Loading...
CC - Item 2A - Staff Report Ordinance No. 796 Zone Change 99-208 a % M \ \ staff eport TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL FROM: FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER DATE: JULY 27, 1999 SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 796 - ZONE CHANGE 99-208 Amending the Zoning Map from P; Parking to R-2; Light Multiple Residential 3036 N. Jackson Avenue This item was presented at a public hearing before the Planning Commission on June 21, 1999. A copy of the Planning Commission report which provides a detailed analysis of the subject zone change is attached for your review. No testimony was presented in opposition to the project at the public hearing, and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the proposed zone change. This site has historically been used for one single-family home that was constructed in 1926.The new ownei intends to demolish the old, dilapidated single family home and replace it with a new one. However, the current "Parking" zone only allows existing residential uses to be remodeled, not completely replaced. After inspecting the property, staff considered the retaining wall along the southern property line of the property to be the southernmost limit of the residential general plan designation. On the zoning map, the lot is designated as P (Parking Zone), thus requiring the zone change. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council introduce and place Ordinance No. 796 on first reading, and schedule the item for a second reading at the meeting of August 10, 1999. Attachments: COUNCIL. ;AGENDA 1. Draft Ordinance No. 796 J U L 2 71999 2. PC Report, dated lune 21, 1999 3. PC Minutes 4. PC Resolution No. 99-27 I sA� ITEM No. �• J ORDINANCE NO. 796 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 99-208, AMENDING ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM P; "PARKING" TO R-2;"LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL" FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3036 JACKSON AVENUE (APN: 5286-024-010). WHEREAS, Mr. Ken Seng Ng of 969 Figueroa Terrace, Los Angeles, CA 90012, filed an application requesting a zone change from P;"Parking" to R-2; "Light Multiple Residential" for property located at 3036 Jackson Avenue on May 12, 1999; and WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has an adopted general plan, zoning ordinance, and map, including specific development standards to control development; and WHEREAS, Rosemead's General Plan designates the subject property for either Residential or Commercial; and WHEREAS, Rosemead's official Zoning Map designates the site for P; "Parking" development which allows an addition to an existing residential use, but not the development of a new single family residence; and WHEREAS, Sections 9185 and 9186 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to consider and recommend proposed zone changes to the City Council; and WHEREAS, Section 65860 of the California Government Code requires that zoning ordinances and the zoning map be consistent with the adopted general plan; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 1999, an initial study for the proposed zone change was completed finding that this project could not have a significant effect on the environment, a negative declaration was prepared; and WHEREAS, on May 27, 1999, notices were posted in 10 public locations and 46 notices were sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property specifying the public comment period and the time and place for a public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on June21, 1999 the Planning Commission held public hearings and adopted PC Resolution 99-27, approving a recommendation to the City Council to approve Zone Change 99-208; and WHEREAS, on July 15, 1999, notices were posted in 10 public locations and 46 notices were sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property specifying the availability of the environmental analysis, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing for Zone Change 99-208; and WHEREAS, on July 27, 1999, the Rosemead City Council held duly noticed public hearings and sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Rosemead as follows: Section 1. The City Council HEREBY DETERMINES that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted. An initial study was completed to analyze potential environmental impacts pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This study analyzes the potential environmental impacts that could be created from the proposed project. The study was sent to all responsible agencies, and noticed in 10 public locations, soliciting comments for more than a 21- day period prior to the City Council hearing. This study found that this project could not have a significant effect on the environment. Ordinance No. 796 Zone Change 99-208 Page 2 of 3 Section 2. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that placing the property at 3036 Jackson Avenue in the R-2;( Light Multi-Family Residential) zone is in the best interest of the public necessity and general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed zone change. Section 3. The City Council FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES that Zone Change 99-208 is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan as follows: A. Land Use; The designation provided by Zone Change 99-208 allows the property owner to contruct a new single family home on a lot that has always been used for a single family home. The site is located in Planning Area 4 of the Land Use Element of the Rosemead General Plan and has been designated for medium residential or commercial uses. The area surrounding the site, except for a retail center located to the south, is residential. B. Circulation; The site is located on Jackson Avenue. Jackson Avenue is classified as a local street in the General Plan. Adequate access is provided via Garvey Avenue. The existing circulation design would be maintained with no significant increase in traffic anticipated. C. Housing; Although this site is currently zoned P; Parking, the proposed use of this property as a single family residence will not deplete available land for housing. D. Resource Mana eg ment;. The applicant has provided adequate landscaping on the proposed site and the project will not have any negative impacts on air or water quality in the City. E. Noise; The subject property fronts on Jackson Avenue. The proposed residence will not create any potential noise impacts. Section 4. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES Zone Change 99-208, amending Rosemead Zoning map land use designation from P; "Parking" to R-2; "Light Multiple Residential" for property located at 3036 Jackson Avenue (APN: 5286-024-010) Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause same to be published as required by law. PASSED AND APPROVED this 27th day of July, 1999. JOE VASQUEZ, Mayor ATTEST: NANCY VALDERRAMA, City Clerk Ordinance No. 796 Zone Change 99-208 Page 3 of 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF ROSEMEAD I, Nancy Valderrama, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 796 being: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 99-208, AMENDING ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM P; PARKING TO R-2; "LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL" FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3036 JACKSON (APN: 5286-024-010). was duly introduced and placed upon first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 27th day of JULY, 1999, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 10th day of August, 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NANCY VALDERRAMA, City Clerk staf eport PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT June 21, 1999 CASE NO: ZONE CHANGE 99-208 APPLICANT REQUEST: Permit to change the zoning designation from P (Parking) to R-2 (Light Multi-Family Residential) LOCATION: 3036 Jackson Avenue (APN: 5286-024-010) APPLICANT: Ken Seng Ng Da Oiad Huang 969 Figueroa Terrace Los Angeles, CA 90012 PROPERTY OWNER: Chai Kam Ip 3036 Jackson Avenue Rosemead, CA 91770 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE: 46 Notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property on May 27, 1999. EXHIBITS: A. Site Plan B. Assessor's Parcel Map (5286-024-010) C. Zoning Map D. General Plan Map E. Application, dated May 12, 1999 F. Initial Study, dated May 26, 1999 I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Zone Change 99-208 would amend the Zoning Map designation for 3036 Jackson Avenue. The applicant proposes to change the zoning to R-2 (Light Multi-Family Residential) from the existing P (Parking) zone. This change would allow development with a maximum of one single-family residence. A concept plan has been attached for development of this site as a single-family home. An initial study has been completed (May 26, 1999) in accordance with state and local environmental regulations. This study analyzes the potential environmental impacts that could be created from the proposed project. The study was sent to all responsible agencies, and noticed in ten (10) public locations, soliciting comments for more than a 21-day period prior to the Planning Commission healing. This study found that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, staff recommends adopting a finding of Negative Declaration. II. MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS Sections 9185 and 9186 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets the procedure and requirements for zone changes and amendments. Zone changes are permitted whenever OSEMEAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT) Zone Change 99-208 June 21, 1999 Page 2 of 3 the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice justifies such action. A zone change must be found to be consistent with the Rosemead General Plan. III. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION BACKGROUND Zone Change 99-208 has been proposed to allow the applicant to develop the site according to the R-2 (Light Multi-Family Residential)zoning standards. This site is located on the east side of Jackson Avenue, north of Garvey Avenue. It is a rectangular lot measuring 44 feet by 186 feet, for a total of 8,184 square feet. The site has historically been used for one single-family home that was constructed in 1924. In 1985, the City Council adopted Ordinance 574 which allowed any lawfully existing residential structure in the P (Parking) zone, to be added to or expanded. However, this request consists of future plans for demolishing the existing residence and constructing a new home. Therefore, construction of a new residence at this site would require an amendment to the zoning map. V. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS LAND USE Because the subject property is located where two different general plan designations meet, the general plan designation could be commercial or medium density residential. As a rule general plans are not lot specific and should be used to guide staff in determining the highest and best use. After inspecting the property, staff considered the retaining wall along the southern property line of the subject property to be the southernmost limit of the residential general plan designation. On the zoning map, the said lot is designated for P (Parking) Zoning District. The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North: General Plan: Medium Density Residential Zoning: R-2 (Light Multi-Family Residential) Land Use: Residence South: General Plan: Commercial Zoning: C-3 (Medium Commercial) Land Use: Retail Center East: General Plan: Commercial Zoning: P (Parking) Land Use: Residence West: General Plan: Commercial Zoning: R-2 (Light Multi-Family Residential) Land Use: Residence Zone Change 99-208 June 21, 1999 Page 3 of 3 CONDITIONS Staff finds that the site is currently underutilized and that this lot will not be converted to a parking lot use in the near future because the lot to the south contains a loading dock for the adjacent commercial retail center. A zone change to the R-2 zone would encourage single- family home ownership within the City and would not have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Adopt a ed Negative Declaration for ZC 99-208; and 2) Recommend City Council approval of Zone Change 99-208, changing the zoning designation from P (Parking) to R-2 (Light Multi-Family Residential). • 0 ..."'D SAcKSON LT. fs4 . -n■■■■■LL_�_i ■ ■ _- - . I--- - - � - - --- - -- - liprs -fr • i ki . EN III1 s �h : ,.aoEire■%■ Jill-- --imam --_ MESS ■■■ thdi■! = -I :IN I . 11 € J ±II.E d1G ■►7!s■■■■■■ 11■■a E■ ■Mimi I I nn■■ _.■I■■ U!•W■ ■ --� _ ■n.11 Ii 0 i■■ ■sn■�.. e■■ .! __i ±___ -- ■ ■MNI ■■■■■■■■■enEII■I ! I IJ_ I �i_ I _LI Imo u: ■ 1 I■' VIII■■ III 1- - .�I-�- %_�-I- w a , � , ■m oma ■ ■■■ 1 ;- - --�— :8 - M ':.� E - - a■ . NI I- E�11 1® 1 - �� . - �- III _ L �,y- ln% - i � -ii-i�_� ■■■I■■ _ S..Ys■■■ 1 I -1, - ! 1 I !_ 1 __ 1 ■■ _I -�um■�[ 1111151im■ 1 I _,_L-- . 7 F _ ■ -!-- ! I ' ' li 1 - EH in --r1 - elm I go _ i= 1 1 , • -i -- 1 1h 1 IiL11 '•-!_ LI - .si/ Ar I s.J - ._■■ 11 I � li_L 1 ! ._ I IIF I 1. I =i L MI '• _I ■■ ION I �i I ! 1 - .L-H I.=_ _I= __LE_ 1 I __ L.u t LJ__ _LI I b I i__ - 1 I I 1 �r 1 -7 4/cA*t .tl 4 I 1 I I i l t. ! 1 1 ! I I I I a l ' 1 i_I_i_I-� lilt l LH HHH -I ! ! Liii ftLL III Htr ill ' I 11 I I' L 11 I 7 I . I I � I I I EXHIBIT "A" V` mo /B6 m tN T ) 1 _ 04 CD O1.4. 50 . Y: c_. ^ 0 E > 10 -I 0 ' �7 s. e9=44 D 0 Zs ,�\ C �� C z \\ \ \ ' 33-Q9 6 1 0 5 b 27 Z CD R' n v O Ca 1 m - CD U' i- SIT CP rn I N - co r — r- '110- a -1 - (I) - A • C CO ®m 0 -mt -H I C m 71 • in D N xi Fri 1 < . 35 w 34/.5/c 9 A L A 7.3 - D L o n GARVEY AVE - = FM /0882 3 3aa I = N tc,..sw • .• � a EXHIBIT "B" 31 lk 1 _ii . I U OH , t • 96® __ _„ _ g LAM BVIMARDIMQ - - W Belli's/at/DIG .4.M ,>uM,M ,p,61,1141314,,,,.;,l,„,........ .... T 5-� _ _ � C3 R2 p R1 j II C3 rr^ Ff cv Z R3 J HELLMANI] I R 34 n 4 RAV i 2 4[ icl r—_ >I r Ito H H g1 Z � r �� E <V, FII Jo I I C3 1E'I �,I (HERSHEY ST\`g\.\` \ CI I c i < < I U' 1 ��6 U I " NII li �I U1- tr )1 I P. 7� y - W' ! AZII H l I DOROTHY 1 ' ' re 1 iz ---no cl Li! 72 - MERSCN l C I I J 1 PL I 32001 ERSN y _ �� � I PL— L + -Jr �, - I WHITMORE El] I co j Q' I 'NITMORE r—': . < ail ' :: ca > �+ • P >� ' NI III � 11 w : &4 VIRGR Itr l 3 . P ' IV P -P La I yi1 PST 1 — C3 - n �,IC3,,,.,IIIII,,.MII • ; I GA E'Y 1 3000 � i AV 'L....1.1 I (III n ..WIIIIIWbWI^— IIWI,Ii,r.l ',MIL.' I II g Sha y ? 1 R21C ' Ior.--,Ca,i ! ' '5 C3 --1 < _��., �I -�I 3i i C3 c3 � v ? —� cn 1n ckRfl p , R2 ` _rI i R3 ql--a r 70D 1 `I I ' :x-- 1 CH <, II < I 4 n 11 .I EGLEY AV INEWMARK AV . 4 IIILe INTCYVNIARKAttEer y �� _ p NEWMARK 1 i AVS- `r I ¢ AV = CRI R3[ I _ E0 ���` z WASGL , E, E I �GARVALIA ��� �AV -GAiI JAVL. 1C.! �iI \ c� Q ,ILMA,_� - VANDORE J z . y I _- _ � R21� R, ST - T c,! p, l CII z11 �I R3 Z 1 Le -- A_ na 1 6414wt� ~i n—I ...It k WI1 _ cl.w F I Z' ©I ' I Ar- o >I ELROSE HIGHCLIFF Sl < , wl -� w AV I , 1� IGt SII u`✓ -� - NI 4 0 GRAVES PD 24001 1 �' R211 W1 , PB ,ma.. ( �� _ � . EXHIBIT "C" . ILor Denshy Rnld.nt41 r� 4 M.dlum penalty Resld.Mlat I t • Hipp Density Residential -- I onoo MIZW Una: Reab.rrt41/Comnrrc4l ,a, -- Common-41 \ Public Facilities r r/Y Mixed Use: Light Industrial/Commercial I'1 _ PLANNING AREA San 3erradirn IL II y. - li,,t -_ \ _ j1 ids . [1: P. 34 N i I ; trt 1 X ic CD :Ny. r E mPi. � arr._I '----- 9� \_\ l�) er5 . `„.._ l _ it : 'Jf _ >' 1 . . E E ;. " 'v I LI =" .k-1i r 1= — Garvey . v _ _ _ _ _ — C FIGURE LU-4 5IT6 Land Use Policy Planning Area 4 � � City of Rosemead 7'z'----<- General Plan , ' COT DN,'3ELAND;ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT "D" • ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT (1) CITE OF ROSEMEAD, PLANNING DEPARMENT 8030 PALLET BOULEVARD R6SEMEAD, CA 91770 (018) 280-6671 SITE ADDRESS: 3036 JACKSON AVENUE DATE: MARCH 15, 1999 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST/PROTECT: TO CHANGE THC ZONE FROM P TO R-2 Existing Zoning: P Proposed Zoning: R-2 Existing General Plan Designation: CatiCRCIZ Address the following statements on a separate sheet. 1. The proposed change of zone meets the intent and is consistent with the General Plan designation applicable to the area. 2. The proposed change of zone provides for the logical and best use for the property or properties involved, and does not constitute a 'spot zoning' situation. • 3. The proposed change of zone is necessary to provide for the general welfare and benefit of the public at large. 4. The public necessity supports the proposed change. There is a real need in the community for more of the type of uses permitted by the zone requested. S. The property involved in the proposed rezoning is more suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone than for the uses permitted in the present zone. E. The uses permitted by the proposed designation are not detrimental to surrounding properties. SIGNATURE: I/P ^� r 41 X DATE: FEE `n5 F=/ZC itt+Tiig�_ \\' • MA • EXHIBIT "E" t THIS PROPERTY IS THE DIVISION LINE BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION . THIS CHANGE WOULD MEET THE INTENT OF IT'S PRESENT USE AND ADJACENT GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION. 2. THE CHANGE WOULD BE LOGICAL AND THE BEST DESIGNATION FOR THIS USE. THE ADJACENT COMMERCIAL RETAIL CENTER HAS IT'S LOADING DOCKS TO THE REAR AND DOS NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY LOGICAL FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE OF THIS PROPERTY. 3. THIS CHANGE WOULD PROVIDE AND BENEFIT THE PUBLIC BY BRINGING THE USE OF THIS SITE AND THE ZONE TO PROVIDE THE LOGICAL END OF ONE ZONE AND THE START OF ANOTHER. 4. THE PUBLIC NECESSITY TO BRING THIS SITE INTO CONFORMITY WITH THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL USES WOULD IMPROVE THIS PROPERTY AND PROVIDED FOR A CONSISTENCY OF USES IN THE AREA. 5. THE DIVISION OF ZONE WOULD LOGICALLY BE THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN THIS SITE AND THE COMMERCIAL SITE TO THE SOUTH_ THIS SITE, AND USE, IS RESIDENTIAL AND IS DIVIDED FROM COMMERCIAL USES BY THE PHYSICAL BARRIER OF THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS THEMSELVES. 6. THE USE PERMITTED BY THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS THE SAME USE OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND WILL BE COMPATIBLE. GENERAL INFORMATION FORM (2) CITY OF ROSEMEAD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 (818) 288-6671 SITE ADDRESS: 3036 JACKSON AVENUE DATE: MARCH 15, 1999 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST/PROJECT: TO CHANGE TFE ZONE FROM P TO R-2 LOT SIZE: 44 x 185=8384 SFtAPN: 5286-024-DI0 ZONE: P GEN. PLAN: CGTCRCIPL PROJECT/BUSINESS NAE: WA SOUPS OF OPERATION: WA NO. OF EMPLOYEES: N/A PROJECT DETAILS: (type or print on separate sheet if more space is needed): Existing use: SIN^GLE FAMILY RESIDENCEef: 923 to be demolished: N/A s_ to remain: 923 sf Proposed use: SINGE FAMILY RESIDENCE additional sf: 0 total sf: 923 height: 13' Building sf broken down by intended use and number of structures or du: UNIT 1 923 SQ. FT. Parking calculation (show sf/parking ratio/number regvired & provided) : 2 CAR PARKING PROVIDED Lot coverage, floor area ratio, landscaped percentage: 11% LOT COVERAGE APPLICANT/SUBDIVIDER: KEN SENG NG AND DA DIAD HUANG Address: 959 FIGUEROA TERRACE. LOS ANGLES. CA Phone: (2131 431-1033 BUSINESS OWNER(S) : N/A Address: --- Phone: --- PROPERTY OWNER: CHAT KAM IF Address: 3036 JACKSON AVE., RDS"EAD. CA 91770 Phone: P_PRESENTATIVE (architect, engineer, AGENT ) : AMY HC Address: 425 SAVOY ST., LOS ANDS 90012 Phone:(213) 506-9367 PGR/V.MATL (323) 227-9050 I hereby certify that the above is correct to the best of my knowledge. Applicant' s signature: r -30r- Date: 2 - / -77 Print Name: Kt=.) CCN LT n'(X DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: DATE: CASE(S) : NO(S) : FEE: FL/INFOSH D ,rnr MAY 1 21999 NE. v7r:N ■ V I. EAVIROAMEEZAL ASSESSIMAT FORM (3) CITY OF ROSEERAD, PLANKING DEPART/OLAT 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 (818) 288-6671 SITE ADDRESS: 3036 JACKSON AVENUE DATE: MARCH 15 N°gg DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST/PROJECT: CHANGE THE ZONE FROM PTO R-2 1. Surrounding land uses of the site: north NEDILM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL south CONIcRCIAL east NEDIIE DENSITY REESID=NTIAL west MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 2. Could the reoueat, if granted, have an effect on any of the items listed below? Answer yea or no in space provided. Ng a. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas to public lands or roads. ND b. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 2L c. Change in plant or animal life. ND d. Increase of solid waste or litter. Nil e. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. Neil d. Increase of solid waste or litter. e. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. NO f. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. ND g. Change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. Nil h. Site on filled land or on slopes of 10% or more. ND i. Use or - disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. Nn j. Projected change in demand for City services, (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. ) . M k. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. If yes, please type or print explanation on a separate sheet. 3. Number of trees on the site: 1 No. of oak trees: 0 Number of trees to be removed: _ 0 Number of oak trees to be removed: 0 If oak trees are to be removed, please refer to RHC Sec. 9131 about permit procedures. L Are there any known cultural, historical, archeological or any other environmental aspects of the project site and surrounding area that the Planning Department should be aware of? NONE If yes, please type or print explanation on a separate sheet. SIGNATURE: i, qv14:/'j — 5 T'7 DATE: n/ENVIRON lanrort ; _ ii APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT (5) CITY OF ROSEMEAD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 (818) 288-6671 The applicant, not the representative, should read this sheet and then sign and notarize signature at bottom: NOTICE Dear Applicant: You are advised NOT to obtain any loans or loan commitments on the subject property, or to clear the land, or do anything whatsoever that is dependent on final approval of your application. Anything you do before final approval will be AT YOUR OWN RISE. Do not assume that your case will be, or has been finally approved until you are officially notified of such decision IN WRITING by the City of Rosemead. Final approval requires favorable action by the Planning Commission or the City Council. Further, final approval alone may not be enough. READ the notice of decision and the RESOLUTION of the Planning Commission or City Council on which the decision is based. It is necessary that you comply with ALL the conditions of approval set forth herein before the final approval takes effect. Sincerely, PETER LYONS MAY 1 2 1999 Director of Planning City of Rosemead - OmV in N a r Site Address: 303o JACKSON AVENUE Date: MARCH 15, 1999 Description of Request/Project: CHANGE ZONE FR'S1 P TO R-2 AFFIDAVIT City of Rosemead County of Los Angeles) State of California ) 3// 14- I ' T KEN SENG NG*:C CA ai;w HUANG 5 , hereby certify that T/we az.rre- the applicant 4 -involved in this request, and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained, and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my/.euz knowledge and belief. � / ,1,2 Signed) �X✓V !AM` <) V/ Print Name(s) : KEN SENS NS [ID OA C:..L t:. ; fg Mailing Address: 959 FIGUEROA TRACE phone: (213) 451-1083 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 Date: 3( ' 6799 City/State/tip: / //V//�,�._ / Subscribed and sworn to before me this /6 /�day of , V"'" r%"C , 19 • • OVARY PUBLIC ARLENEEDMANSE Wet CotTMNmon t 73)7556 tatryPeic-Cardmin FL/AFFIDAVIT `rw� wyCamMn PROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT (6) CITY OF ROSEl/EAD, P AflINC DEPARTMENT 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEEEAD, CA 91770 (818) 288-6671 SITF ADDRESS: 3036 JACKSON AVENUE DATE:MARCH 15, 1999 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST/PROJECT: CHANGE ZONE FROM P TO R-2 AFFIDAVIT City of Rosemead County of Los Angeles) State of California ) el— I/We CHA1 KAf k&/✓ ScN NG . hereby certify that I/we am/are the owner(s) of the property involved in this request, and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained, and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my/our knowledge and belief- Signed: T '1;/14 /_..- 44117\e/ Print Name(s) : CHAT Y IP ?C ETV S V it 3036 JACKSON AVENUEL�3> di 8/-/9 �'3 Hailing Address: hone: City/State/Zip: ROSSEAD, CA 91770 - ' Date: ��p--74" Subscribed and sworn to before me this /, qday of /L141 19 4 OYfrfZ/ � AR181e ROMNHA _ TARY PUBLIC rai: COmmi&g1 N 1297556 - Notary PIt c-Co Tt `rT r cam:» • MyCa+rnbP6bi10.2013 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY — DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE Filed with Case No. : on the day of , 19_ grrrlali 11 MAT 12188! v FL/AFFIDAVIT Appendix G ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1 . Project Title: ZONE CHANGE 99-208 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rosemead Planning Department 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Peter Lyons, Director of Planning (626) 288-6671 4. Project Location: City of Rosemead County of Los Angeles, State of California Assessor Parcel Number(s): 5286-024-010 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Keng Seng Ng Da Qiad Huang 969 Figueroa Terrace Los Angeles, CA 90012 6. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential 7. Zoning: P (Parking) 8. Description of the Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary) Change the zoning of the parcel from P (Parking) to R-2 (Light Multi-Family Residential) for the purpose of constructing a new single-family residence. 9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings) The City of Rosemead is an urban suburb located in the San Gabriel Valley, 10 miles east of the City of Los Angeles. It is bounded on the north by the cities of Temple City and San Gabriel, on the west by South San Gabriel, on the south by Montebello, plus by El Monte and South El Monte on the east. The city is 5.5 square miles or 2,344 acres in size. Rosemead is home to a resident population of approximately 55,128 people. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). EXHIBIT "F" ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below ( 1 ) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Hazards & Hazardous Public Services Materials Agriculture Resources Hydrology/Water Recreation Quality Air Quality Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities/Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Geology/Soils Population/Housing DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and ✓ a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. 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 'potential significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated' on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (21 has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that althou•• he proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all :•tentially .ignificant effects (a) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards . d (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier DR, incl r visions or m' igation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project., nothing f her i quired. • Signature Date C'�h-- \`-c-e,A7Ci e ,tc 7 .t)oCPa- taJ) Printed Name For • EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required 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 le. 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 le. g.the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2 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) "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: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less 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 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis 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 ® (3) ID). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 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 ones. 9) The analysis of each issue should identify: (a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and Ib) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 3 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potinlielly Potentially Lass Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact baue. Union Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ✓ Explain choice of impact below each item; multiple lines may be entered or Delete this row if no explanation is required b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway cl Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? dl Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would av adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effect, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ✓ Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency, Department of Conservation maintains detailed maps of these and other categories of farmland.) 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 individually or cumulatively result in V loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 3. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air ✓ Duality Abatement Plan or Congestion Management Plan? b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to V an existing or projected air quality violation? cl Result in a 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) Create or contribute to a non-stationary source "hot spot" (primarily carbon monoxide)? el Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ✓ 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources PO1entialiy Potentially La.then No Significant Slgnificent Significant Impact Neuea Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated fl Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ✓ 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Adversely impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, any endangered, rare, or threatened species, as listed in Title 14 of ✓ the California Code of Regulations (Sections 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (Sections 17.11 or 17.12)? bl Have a substantial adverse impact, 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. Wildlife Service? 1 c) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, ✓ policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? d) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities ✓ through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? e) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident ✓ migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? f) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ✓ resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? gl Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, other approved local, ✓ regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the ✓ National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Ism Then No Significant Significant Significant Impact bauea Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated bl Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific ✓ research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? cl Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? ✓ dl Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ✓ formal cemeteries? 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? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ✓ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ✓ iv) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflows? ✓ vl Landslides? ✓ vi) Flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or ✓ dam? vii) Wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas and where residences are intermixed with ✓ wildlands? b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ✓ topsoil? cl Would the project result in the loss of a unique geologic feature? V d) Is the project located on strata 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? 6 • Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Lass Than No Significant Significant Signaicam Impact laws Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated el Is the project located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to V life or property? f) Where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water, is the soil capable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative ✓ waste water disposal systems) 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: al Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous V materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions ✓ involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the• environment? c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste ✓ within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? dl Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code V Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? el 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? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in V the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ✓ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to ✓ urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality ✓ standards or waste discharge requirements? ? • Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Len Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Neu*, Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Substantially degrade 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 li.e., the production rate of pre-existing ✓ nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, V in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? dl 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? el Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity ✓ of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood ✓ hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede ✓ or redirect flood flows? 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? V b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or ✓ zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ✓ communities conservation plan? 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to V 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 V plan or other land use plan? e Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially 1a..Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: al Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise V ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ✓ vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the V project vicinity above levels existing without the project? dl 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? • fl For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to V excessive noise levels? 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: al Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly V (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the ✓ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ✓ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantially adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government 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? V bl Police protection? V cl Schools? ✓ d) Parks? V 9 • Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially t...Then No Significant Significant Significant impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated el Other public facilities? V 14. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of V the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse V physical effect on the environment? 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 V agency for designated roads or highways? cl Result in a change in area traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in V substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses le. 9. farm ✓ equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? V f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ✓ CO Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation ✓ (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 16. UT1Lf11ES 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 V construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially las.Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? dl Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded ✓ entitlements needed? el Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the I/ project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity ✓ to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. al Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the ve disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) 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 the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? — Explain here -- dl Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or ✓ indirectly? — Explain here — 11 -VIII- CITY OF ROSEMEAD 8838 EAST -VALLEY i.,OULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES June 21, 1999 CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the City of Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Alarcon at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers of the Rosemead City Hall at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Ruiz. Invocation was delivered by Vice-Chairman Ortiz. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Chairman Alarcon, Vice-Chairman Ortiz, Commissioners Breen, Loi, and Ruiz ABSENT: None EX OFFICIO: Wagner, Price, Lyons, Wilkinson, and Romanelli 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting of June 7, 1999 (MO) Motion by Commissioner Ruiz, seconded by Vice-Chairman Ortiz, that the minutes of the City of Rosemead Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 7, 1999, be APPROVED as submitted. Vote results: YES: ALARCON, ORTIZ, BREEN, LO1, RUIZ NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE Chairman Alarcon declared said motion duly carried and so ordered 2. EXPLANATION QF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS: Deputy City Attorney Stan Price explained the public hearing process and the right to appeal planning commission decisions to the city council. 3. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH: The commission secretary administered the oath to members of the audience wishing to speak before the planning commission. 6/21/99 MMES.PACE2 4. PUBLIC HEARING: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-772 (CONTINUANCE')-2727Stingle Avenue, #6-A A request by applicant, Sam Shue Lee, to permit the operation of an automotive repair business on property located in the Light Manufacturing Design Overlay (M-1D)zone. Mr. Lyons presented the staff report. To grant the applicant more time to resolve several following outstanding violations,this proceeding had been continued from the previous June 7 planning commission meeting: Aisle way double parking--a warning notice ("Exhibit H") had been posted and distributed among the tenants, as well as citations issued. Debris--trash has been arranged for collection every other day, and the property owner consistently attempts to preserve a clean vicinity. Forasmuch as these aforementioned violations have been alleviated and a periodic monitor of the site will ensue to assure strict adherence to all exigencies, staff feels that this venture meets the municipal criteria for the establishment of an automotive repair business. Staff recommendation: APPROVE—for a period of one (1 ) year, subject to the conditions in"Exhibit A." Applicant(s): In the audience. Questions from the commissioners to the staff: Vice-Chairman Ortiz commented on the exterior stockpile of hangers he had observed at an adjoining garment manufacturing business and queried if whether an alternative storage method could be implemented. Moreover, the vice-chairman recommended the use of a cost-effective trash compacter in curtailing refuse at this factory. In rebuttal, Mr. Lyons agreed to work with the property owner, Mr. Cheng, in dissuading the continued outdoor amassing of merchandise. Commissioner Ruiz inquired about parking enforcement's patrol duration. Mr. Lyons responded that the site will be designated as a "routine stop" in the regulation of unauthorized parking. Public hearing was opened by Chairman Alarcon to those IN FAVOR of this application: The property owner, Mr. Edmond Cheng of 1108 South Garfield Avenue, Alhambra, approached the podium and clarified the trash pick up situation as occurring "six days a week," not "every other day" as imprecisely reported. Moreover, Mr. Cheng further explained that the Monday debris accumulation is owed to weekend clean ups. Public hearing was opened to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: None. There being no one further wishing to address the commission, Chairman Alarcon closed the public hearing segment for this project (MO) Motion by Commissioner Loi, seconded by Vice-Chairman Ortiz, to APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 99-772 (CONTINUANCE)for a period of one (1 ) year, subject to the conditions listed in"Exhibit A." 6/21,99 MINVIts.PAGE 3 Vote results: YES: ALARCON, ORTIZ, BREEN, LOI, RUIZ NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE Chairman Alarcon declared said motion duly carried and so ordered B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-774-3036 Del Mar Avenue A request by Eric Kun to operate a used car dealership on property located in the Medium • Commercial (C-3) zone. Ms.Wilkinson presented the staff report. The subject site is a 6,960 square foot lot that is located north of Garvey Avenue; wherein, an existing on-site 1,100 square foot office is situated. Moreover,this locale has been developed with seven (7) posterior parking spaces. Four(4)of these parking stalls will be dedicated to employees and customers; the remaining three (3) have been conditionally sanctioned for display vehicles only. Inasmuch as ingress and egress is through a ten (10) foot wide Del Mar Avenue drive aisle approach, adequate circulation will be in effect. Respectively, "off-street"vehicle storage/maintenance and public address system are prohibited during operating hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Wherefore, this project conforms to civic land use directives, staff feels that this venture is appropriate for the establishment of a used car dealership--exe/usive of repairs. Staff recommendation: APPROVE--for a period of one (1 ) year, subject to the conditions in"Exhibit A." Applicant(s): In the audience. Questions from the commissioners to the staff: Chairman Alarcon sought any public notice responses. Ms. Wilkinson informed to the contrary. Public hearing was opened by Chairman Alarcon to those IN FAVOR of this application: The petitioner, Mr. Eric Kun of 8254 Youngdale Road, San Gabriel, stepped up to the microphone and urged the commission to ratify the conditional use permit. Owing to the provisionally prescribed three (3) automobile sales, Commissioner Ruiz wondered if this limitation is conducive to commerce. Mr. Kun replied that half of his business will be consigned to auction; whereas, retail will be moderate. Public hearing was opened to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: Rosemead resident, Mr. Gerald° Hijar of 3031 North Brighton Street, Rosemead, reported past malfeasance attributed to this subject site and asked what security arrangements will be exercised by the prospective proprietor. Furthermore, what outcome shall befall this property should the commission deny this permit. Assuming that the tenant heeds the city's noise ordinance, Mr. Lyons remarked that any fortification design is admissible--inclusive of guard dogs; albeit, the animal does not bark incessantly. In addition, should Mr. Kim's application be rejected; the applicant could either propose a different venture or appeal to the city council. Likewise, should a resident dispute an"approved" project; the opposition may appeal for reversal to the councilmembers. • 6/21.'99 MnalrEs,PAGE 4 There being no one further wishing to address the commission, Chairman Alarcon closed the public hearing segment for this project (MO) Motion by Commissioner Ruiz, seconded by Commissioner Loi, to APPROVE conditional Use Permit 99-774 for a period of one (1 ) year, subject to the conditions listed in"Exhibit A." Vote results: YES: ALARCON, ORTIZ, LOI, RUIZ NO: NONE ABSTAIN: *BREEN ABSENT: NONE *Abstention is ascribed to Commissioner Breen's belief that the proposed operation is incompatible to the region; thereto, a denial is deemed as unsuitable. Chairman Alarcon declared said motion duly carried and so ordered C. SONDITIONAL TISE PERMIT 99-775--2714 River Avenue, Units#A/B A request by Frank Quoc, dba P & L Fashion, to operate a sewing factory on property located in the Light Manufacturing (M-1) zone. Ms. Wilkinson presented the staff report. The applicant proposes to occupy an existing 11,359 square foot industrial building; wherein, the workforce shall consist of forty-five(45) employees laboring from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Municipal regulations dictate that one(1)parking space is required for every two (2) employees; hence the parking apportionment is twenty-two (22). Whereas, the site comprises forty-one (41) parking stalls; ample parking is, therefore, provided and civic regulations are satisfied. Subsequent staff inspection, however, has revealed the following transgressions: Abandoned inoperative vehicles • Unmaintained parking lot--excessive weeds/debris/faded striping • Damaged building facade • Indecorous landscaping • Lack of numerical address • On-site cargo container Forasmuch as the property owner is cooperating fully with the city while amending the foregoing violations, staff feels that allowing the landlord to first complete her compliance efforts before granting a CUP approval may be appropriate. Staff recommendation: OPEN--commission's decision. Applicant(s): In the audience. Questions from the commissioners to the staff. Mr. Lyons attested that an Occupancy Permit will not be issued until all infringements have been remedied. Public hearing was opened by Chairman Alarcon to those IN FAVOR of this application: Speaking on behalf of his mother, the property owner, Mr. Steven Cheung of 1012 Sierra Vista Avenue, Alhambra, expressed her desire to cooperate fully with all staff stipulations. To that end, the following noted infractions have been rectified thus far: 6/21/99 Mro&TS.PAGE 5 • Security gate installations Parking lot circumvallation Weekly groundskeeper However, the succeeding items will soon be completed: • Landscape installation • Elimination of cargo receptacle Ejection of abandoned vehicles Restriping Commissioner Loi bid the property owner to repaint the building's anterior facade; whereto, Mr. Cheung agreed. The business owner and tenant, Mr. Frank Quoc, of 3019 Rosemead Place, Rosemead, beseeched the commission to endorse his petition_ Public hearing was opened to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: None. There being no one further wishing to address the commission, Chairman Alarcon closed the public hearing segment for this project (MO) Motion by Commissioner Ruiz, seconded by Vice-Chairman Ortiz, to APPROVE Sonditional Use Permit 99-775 for a period of one (1 ) year, subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A." Vote results: YES: ALARCON, ORTIZ, BREEN, LOI, RUIZ NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE Chairman Alarcon declared said motion duly carried and so ordered D. ZONE CHANGE 99-208--3036 Jackson Avenue A request by Ken Seng Ng and Da Qiad Huang to permit a change of zoning designation from "P" (Parking) to "R-2" (Light Multi-Family Residential) zoning classification. Mr.Lyons presented the staff report. The subject narrow lot is located east of Jackson and north of Garvey Avenues. Originally built in 1924, this site has historically been used as a single-family residence. However, in 1985, the city council adopted Ordinance x579 permitting the lawful structure to be maintained, added to, or expanded subject to the R-2 standards. Unfortunately, the home is poorly situated and is in such substandard condition that to renovate and expand this dwelling would promote inferior aesthetic attributes. Hence, the owners have requested its demolition and reconstruction. Whereas, the site is in between two (2) different General Plan designations--Commercial and Medium Residential density spheres--the General Plan is not "lot specific." Thus, it is up to staff to recommend district placement. Considering that the subject site is above-grade and separate from the commercial market center, staff feels that the highest and best use for this underutilized parcel would not entail its conversion to a parking lot use, but would instead encourage that the commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration allowing the development of a new single-family home. Staff recommendation: APPROVE Applicant(s): In the audience. 6/21/99 WNVRs,PAcr6 Questions from the commissioners to the staff: Commissioner Loi asked for the proposed home's dimension. In view of the fact that the required setbacks will be compelling an incapaciously- designed home,Mr. Lyons acknowledged that the applicants will most likely not be adding more than twenty-four hundred (2,400) square feet. Public hearing was opened by Chairman Alarcon to those IN FAVOR of this application: One of the property owners, Mr. J. D. Kong of 969 Figueroa Terrace, Los Angeles, advanced to the rostrum and underscored the confined space dilemma confronted in the modernization of the subject home and implored the commission to sanction the zone change posthaste. Public hearing was opened to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: None. There being no one further wishing to address the commission, Chairman Alarcon closed the public hearing segment for this project (MO) Motion by Vice-Chairman Ortiz, seconded by Commissioner Breen, to APPROVE Zone Change 99-208. Vote results: YES: ALARCON, ORTIZ, BREEN, LOI, RUIZ NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE Chairman Alarcon declared said motion duly carried and so ordered 5. OTHER BUSINESS: A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 24207 (EXTENSIONI--3114 Del Mar Avenue A request by Joe Cortez to extend the previously approved Tentative Parcel Map 24207 for an additional one(1) year time period. Mr. Lyons presented the report. Initially ratified on June 2, 1997, this TPM granted a subdivision of one(1)lot into two(2). On behalf of the applicant, staff has received a request ("Exhibit B") from the project engineer for a time extension to complete the map subdivision and recording process. Staff recommendation: APPROVE--for a period of one (1 ) year, subject to the conditions in"Exhibit A" Applicant(s): In the audience. Questions from the commissioners to the staff. Commissioner Loi wished clarification as to whether this approval is intended for an office or a residence. Mr. Lyons explained that the applicant desires to develop the anterior commercially- zoned portion into a professional office facility;thereto, the posterior tract will remain a residence. (MO) Motion by Commissioner Breen, seconded by Commissioner Loi, to APPROVE Tentative Parcel Map 24207 (Extension) for a period of one (1 ) year, subject to the conditions listed in"Exhibit A"" 6/21/99 Nwmcs,PAGE 7 Vote results: YES: ALARCON, ORTIZ, BREEN, LOI, RUIZ NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE Chairman Alarcon declared said motion duly carried and so ordered B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-746 (EXTENSION)-2125 North San Gabriel Boulevard A request by Yun Sik Je, dba Vito's Liquor, to extend the operation of a liquor store. Ms. Wilkinson presented the report. Since 1983, the city has issued for this venue a total of four(4)previous change of ownership CUPs. The present CUP was first ratified on June 15, 1998, and granted a one (1) year permit for the transfer of an off-site sale of an ABC (Type 21) liquor store license. Subsequently, staff has re-evaluated the property and has observed adherence to all stipulated contingencies. Staff recommendation: APPROVE--for a period of one (1 ) year, subject to the conditions in"Exhibit A." Applicant(s): In the audience. Questions from the commissioners to the staff. None. (MO) Motion by Commissioner Breen, seconded by Vice-Chairman Ortiz, to APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 98-746 (Extension) for a period of one (1 ) year, subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A." Vote results: YES: ALARCON, ORTIZ, BREEN, LOI, RUIZ NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE Chairman Alarcon declared said motion duly carried and so ordered 6. CONSENT CALENDAR A. PC RESOLUTION 99-22: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-77! ALLOWING THE TRANSFER OF AN ABC (TYPE 20) LICENSE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A MEAT MARKET(CORONA MEAT MARKET)ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3357 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD(APN: 5287-027-017). B. PC RESOLUTION 99-23: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-388 (MODIFICATION) PERMITTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WELL OPERATIONS BUILDING, THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING OPERATIONS BUILDING, AND THE INSTALLATION OF PUMP ENGINES FOR THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK WATER COMPANY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2657 NORTH DELTA AVENUE(APN: 5283-007-271), Deputy City Attorney Price presented the resolution(s) by title only. 6/21/99 Mrtafls PAGE 8 (MO) Motion by Commissioner Breen, seconded by Vice-Chairman Ortiz, to waive further reading and adopt said resolution(s). Vote results: YES: ALARCON, ORTIZ, BREEN, LOI, RUIZ NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE Chairman Alaredn declared said motion duly carried and so ordered • 7. ORAL COMMUNICATION FROM THE AUDIENCE: This is the time for the public to address the planning commission on any matter not presented on the agenda. No response. 8. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS AND STAFF: A. Commissioner Ruiz informed the commission and staff of his forthcoming absence at the next July 6 planning commission meeting. In addition, the commissioner announced a councilman's annual fund-raising June 29 dinner and asked to be apprised if anyone wishes to attend or donate to the campaign. Finally, the commissioner requested that time be set aside at a future commission assembly to re-evaluate and update redundant, obsolete municipal provisions. Mr. Lyons offered to submit to the commission a "master list" of generic planning conditions;whereby,the commissioners may review and edit accordingly. Eventually, at the conclusion of a predetermined session, amendments may be discussed and incorporated into the city's codex. B. The Assistant City Manager, Don Wagner, reminded the commission of the upcoming Fourth of July parade scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. on July 3. In correlation, opening ceremony commences at 3:00 p.m. on July 4. C. Discarded shopping carts on Garrett Street--north of Garvey Avenue and east of Rosemead Place--were reported for pick up by Chairman Alarcon. 9. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business to come before the commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. The next meeting will take place on TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1999, at 7:00 P.M. 1 PC RESOLUTION 99-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 99-208, AMENDING ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM P; "PARKING" TO R-2; "LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL" FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3036 JACKSON AVENUE (APN: 5286-024-010). WHEREAS, Mr. Ken Seng Ng and Da Qiad Huang, applicants, of 969 Figueroa Terrace, Los Angeles, CA 90012 filed an application requesting a zone change from the P; "Parking" to R-2; "Light Multiple Residential" for property located at 3036 Jackson Avenue on May 12, 1999; and WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has an adopted general plan, zoning ordinance, and map, including specific development standards to control development; and WHEREAS, Rosemead's General Plan designates the subject property for Commercial uses, however the property has been developed with a single family residence since 1924; and WHEREAS, Rosemead's official Zoning Map designates the site for P; "Parking" development which allows parking lots or an addition to an existing residential use, but not the development of a new single family residence, the project proposal. WHEREAS, Section 65860 of the California Government Code requires that zoning ordinances and zoning map be consistent with the adopted general plan. Since the property is located where two different general plan designations meet, the general plan designation in this case could be commercial or medium density residential. Accordingly, the highest and best use of this property would be best served by the development of a single family residence ; and WHEREAS, Sections 9185 and 9186 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to consider and recommend proposed zone changes to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 1999, an initial study for the proposed zone change was completed finding that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, a negative declaration was prepared; and WHEREAS, on May 27, 1999, 46 notices were posted in 10 public locations and were sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property specifying the public comment period and the time and place for a public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on June 21, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive testimony relative to Zone Change 99-208; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to make the followingidetermination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: Section 1. The Planning Commission HEREBY DETERMINES that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted. An initial study was completed to analyze potential environmental impacts pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This study analyzes the potential environmental impacts that could be created from the proposed amendment. The study was sent to all responsible agencies, and noticed in 10 public locations, soliciting comments for more than a 21-day period prior to the Planning Commission bearing. This study found that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment Section 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that placing the property in the R-2; Light Multiple Residential zone is in the best interest of the public necessity and general welfare and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed zone change. The change to the R-2 zoning classification would allow the applicant to demolish an existing single family home and construct a new single family home. Section 3. The Planning Commission FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES that Zone Change 99-208 is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan as follows: .4. Land Use; The designation provided by Zone Change 99-208 would allow the property • owner to construct a new single family home on a lot that has always been used for a single family home. The site is located in Planning Area 4 of the Land Use Element of the Rosemead General Plan and has been designated for medium residential or commercial uses. The area surrounding the subject property, except for a retail center development located to the south, is residential. B. Circulation; The site is located on Jackson Avenue. Jackson Avenue is classified as a local street in the General Plan. Adequate access is provided via Garvey Avenue. The existing circulation design would be maintained, with no significant increase or change in traffic patterns anticipated . C. Housing; Although this site is currently zoned P; Parking, the proposed use of this property as a single family residence will not deplete, but rather preserve, available land for housing. D. Resource Management;. The applicant has provided adequate landscaping on the proposed site and the project will not have any negative impacts on air or water quality in the City. E. Noise; The proposed home will front on Jackson Avenue. The proposed residence will not create any potential noise impacts. Section 4. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Zone Change 99-208, amending Rosemead Zoning map land use designation from P; `Parking" to R-2; "Light Multiple Residential" for property located at 3036 Jackson Avenue (APN: 5286-024-010) Section 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on June 21, 1999, by the following vote: YES: ORTIZ, BREEN, RUIZ, LOI, ALARCON NO: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE Section 6. The secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19thh day 'oofOJuly, ,11999. /tG William Alarcon, Chairman