results in a significant reduction in average cost per square foot; and • The added floor will increase the residential square footage, and result in higher rental revenue;thus, making the Project more financially feasible. These identifiable cost reductions and added revenue allow the Project to construct the additional affordable housing units, which otherwise would not be financially feasible. Requested Concession#2: The Applicant is requesting a regulatory incentive/concession in order to construct a mixed-use building with a proposed mix of 85.5% residential and 14.5% commercial uses in a zone where development standards(Section 17.28.030.D.124.2)restrict developments to a mix of 67% residential and 33% commercial. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.84.070.A.5, Applicants may seek regulatory incentives or concessions that result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. How requested concession#2 will affect affordability and project description: The proposed mix of 85.5% residential and 14.5% commercial uses results from the inclusion of an additional story of residential units,in a zone that otherwise requires two stories of residential (67%)over 1 story of commercial retail (33%). Providing residential uses at a greater proportion than as set forth in the zoning requirement will result in cost reductions as follows: • The reduction in commercial square footage would reduce the number of required underground parking spaces, and result in significant construction cost savings of approximately$1,000,000; and • The additional number of residential units will increase the total rental revenue. The higher rental revenue would make the project more profitable, and therefore, more financially feasible. City of Rosemead October 19,2017 Page 3 These identifiable cost reductions and added revenue allow the Applicant to finance and construct the Project with additional affordable housing units, which otherwise would not be financially feasible. The Applicant respectfully requests the City to approve its Density Bonus Application. If you have any question or need additional information,please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, PRAM LAW GROUP, INC. Bill Pham DENSITY BONUS APPLICATION—GARVEY EARLE PLAZA PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a four-story mixed-use building with three stories of residential units over one story of commercial/retail space, comprising of approximately seven (7) commercial units and thirty-five (35) residential apartments. 1. UNIT MIX: Description,total number and size of units: a. 1-bedroom, 1 bathroom units 9 880 sq.ft. It 2-bedroom, 2 bathroom units 23 1,200 sq. ft. C. 2-bedroom, 2 bathroom units 3 1,500 sq.ft. 2. BUILDING AREA SIZE: Gross building area 51,920 sq.ft. Net budding area 47,540 sq. ft. 3. CONSTRUCTION TYPE: 3-story Type V-A over 1-story Type I-A 4. PARKING SPACES AND LOCATION: a. Commercial parking 46 on-grade parking lot b. Residential parking 70 subterranean 5. PROJECT AMENITIES: Courtyard, Recreation Center, Gym, Kids' Place, Lounge, Library 6. The project is not a senior citizen housing development. 7. The project does not include donation of land to the City. 8. The project does not include a child care facility. 1 I certify that the above statements are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. WAIKIKI PROPERTY,LLC, a California limited liability / 4 By: AP �p Name: �f- -r, J Title: ' ' ,.n- .. , ,r 2 GARVEY-EARLE MIXED USE PLAZA PROJECT-8449 GARVEY AVE., ROSEMEAD,CA 91770 Lot Size: 37,810 SF(.0868 AC)After Dedication Revised December 12, 2017 COST AND REVENUE PROFORMA COMPARISON BasefaseOnly BaseCas4wdh Bowes ag tli,' -r 9e s6� qs �v Pr9R ;: � o Ose Cb1lt�ssio$ 1 Cofieesst Znn1y �4r s s QNY StorieslHeight 3 stories/ 4 stories/ 3 stories/ 4 stories/ Flat Roof Height Flat Roof Height Flat Roof Height 45 Flat Roof Height 45 ft. max 55 ft. max ft. max 55 ft. max Residential Units & 2-story 3-story 2-story 3-story Floor Area Total 26 units Total 35 units Total 26 units Total 35 units 30,080 sf. 44,400 sf. 30,080 sf. 44,400 sf. Commercial Floor 1-story 1-story 1-story 1-story Area 15,040 sf. 22,350 sf. 5,060 sf. 7,520 sf. w/Conc. Deck w/Conc. Deck Basement Parking 1.5 Level 2 Level 1 Level , 1 Level Area 48,750 sf. 65,000 sf. 32,500 sf. 32,500 sf. Use Mix Res. 67% Res. 67% Res. 85.5% Res. 85.5% Comm. 33% Comm.33% Comm. 14.5% Comm. 14.5% Building Shell $110 x(30,080 + $115 x(44,400+ $110 x(30,080+ $115 x(44,400+ Construction Cost 15,040)= 22,350)= 5,060) _$3,865,400 7,520)_ $110-115/sf. $4,963,200 $7,676,250 $7,676,250 Cost of HVAC, $50 x(30,080 + $50 x(44,400+ $50 x(30,080+ $50 x(44,400+ plumbing, 2,350) 2,350) electrical, and $2,256,000 =$3 ,337,500 $2,256,000 =$3, 337,500 interior improvements $50/sf. Total Above Grade $160 x(30,080) $165 x(44,400 + $160 x(30,080 + $165 x(44,400 + Construction Cost + 15,040)= 22,350) = 5,060)=$5,622,400 7,520)= $160-1651s1. $7,219,200 $11,013,750 $8,566,800 Basement Parking $60 x 48,750 $60 x 65,000 $60 x 32,500 $60 x 32,500 Construction $2,925,000 $3,900,000 $1,950,000 $1,950,000 Total Construction $10,144,200 $14,913,750 $7,572,400 $10,516,800 Cost _ _Contingency $507,210 $745,688 $378,620 $525,840 Allowance 5% 1/2 GARVEY-EARLE MIXED USE PLAZA PROJECT-8449 GARVEY AVE., ROSEMEAD,CA 91770 Lot Size: 37,810 SF(.0868 AC)After Dedication Revised December 12, 2017 r Base Qq a U$1y Base alit* as&Easew tfi ensiB,onusp-, _ " � 7 �, 0050.9 a "� oRo�. r':`, wB PM9Resed` . ssrolf't Con ; 9.0**I`y� concessrons: r� Design + $500,000 $600,000 $500,000 $600 000 Engineering Plans Permit, School, $811,536 $1,193,100 $605,792 $841,344 Government Fees 8% Construction Loan $7,100,000 $10,500,000 $5,300,000 $7,400,000 Amount of approximately 70% of Construction Cost Construction Loan $355,000 $525,000 $265,000 $$370,000 Interest 5% Construction Loan $71,000 $105,000 $53,000 $74,000 Fees 1% Approximate Cost $12,388,946/ $18,082,538/ $9,374,812/ $12,927,984/ Per Sq. F1. 45,120 sf. 66,750 sf. 35,140 sf. 51,920 sf. $274,58 $270.90 $266.78 $249.00 Approximate $2.5 x 15,040 x $2.5 x 22,350 $2.5 x 5,060 x 12= $2.5 x 7,520 x 12 Commercial Lease 12=$451,200 x12=$670,500 $151,800 =$225,600 Annual Vacancy $451,200-25% $670,500-25% $151,800-5%= $225,600-5%= $338,400 =$502,875 $144,210 $214,320 Approximate $2,000 x 26U x $2,000 x 29U x $2,000 x 20U x 12 = $2,000 x 29U x 12 Residential Lease 12=$624,000 12=$696,000 $480,000 = $696,000 Annual Affordable 0 $1,500x6Ux12 $1,500 x 6U x 12 = $1,500x6Ux12 Residential Units =$108,000 $108,000 =$108,000 Lease Annual Vacancy $624,000-5% = $804,000-5%= $588,000-5%= $804,000-5% = $592,800 $763,800 $558,600 $763,800 Approximate Total $338,400 + $502,875 + $144,210 + $214,32.0+ Lease Revenue $592,800= $763,800 = $558,600 = $763,800 = $931,200 $1,266,675 $702,810 $978,120 I Return Ratio $931,200/ $1,266,675/ $702,810/ $978,120/ $12,388,946 $18,082,538 $9,374,812 $12,927,984 7.51% 7.00% _ 7.50% 7.57% 2/2 GARVEY-EARLE MIXED USE PLAZA PROJECT- 8449 GARVEY AVE., ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 Lot Size: 37,810 SF(.0868 AC)After Dedication Revised December 12, 2017 Construction Period is anticipated to be approximatelyl2 months,with an outside completion date of 18 months. Projections are made with a 12 months construction period. All units in the development are anticipated to be pre-leased prior to completion of construction. Thus, there will not be any absorption period following completion of construction. The project is a rental development; hence,sales and escrow related costs are not applicable. THIS PRO FORMA BUDGET IS ONLY AN ESTIMATED FORECAST OF THE EXPENSES, REVENUES AND PROFITS, AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, CHANGES IN COSTS AND AVAILABILITY, CHANGES IN THE LABOR MARKET, CHANGES IN THE INDUSTRY, CHANGES IN THE ECONOMY, UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES, AND MANY OTHER FACTORS. 3/2 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: AND WHEN RECORDED,MAIL TO: City of Rosemead 8836 East Valley Boulevard P.O. Box 399 Rosemead, California 91770 Attention: City Clerk - Space above for Recorder's Use This Agreement is recorded at the request and for the benefit of the City of Rosemead and is exempt from recording fee pursuant to Government Code Section 27383 AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT- Dated as of 201 By and Between the THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, a California general law city("City"), and WAIKIKI PROPERTY,LLC, a California limited liability company("Covenantor") AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT THIS AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT("Agreement")is made by and between the CITY OF ROSEMEAD, a California general law city ("City"), and WAIKIKI PROPERTY, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Covenantor"), as of the day of 201 . RECITALS A. Covenantor is the owner of certain real property located at 8449 Garvey Avenue, in the City of Rosemead, commonly known as "Garvey Earle Plaza" and more particularly described in Exhibit"A" attached hereto. B. The Covenantor desires to improve the Property by constructing thereon a four- story mixed-use commercial/retail and residential project consistent with the approvals for Design Review and Tentative Tract Map _ (collectively, the "Entitlements"). The Property is comprised of one (1) building containing approximately 7,520 square feet of commercial/retail spaces, and thirty-five (35) residential apartment units, including six (6) affordable units for low-income households. C. The Entitlements were approved by the City's Planning Commission on , in accordance with subdivisions (b)(1)(A) and (c)(2) of California Government Code Section 65915. The Entitlements included a"density bonus" in exchange for which the Covenantor agreed to make six(6)apartmentunits on the Property shown and identified on Exhibit"B"attached hereto as affordable units(collectively,the"Affordable Units")available for rent at an affordable cost by eligible low-income households for a period of fifty-five (55) years. D. Condition No. of the Entitlements' Conditions of Approval obligates the Covenantor to provide an instrument that can he recorded against the Property in order to preserve the six (6) Affordable Units' status as affordable housing units for the benefit of low-income households within the:community. B. Therefore, the Covenantor and the City now enter into this Agreement for the purpose of regulating those certain Affordable Units upon the Property. The restriction of the Property as provided in this Agreement is in accordance with the public purposes and provisions of applicable state and local laws and requirements. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE,the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows: ARTICLE I NONDISCRIMINATION Section 1. Nondiscrimination. Covenantor covenants by and for itself, its successors and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, 1 tenure, or enjoyment of the Affordable Units, nor shall Covenantor itself or any person claiming under or through it, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location,number,use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees, or vendees in the Affordable Units. ARTICLE 1I DUTIES OF THE COVENANTOR Section 1. Maintenance. The Property shall be kept and maintained so as to be in conformity with the landscaping, maintenance and signage standards of the City. Section 2. Structural Modifications. In order to protect and maintain the architectural and structural integrity of the Property, no structural modifications will be made to the Property without a validly issued building permit in accordance with the requirements of the City's Municipal Code(the"Code"). Any application for a building permit pursuant to this section and in connection with a proposed exterior modification to the Property shall be accompanied by plans depicting the proposed modifications. Section 3. Graffiti Removal Any graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four(24) hours from the Property. Section 4. No Nuiiancc. Covenantor shall not maintain, cause to be maintained, or allow to be maintained on or about the Property any public or private nuisance, including, without limitation, the conduct of criminal activities set forth m the nuisance abatement provisions of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act (Health & Safety Code Sections 11570, et seq.) or the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act(Penal Code Sections 186.22, et seq.)or any successor statute or law. Section 5. Use and Occupancy Standards. The Affordable Units shall be occupied only by`Eligible Households`'.(as defined below). The maximum occupancy of each Affordable Unit shall not exceed the maximum occupancy allowed by the Code. Covenantor shall, upon demand by the City's Department of Economic Development, submit to same, an affidavit verifying Covenantor's compliance with this Section 5. Said affidavit may be required by the City's Department of Economic Development on an annual basis. Section 6. Affordable Housing Restrictions. For purposes of this Section 6,the following definitions apply: "Affordability Period" means the fifty-five (55) year period commencing on the date of recordation of this Agreement and ending on the fifty-fifth (55'h)anniversary thereof. 2 "Affordable Housing Cost" shall have the meaning defined in Section 50052.5 of the California Health & Safety Code as of the date of this Agreement or as subsequently amended from time to time. "Affordable Rent"shall mean the consideration received by Covenantor in connection with the use or occupancy of an Affordable Unit, which Affordable Rent shall not exceed the product of thirty percent (30%) times the income limits for Eligible Households adjusted for family size _ _.__ appropriate for the Affordable Unit. The Affordable Rent may be adjusted when the income limit figures for Los Angeles County (as set forth by the California Department of Housing and Community Development) are adjusted. "Eligible Households"means persons or Households whose Gross Household Income does not exceed the income limits for"Low Income"households for Lbs Angeles County, adjusted for family size as set forth by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. "Gross Household Income"means the income of all members of the Household over the age of eighteen(18). "Household" means all persons who will occupy the Affordable Unit located on the Property whether it be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share living arrangements provided that all the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement are met. Covenantor acknowledges that the purpose of this Agreement is to encourage affordable rental to Eligible Households. Pursuant to such purpose and except as provided hereinbelow, the Affordable Units may be leased by Covenantor during the Affordability Period only to an Eligible Household at an Affordable Rent(an"Eligible Lease"),as applicable. In order to verify a lessee's status as an Eligible Household, Covenantor shall submit to the City's Department of Economic Development the identity of the proposed lessee,and adequate information evidencing the income of the proposed lessee. Said income information shall be submitted together with a notice of proposed Eligible Lease not less than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the proposed lease, and shall include true copies of income tax retuns for the two (2)most recent years in which a return was filed and such other financial documents required by the City's Department of Economic Development in order to verifyhousehold income and determine Eligible Household status of the proposed lessee and whether the Affordable Unit is available to such lessee at an Affordable Rent. COVENANTOR UNDERSTANDS THAT THE AFFORDABLE REN I PERMITTED HEREUNDER MAY NOT INCREASE OR DECREASE IN THE SAME MANNER AS OTHER SIMILAR REAL PROPERTIES WHICH ARE NOT ENCUMBERED BY THE RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT. COVENANTOR FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF THE CITY AND THIS AGREEMENT IS TO PROVIDE HOUSING TO ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS AT AN AFFORDABLE RENT, AND 'THAT THE RENTAL RATE MAY HE LESS THAN OTHER SIMILAR PROPERTIES WIIICH HAVE.NO RESTRICTIONS. 3 ARTICLE III ENFORCEMENT Section 1. Remedies. Breach of the covenants contained in this Agreement may be enjoined,abated or remedied by appropriate legal proceeding. Section 2. Rights of City. As a party to this Agreement,the City is entitled to the following rights: (a) City has the right, but not the obligation,to enforce all of the provisions of this Agreement. (b) Any amendment to the Agreement shall require the written consent of City. (c) This Agreement does not in any way infringe on the right or duties of the City to enforce any of the provisions of the Code including,but not limited to, the abatement of nuisances and or dangerous conditions. Section 3. Cumulative Remedies. The remedies herein provided for breach of the covenants contained in this Agreement shall he deemed cumulative,and none of such remedies shall be deemed exclusive. Section 4. Failure to Enforce. The failure to enforce any of thecovenants contained in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of the right to enforce the same thereafter. ARTICLE IV GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. Severability. Invalidation of any one of these covenants or restrictions by judgment or order of a court of competent jurisdiction shall in no way affect any other provisions which shall remain binding and enforceable. Section 2. Construction. The provisions of this Agreement shall be liberally construed for the purpose of maintaining the Property.The article and section headings have been inserted for convenience only, and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of interpretation or construction. Section 3. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended only by the written agreement of Covenantor and City. Section 4. Notices. Any notice permitted or required to be delivered as provided herein from one party to another shall be in writing and may be delivered either personally or by 4 first-class or certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. If delivery is made by mail, it shall be deemed to have been delivered seventy- two (72) hours after a copy of same has been deposited in the United States Mail,postage prepaid. Notices shall be addressed as follows: To City: City of Rosemead 8836 East Valley Boulevard P.O.Box.399,Rosemead, California 91770_. - - - -- Attention: City Clerk. To Covenantor: Waikiki Property LLC 120 E. Valley Blvd. San Gabriel,California 91776 Attention: Cindy Lau Such addresses may be changed from time to time by notice in writing to City, which shall be made by certified mail to the other party in accordance with this Section 4. Section 5. Term of Agreement. - The covenants, conditions, and restrictions of this Agreement shall run with the Property and shall expire fifty-five (55) years after the recordation of this Agreement. Section 6. Subordination. The provisions of this Agreement shall be subordinate to any first lien on the Property held by an institutional lender or investor(the "Lender") and shall not impair the rights of Lender, or Lender's assignee or successor in interest,to exercise its remedies under the first lien in the event of default under the first lien by Covenantor. Such remedies under the first lien include the right of foreclosure or acceptance of a deed or assignment in lieu of foreclosure or if the mortgage is assigned to the Secretary of the:United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Atter such_foreclosure acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure, this Agreement shall be forever terminated and shall have no further effect as to the Property or any transferee thereafter; provided,however, if the holder of the first lien acquires title to the Property pursuant to a deed or assignment in lieu of foreclosure, this Agreement shall automatically terminate upon such acquisition of title,provided that(i)City has been given not less than thirty(30)days written notice of a default under the first lien, and (ii) City shall not have cured the default under such first lien within the cure period,provided in such notice sent to City. Such cure period shall be at least sixty (60) days from the date:of City's receipt of such notice. The City's subordination provided in this Section 6 shall be subject to City's rights of notice and right to cure as provided herein. Section 7. Covenants Do Not Impair Liens. No violation or breach of covenants, conditions, restrictions, provisions, or limitations contained in this Agreement shall defeat or render invalid or in any way impair the lien or charge of any mortgage or deed of tnist or security instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Covenantor have caused this instrument to be executed on their behalf by their respective officers hereunto duly authorized as of the dates set forth below. 5 DATED: "City" CITY OF ROSEMEAD, a California general law city By: Name: Title: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney DATED: "Covenantor" WAIKIKI PROPERTY, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Name: Title: 6 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached,and not the truthfulness,accuracy,or validity of that document. _ State of California County of On —--- ,before me, _ ,a Notary Public, personally appeared _ _who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies),and that by his/her/their-signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted, executed the instrument. 1 certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. - WITNESS my hand and official seal. - Signature _ _ A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached,and not the truthfulness,accuracy,or validity of that document. State of California County of _ ) ---, before me, ,a Notary Public, personally appeared - who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their'signature(s)on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted,executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature EXIHBIT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY EXHIBIT"B" AFFORDABLE UNITS 4EE Al S O 9 Q ��O KAd PeioE NVoRPOeciEV 9ho Attachment H Agency Review Comments STATE OF CALIFORNIA a Governor's Office of Planning and Research ' State Clearinghouse and Planning UnitOr cam, "++r Edmund G. Brown Jr. Ken Alex Governor Director January 30,2018 Cory Hanh City of Rosemead 8838 Valley Blvd Rosemead,CA 91770 Subject: Garvey Earle Plaza SCI-18: 2017121076 Dear Cory Hanh: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on January 29,2018,and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project,please refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, Scott Morgan Director,State Clearinghouse 1400 TENTH STREET P.O.BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL(916)445-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCHm 2017121076 Project Title Garvey Earle Plaza Lead Agency Rosemead, City of Type MND Mitigated Negative Declaration Description The project site is developed with one single story commercial building and surface parking.The existing development will be demolished to allow the construction of a proposed four story,mixed use development consisting of 7,520 sf of retail/restaurant use on the first floor and 35 residential units on the second through fourth floors.The project also Includes a density bonus application under SB 1818, which amended the state bonus law to allow density bonuses up to 35%for low income housing.As a result, 6/35 apartments will be available for low-income households. Lead Agency Contact Name Cory Hanh Agency City of Rosemead Phone 626-569-2141 Fax email Address 8838 Valley Blvd City Rosemead State CA Zip 91770 Project Location County Los Angeles City Rosemead Region Lat/Long Cross Streets Garvey Ave and Earle Ave Parcel No. 5288-004-041,057 Township 1S Range 12W Section 25 Base Proximity to: Highways I-10 Airports Railways Waterways Rio Hondo River Schools Land Use GP:Mixed use res/comm(30du/ac)and Z:C-3D and RC-MUDO Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual;Agricultural Land;Air Quality;Archaeologic-Historic;Biological Resources; Cumulative Effects; Drainage/Absorption; Flood Plain/Flooding; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Geologic/Seismic;Growth Inducing; Landuse; Minerals; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services:Recreation/Parks;Schools/Universities;Septic System;Sewer Capacity;Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading;Solid Waste;Toxic/Hazardous;Vegetation;Water Quality;Water Supply;Wetland/Riparian;Traffic/Circulation Reviewing Resources Agency;Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regions; Department of Parks and Recreation; Agencies Department of Water Resources;California Highway Patrol; Caltrans,District 7; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 4;Resources,Recycling and Recovery;Department of Toxic Substances Control;Native American Heritage Commission Date Received 12/29/2017 Start of Review 12/29/2017 End of Review 01/29/2018 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. Los Angeles County One Gateway Plaza 2139sx a000 Tel Metropolitan Transportationortation Authority One Angeles,CA gootx-2952 metro.net Metro January 25,2018 Cory Hanh Planning Division City of Rosemead 8838 Valley Boulevard Rosemead,CA,91770 RE: Garvey Earle Plaza Project—8449 Garvey Avenue—Notice of Intent(NO1)to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)and Notice of Public Hearing Dear Mr. Hanh: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Notice of Public Hearing for the Garvey Earle Plaza Project located in the City of Rosemead.This letter conveys recommendations from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority(Metro) concerning issues that are germane to our agency's statutory responsibility in relation to our facilities and services that may be affected by the proposed Project. Metro is committed to working with stakeholders across the County to support the development of transit oriented communities (TOCs).TOCs am built by considering transit within a broader community and creating vibrant,compact,walkable, and bikeable places centered around transit stations and hubs with the goal of encouraging the use of transit and other alternatives to driving. Metro appreciates the opportunity to collaborate with local municipalities, developers, and other stakeholders in their land use planning and development efforts,and to find partnerships that support TOCs across Los Angeles County. Project Description The proposed Project will demolish the existing used car lot as well as other site improvements and will include the construction of a four-story mixed-use development with 7,520 square feet of retail/restaurant use on the first floor and 35 residential units on the second,third,and fourth floors. The Project will also include a gym, kid's room,lounge,and library. Of the 35 units, six(6) units will be available for low-income households for a minimum of 55 years,while 29 will be offered at market rate.The Project proposes 116 parking spaces, including 70 standard spaces,two handicap spaces, along with a commercial loading zone on the surface level.The Project also proposes 14 bicycle parking spaces on two and levels. Metro Comments Bus Operations Metro Bus Lines 70, 176,and 770 operate on Garvey Avenue, adjacent to the proposed Project. Although the Project is not expected to result in any long-term impacts on transit,the Project sponsor Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT G Garvey Earle Plaza Project NOI to Adopt a MND and Notice of Public Hearing—Metro Comments 01/25/18 should be aware of the bus services that are present. Please contact Metro Bus Operations Control Special Events Coordinator at 213-9224632 and Metro's Stops and Zones Department at 213-922- 5190 at least 30 days in advance of Initiating construction activities. Other municipal bus operators may also be impacted and should be included in construction outreach efforts. Active Transportation Metro encourages the City to work with the Project sponsor to promote bicycle use through adequate short-term bicyde parking,such as ground level bicycle racks,as well as secure and enclosed long- term bicyde parking for guests,employees, and residents. Bicycle parking facilities should be highly visible,easy to locate, and sited so they can be safely and conveniently accessed.Additionally,the Project sponsor applicant should help facilitate safe and convenient connections for pedestrians, people riding bicycles,and transit users to/from the Project site and nearby destinations.The Project sponsor is also encouraged to support these connections with wayfinding signage Inclusive of all modes of transportation. If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Derek Hull at 213-922-3051 or by email at DevReview@metro.net. Sincerely, Derek Hull Manager,Transportation Planning Page 2 of 2 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1955`.V ,1060n Mill Rood, Whallcr, CA 90601-1400 Mailing Address. P 0 Bo. 4998, Whllher, CA 90607-4998 GRACE ROBINSON EIYDL relephore '5621 699-7411, FAX. (562) 699-5422 Chief Engineer and General Manoper WW.. loose.org January 23,2018 Ref. Doc.No.: 4399034 Mr. Corey Hanh Associate Planner City of Rosemead 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 Dear Mr.Hanh: NOI Response to the Garvey Earle Plaza Project The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Districts) received a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI) for the subject project on December 27, 2017. The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of District No. 15. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service: 1. The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to a local sewer line, which is not maintained by the Districts, for conveyance to the Districts' Santa Anita Outfall Trunk Sewer, located in Willard Avenue just north of Garvey Avenue. The Districts' 2I-inch diameter trunk sewer has a capacity of 2.6 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 1.7 mgd when last measured in 2014. 2. The wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated at the Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant(WRP) located near the City of South El Monte, which has a capacity of 15 mgd and currently produces an average recycled water flow of 7.3 mgd, or at the Los Coyotes WRP located in the City of Cerritos, which has a.capacity of 37.5 mgd and currently produces an average recycled water flow of 20.5 mgd. 3. The expected increase in average wastewater flow from the project, described in the notice as a mixed-use development of 7,520 square feet of retail/restaurant space and 35 residential apartment units, is 6,800 gallons per day, after all structures on the project site are demolished. For a copy of the Districts' average wastewater generation factors, go to www lacsd.ore, Wastewater & Sewer Systems, click on Will Serve Program, and click on the Table I, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use link. 4. The Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee for the privilege of connecting (directly or indirectly) to the Districts' Sewerage System for increasing the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilities. This connection fee is a capital facilities fee that is imposed in an amount sufficient to construct an incremental expansion of the Sewerage System to accommodate the proposed project. Payment of a DOC44436846D15 Mr. Corey Hanh -2- January 23, 2018 connection fee will be required before a permit to connect to the sewer is issued. For more information and a copy of the Connection Fee Information Sheet, go to www.lacsd.org, Wastewater & Sewer Systems, click on Will Serve Program, and search for the appropriate link. In determining the impact to the Sewerage System and applicable connection fees, the Districts' Chief Engineer and General Manager will determine the user category(e.g. Condominium, Single Family home, etc.) that best represents the actual or anticipated use of the parcel or facilities on the parcel. For more specific information regarding the connection fee application procedure and fees,please contact the Connection Fee Counter at(562)908-4288,extension 2727. 5. In order for the Districts to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act(CAA),the capacities of the Districts' wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Specific policies included in the development of the SCAG regional growth forecast are incorporated into clean air plans, which are prepared by the South Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management Districts in order to improve air quality in the South Coast and Mojave Desert Air Basins as mandated by the CCA. All expansions of Districts' facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The available capacity of the Districts' treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service, but is to advise you that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels that are legally permitted and to inform you of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of the Districts' facilities. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at(562)908-4288,extension 2717. IVeery truly yours,///n/�� Vtr1 Adriana Raza Customer Service Specialist Facilities Planning Department AR:ar DOC: #4430846.DI5 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AVIV 1 fIRF � I FIRE DEPARTMENT i .,,,t I 'A 1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE iii C �� LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90063-3294 `O^gnTUE`n DARYL L.OSBY FIRE CHIEF FORESTER&FIRE WARDEN January 31, 2018 • Cory Hanh, Associate Planner City of Rosemead Planning Division 8838 Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 • Dear Mr. Hanh: REVISED NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, "GARVEY EARLE PLAZA," THE PROJECT SITE IS DEVELOPED AS A USED CAR LOT, THE EXISTING USED CAR LOT AND OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE DEMOLISHED TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED FOUR-STORY MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT WITH 7,520 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL/RESTAURANT USE ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND 35 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE SECOND THROUGH FOURTH FLOORS, ROSEMEAD, FFER 201800003 The Revised Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been reviewed by the Planning Division, Land Development Unit, Forestry Division, and Health Hazardous Materials Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. The following are their comments: PLANNING DIVISION: We have no further comments. SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF: AGOURA HILLS BRADBURY CUDAHY HAWTHORNE LA HABRA LYNWOOD PICO RIVERA SIGNAL HILL ARTESIA CALABASAS CWAONO BM HIDDEN HILLS LA MIRADA MALIBU POMONA SOUTH EL MONTE AZUSA CARSON DUARTE HUNTINGTON PARK LA PUENTE MAYWOOD RANCHO PALOS VERDES SOUTH GATE BALDWIN PARK CERRITOS EL MONTE INDUSTRY LAKEWOOD NORWALK ROLLING HILLS TEMPLE CITY BELL CLAREMONT GARDENA INGLEWOOD LANCASTER PALMDALE ROLLING HILLS ESTATES WALNUT BELL GARDENS COMMERCE GLENDORA IRWINDALE LAWNOALE PALOS VERDES ESTATES ROSEMEAD WEST HOLLWJIXN BELLFLOWER COVINA HAWAIIAN GARDENS LA CANADA-FLINTRIDGELOMRA PARAMOUNT SAN OIMAS WESTLAKE VII I At SANTA CLARITA WHITTIER Cory Hanh, Associate Planner January 31, 2018 Page 2 LAND DEVELOPMENT UNIT: The Land Development Unit comments are only general requirements. Specific fire and life safety requirements will be addressed during the review for building and fire plan check phases. There may be additional requirements during this time. The development of this project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. ACCESS REQUIREMENTS: 1. The proposed development will require multiple ingress/egress access for the circulation of traffic and emergency response issues. 2. All on-site Fire Department vehicular 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. The Fire Apparatus Access Road shall be cross-hatch on the site plan with the width clearly noted on the plan. 3. Every building constructed shall be accessible to Fire Department apparatus by way of access roadways with an all-weather surface of not less than the prescribed width. The roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls when measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. 4. Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be installed and maintained in a serviceable manner prior to and during the time of construction. 5. The edge of the Fire Apparatus Access Road shall be located a minimum of 5 feet from the building or any projections there from. 6. The Fire Apparatus Access Roads and designated fire lanes shall be measured from flow line to flow line. 7. The dimensions of the approved Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be maintained as originally approved by the fire code official. Cory Hanh, Associate Planner January 31, 2018 Page 3 8. Provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet exclusive of shoulders and an unobstructed vertical clearance "clear to sky" Fire Department vehicular access 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 when the height of the building above the lowest level of the Fire Department vehicular access road is more than 30 feet high, or the building is more than three stories. The access roadway shall be located a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the aerial Fire Apparatus Access Road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. 9. If the Fire Apparatus Access Road is separated by island provide a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet exclusive of shoulders and an unobstructed vertical clearance "clear to sky Fire Department vehicular access 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. 10. Dead-end Fire Apparatus Access Roads in excess of 150 feet in-length shall be provided with an approved Fire Department turnaround. Include the dimensions of the turnaround with the orientation of the turnaround shall be properly placed in the direction of travel of the access roadway. 11. Fire Department Access Roads shall be provided with a 32-foot centerline turning radius. Indicate the centerline, inside, and outside turning radii for each change in direction on the site plan. 12. Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing 75,000lbs., 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. 13. 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. 14. A minimum 5-foot wide approved firefighter access walkway leading from the Fire Department access road to all required openings in the building's exterior walls shall be provided for firefighting and rescue purposes. Clearly identify firefighter Cory Hanh, Associate Planner January 31, 2018 Page 4 walkway access routes on the site plan. Indicate the slope and walking surface material. Clearly show the required width on the site plan. 15. 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 Fire Code Section 503.2.1 shall be maintained at all times. 16. Traffic Calming Devices including but not limited to, speed bumps and speed humps, shall be prohibited unless approved by the fire code official. 17. Security barriers, visual screen barriers, or other obstructions shall not be installed on the roof of any building in such a manner as to obstruct firefighter access or egress in the event of fire or other emergency. Parapets shall not exceed 48 inches from the top of the parapet to the roof surface on more than two sides. Clearly indicate the height of all parapets in a section view. 18. 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. 19. Multiple residential and commercial buildings having entrances to individual units not visible from the street or road shall have unit numbers displayed in groups for all units within each structure. Such numbers may be grouped on the wall of the structure or mounted on a post independent of the structure and shall be positioned to be plainly visible from the street or road as required by Fire Code 505.3 and in accordance with Fire Code 505.1. PARKING ON PUBLIC FIRE APPARARTUS ACCESS ROADS: 1. Provide a minimum width of 34 feet for parallel parking on one side of the Fire Apparatus Access Road with through access and with one side of the roadway being designated "No Parking - Fire Lane." 2. Provide a minimum width of 34 feet for parallel parking on both sides of the Fire Apparatus Access Road when the street is designed to be a cul-de-sac less than 700 feet in-length. Cory Hanh, Associate Planner January 31, 2018 Page 5 3. Provide a minimum width of 36 feet for parallel parking on both sides of the Fire Apparatus Access Road and/or on cul-de-sac design with a length of 701 feet to 1,000 feet. GATES: 1. The security gate shall be provided with an approved means of emergency operation and shall be maintained operational at all times and replaced or repaired when defective. Electric gate operators where provided shall be listed in accordance with UL 325. Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed, and installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F220. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type. Construction of gates shall be of materials that allow manual operation by one person. Fire Code 503.6. 2. The method of gate control shall be subject to review by the Fire Department prior to clearance to proceed to public hearing. All gates to control vehicular access shall be in compliance with the following: a. The keypad location shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from the public right-of-way. b. Provide a minimum 32-foot turning radius beyond the keypad prior to the gate entrance at a minimum width of 20'for turnaround purposes. c. The gated entrance design with a single access point (ingress and egress) shall provide for a minimum width of 26 feet clear-to-sky with all gate hardware is clear of the access way. d. Gated entrance design with separate access gates for ingress and egress shall provide minimum width of 20 feet clear-to-sky for each side. e. All locking devices shall comply with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department Regulation 5, Compliance for Installation of Emergency Access Devices. WATER SYSTEM REQUIRMENTS: 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. Cory Hanh, Associate Planner January 31, 2018 Page 6 2. The development may require fire flows up to 4,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for up to a four-hour duration. Final fire flows will be based on the size of buildings, the installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system, and type(s) of construction used. 3. The fire hydrant spacing shall be every 300 feet for both the public and the on- site hydrants. The fire hydrants shall meet the following requirements: a. No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access from a public fire hydrant. b. No portion of a building shall exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced public fire hydrant. c. Additional hydrants will be required if hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. 4. All required PUBLIC fire hydrants shall be installed, tested, and accepted prior to beginning construction. 5. All private on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, tested, and approved prior to building occupancy. a. Plans showing underground piping for private on-site fire hydrants shall be submitted to the Sprinkler Plan Check Unit for review and approval prior to installation. 6. 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. Additional Department requirements will be determined by Fire Prevention Engineering during the Building Plan Check. For any questions regarding the report, please contact Inspector Claudia Soiza at (323) 890-4243 or Claudia.soizaaa f re.lacountv.gov. Cory Hanh, Associate Planner January 31, 2018 Page 7 FORESTRY DIVISION —OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Forestry Division include erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, vegetation, fuel modification for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones or Fire Zone 4, archeological and cultural resources, and the County Oak Tree Ordinance. Potential impacts in these areas should be addressed. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Forestry Division has no further comments on this project. HEALTH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION: The Health Hazardous Materials Division (HHMD)of the Los Angeles County Fire Department advises that the recommendations presented in the conclusions section of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report (dated June 5, 2017)for the project site be implemented well before proposed development activities are conducted. HHMD has no additional comments at this time. If you have any additional questions, please contact this office at (323) 890-4330. Very truly yours, MICHAEL Y. TAKESHITA, ACTING CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION PREVENTION SERVICES BUREAU MYT:ac