Loading...
CC – Item 2B – Staff Report – Ordinance 787 – Zone Change 98-205 Amending the Zoning Map M % : stat t eport TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS ,� ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL AFROM: FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER DATE: JUNE 23, 1998 RE: ORDINANCE NO. 787-ZONE CHANGE 98-205 Amending the Zoning Map from P;Parking to R-2;Light Multiple Residential 2739 Prospect Avenue This item was presented at a public hearing before the Planning Commission on June 15, 1998. 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. One single family home has existed on the property since 1924. Because of its dilapidated condition, it was recently demolished.The zone change has been proposed by the property owner to allow them to develop the site with one single family residence. The site is surrounded on both sides by single family homes that have been kept up over the years. Staff finds that there is little potential for this lot to be developed as a parking lot because the lot to the north(abutting Garvey Avenue lots) contains a home that has been recently refurbished. The zone change to R-2 would encourage single family ownership and would not have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council introduce and place Ordinance No. 787 on first reading, and schedule the item for a second reading at the meeting of July 14, 1998. A`tachmCnts' COUNCIL. AGENDA I. Draft Ordinance No.787 ? PC Report,dated June I, 1996 PC Minutes for une I, 1996 JUN 2 31998 4. PC Resolution No.98-20 ITEM No. 16 a /. K ORDINANCE NO. 787 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 98-205, AMENDING ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM "P; PARKING" TO R-2; LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL" FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2739 PROSPECT AVENUE (APN: 5285-002-011). WHEREAS, Mr. Dung Hung Nguyen, representing Huyen T. Le, 11920 A Goldring Road, Arcadia, CA 91006, filed an application requesting a zone change from the P to the R-2 zone for property located at 2739 Prospect Avenue on March 16, 1998; 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 "Medium Density Residential" allowing a density of up to nine (9) units per acre; and WHEREAS, Rosemead's official Zoning Map designates the site for P; Parking development which allows continued use as a R-2 site, but is intended as additional parking for substandard commercial properties on Garvey Avenue; 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 April 30, 1998, an initial study for the proposed zone change was completed finding that this project could not have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, on May 4, 1998, notices were posted in 10 public locations and 41 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 June 15, 1998, the Planning Commission held public hearings and adopted PC Resolution 98-20, approving a recommendation to the City Council to approve Zone Change 98-205; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 1998, notices were posted in 10 public locations and 41 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 98-205; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 1998, 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.787 Zone Change 98-205 Page 2 of 3 Section 2. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that placing the property at 2739 Prospect Avenue 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 Light Multiple Residential Zone will provide a superior level of planning and protection to the quality and character of residential neighborhood. Section 3. The City Council FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES that Zone Change 98-205 is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan as follows: A. J.and Use; The Parking designation allows a density of 1 unit/4,500 square feet as a continued non-conforming use. The designation provided by Zone Change 98- 205 (Light Multiple Residential) allows the same residential density but removes a non-conforming status. The General Plan designates the site for medium Density Residential. This designation is compatible with the present and proposed zoning land use designations. The properties to the south have been designated and developed in a similar manner. B. Circulation; The site is located on Prospect Avenue. Prospect Avenue is classified as a local street in the General Plan. Adequate access is provided via Prospect Avenue. The existing circulation design would be maintained with no significant increase in traffic anticipated . Development of this site as parking for commercial businesses along Garvey Avenue is not likely since the properties in the immediate vicinity do not need additional parking. C. Housing; The Housing Element identifies potential residential development sites. This site, which is zoned for parking use, is not included in this survey. The proposed zone change would not alter the potential residential development of the site. D. Noise; There will be no change in the historical land use. The applicant is aware of the close proximity to the commercial uses on Garvey Avenue which is an existing condition. Section 4. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES Zone Change 98-205, amending Rosemead Zoning map land use designation from "P; Parking to "R-2; Light Multiple Residential" for property located at 2739 Prospect Avenue (APN: 5285-002-011). Section S. 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 23rd day of June, 1998. ROBERT BRUESCH, Mayor ATTEST: NANCY VALDERRAMA, City Clerk Ordinance No.787 Zone Change 98-205 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. 787 being: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 98-205, AMENDING ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM "P; PARKING" TO R-2; LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL" FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2739 PROSPECT AVENUE (APN: 5285-002-011). was duly introduced and placed upon first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 23rd day of June, 1998, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 14th day of July, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NANCY VALDERRAMA, City Clerk STAFF DEPORT Planning Commission June 1, 1998 CASE NO: ZONE CHANGE 98-205 REQUEST: Change the zoning designation from P to R-2 LOCATION: 2739 Prospect Avenue (APN: 5285-002-011) APPLICANT: Dung Hung Nguyen 11920 A Goldring Road Arcadia, CA 91006 OWNER: Huyen T. Le PUBLIC NOTICE: Notices were mailed to 41 property owners within 300 feet of the subject property plus posted in 10 public places on 05-04-98. EXHIBITS: A. Concept Plans B. Assessor's Maps C. Zoning Map D. General Plan Map E. Initial Study F. Application, dated 12-10-97 I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Zone Change 98-205 would amend the Zoning Map designation for 2739 Prospect Avenue. The applicant proposes to change the zoning to R-2; Light Multiple 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 (April 30, 1998) 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 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. H OCE REQUIREMENTS Chapters 9185 and 9186 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets the procedure and requirements for zone changes and amendments. Zone changes are permitted whenever 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. ROSEMEAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT • T Zone Change 98-205 June 1, 1998 Page 2 of 3 11 t1 ' t . It : On , tit/ 1 ► A. BACKGROUND Zone Change 98-205 has been proposed by the property owner to allow the them to develop the site with a 2,495 square foot, two story single family residence with a three car garage. This site is located on the west side of Prospect Avenue approximately 180 feet south of Garvey Avenue. It is a rectangular lot measuring 50-feet by 142.3-feet for a total of 7,116 square feet. The site has historically been used for one single family home that was constructed in 1924. The original home was dilapidated and has recently been demolished by the property owner. This lot is part of Tract No. 5785 which subdivided the properties in this neighborhood into equally sized rectangular lots of 7,116 square feet. The homes in this neighborhood block are predominantly single family homes with 50% of the lots having two homes on them. Homes on this block were constructed between 1921 and 1953. In 1985 the City Council adopted Ordinance 574 which allowed any lawfully existing residential structure in the P zone, to be added to or expanded. However, this request is to construct a new residence on a currently vacant lot. Therefore, construction of a new home at this site would require an amendment to the zoning map. IV. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS A. LAND USE The site is designated in the general plan for "Medium Density Residential" development, and on the zoning map it is designated for P; Parking development. The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North: General Plan: Commercial Zoning: P; Parking Land Use: Single Family Residence South: General Plan: Medium Density Residential Zoning: R-2; Light Multiple Residential Land Use: Single Family Residence East: General Plan: Medium Density Residential Zoning: P; Parking Land Use: Parking Lot to support Seafood King Restaurant & Retail Shops West: General Plan: Medium Density Residential Zoning: P; Parking Land Use: Single Family Residence B. SITE CONDITIONS The 988 square foot house that was constructed at this location in 1924 was recently demolished and all that remains on the site is a concrete slab and some construction debris. The site is surrounded on both sides by single family homes that have been kept up over the years. Zone Change 98-205 June 1, 1998 Page3 of 3 Staff finds that the site is currently underutilized and that this lot will not be converted to a parking lot use because the lot to the north (abutting Garvey Avenue lots) contains a home that has been recently refurbished. A zone change to the R2 zone would encourage single family home ownership within the City and would not have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. The proposed home is larger than the existing homes on this street, however the design meets all of the development standards for the R-2 zone. Staff does have a couple of design changes for the project relating to the overall size of the home. The architect for the project has been informed of the requested design revisions and will modify the plans. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for ZC 98-205; and 2) Recommend City Council approval of lone Change (70 98-205, changing the zoning designation from P to R-2. • MrGARVEY AVEE. o ° • o ° . —' 4744 �, 4744 45 45a U U w0 O O e N . a) E:., 0 Z ° �N oN oN �N o� tN U) t t rn • 01 -D , 111 n .. 4744 H 4 7.4 4 " 742.33 /42.39 SD 90 JO a �O�7y3 ti — 4 X „ w / ` cND0 0273 ` p _D , 73- o 4 WOSITE"� • €00.2 733 Z ` ,2732 `° o ch O 37;27 0 CP a CP a - 7.2 9 . J OD Cm <w) N wO a7i7 ^77J it® W � 7r 9 .? 7/ Y - 4 W® 7/3 T7 ) 2 W • T7bZ t a (rO ; 0.4707 .2 rh fT7 I 7 � NI� • � 77577 45•�- 742 .3.3 4 4S 42.33 c.. N.59°S8'00 W. l” EGLEI AVE. a EXHIBIT "B" • • JJECT PROPERTY INFORMATION 1) Property: 2739 PROSPECT AV, ROSEMEAD CA 91770-2915 C036 APN: 5285-002-011 Use: SFR County: LOS ANGELES,CA Tax Rate Area: 3917 Total Value: $147,993 Census: 4825.01 Prop Tax: $1,793.54 Land Value: $107,669 Map Pg: 46-E2 Delinq Tax Yr: Impry Value: $40,324 New Pg: 636-D2 Exemptions: Assd Yr: 1997 Phone: % Improved: 27% Owner: LE HUYEN T Mail: 2739 PROSPECT AVE; ROSEMEAD CA 91770-2915 SALES INFORMATION IMPROVEMENTS LAST SALE PRIOR SALE Bldg/Liv Area: 9B8 Transfer Date: 10/02/97 09/09/97 #Units: Sale Price/Type: $102,500 FULL $76,000 UNKNOWN #Bldgs: Document#: 1525915 1391384 #Stories: 1 Document Type: GRANT DEED TRUSTEE'S DEED S/SF: $103.74 1stTD/Type: Yrblt/Eff: 24 28 Finance: Total Rms: 5 Junior Ms: Bedrms: 3 Lender: DIRECTORS MTG LOAN Baths(F/H): 2 Fireplace: Seller: PROSPECT AVENUE TRUST Pool: Title Company: TITLE LAND CO.INC Bsmt Area: Transfer Info: Construct: SITE INFORMATION Flooring: Air Cond: Improve Type: DETACHED Lot Size: A0.16 Heat Type: WALL FURNACE Zoning: P' RM Lot Area: 7,095 Quality: FAIR County Use: 0100 Parking: DETACHED Condition: FAIR Bldg Class: D Park Spaces: 2 Style: TRADITIONAL Flood Panel: 060153 Site Influence: Other Rooms: DINING AREA;DEN;ATTIC Phys Chars: RAISED FOUNDATION;COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF COVER;GABLE ROOF TYPE:STUCCO EXTERIOR;PUBLIC WATER;PUBLIC SEWER;FENCE;LAUNDRY ROOM;SCREENED PORCH;AVERAGE FUNCTIONAL UTILITY;DISPOSAL;RANGE HOOD; Legal: L29 TR57851 Comments: USABLE LOT:7,095 Copyright© 1996-97 Experian Page: 1 of 1 . . 4• M a i a r ZM j :in '-> t ® Bi II , M HT ttelE II ill> r . I 0 _; /l-�� il LAN BERNARDINO - _.-1-•- .�_ SAM BEXNA901XD • _• viol »- .. R IC •],n. X. m�DvN """ m uN F . 3 R2 C3 I- R2 AR3, -I HELLMAN R 4. I' is AV inz € 1 o a7i al 117 3 181 21 HERSHEY nI Q ai Q H I lJr� U DOROThwR //�1 `fr- ill i n. R2 lit. tAIv�E' i -LM �_N ` u PL 1 E 3 .00 1 i r. IERSOr_ �WHITMORE S m Q , € O co2 - 6. Rs e I > L - D sE _' _ VIRGIN U P .�-ask S in in 1 j C3 ► \GA,AVEY 13000 w 1, I imam' II i W. _ 5 �a�� o a hlii •� o , R2 •� o.C3fl_P Loll 2a' vIcran r7 A EsR2Lil �r DFF,EY , n _-Eros 8 EGLEY AV NEWMAR Z -i �� O .. I `� Aa�teE BnaY .--_ MARK EE \ Q R e . F a I \ a = a 1 I ° 5 min-\ Lt !T :: O ° e V AV - R:1 _ W _ „h . . I 'ii > I*MAR ¢ O VA ST F 0 w EL OSE . IGHC IFF- _ Qa -i . N�� . o• a�AV EXHIBIT "C” �-. Low Density Residential _ ' 2 Medium Density Residential •::q.vi. Nigh Density Residential ,z ---- 3 3 3 or Mixed Use:Residential/Commercial ) k( (y fi ')k Mixed Use: Industrial/Commercial Commercial / Public Facilities PLANNING AREA SITE L , 1 L_.�.1 rf ' F,r p f;J E/-17, r._.: Garvey Ave. Iii i f f t l --r,�l� I�� + o C< J C; ) Y' .'J TT iipe V , a a 'v �Yo — mak' i .. o U )� < _� FIGURE LU-5 Land Use Policy Planning Area 5 Ivy, City of Rosemead w • General Plan Mr", COTTON/BELAND/ASSOCIATES I ' 'ni ®®t IM LU' I(o EXHIBIT "D" • Planning Area 5: Land Use Policy Tnis planning area contains a variety of land uses including residential, commercial, in addition to the mixed use overlay districts which allow for residential/commercial and light industrial/commercial in certain districts. Residential land uses range from low to high densities with high density uses restricted to the western border along New Avenue and in an area located at the southern edge of the planning area between Rush Street and Amber Rose Lane. The remaining residential areas located within Planning Area 5 are designated as memum density residential with two exceptions - one area south 01 i\ewmci hie ano west OI Cvelyn Avenue ano a second area norm of Newmark Avenue and east of New Avenue. I ne general mstrmution of resment;al lana uses provided Dy the General Plan is consistent with the distribution of existing residential development. An area designated as light industrial/commercial mixed-use overlay extends south on San Gabriel Boulevard from ;Newmark Avenue. The portion of the planning area designated as commercial includes an area in the northeast corner of the commercial district surrounding the Garvey Avenue/San Gabriel Boulevard intersection extending westward to the City boundaries. LU-15 5/28/87 "Exhibit A" CEQA APPENDIX G ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1 . Project Title: Zone Change 98-205 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): 5285-002-011 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Dung Hung Nguyen 11920 A Goldring Road Arcadia, CA 91006 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 Multiple Residential for the purpose of constructing a 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 Sari 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). 1 EXHIBIT "E" ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below ( V ) 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 HydrologyNJater 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 although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project., nothing further is required. i drte- 1//3 /98 Signature / Date Jr, RAO J o ftrl Son/ Printed Name For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 11 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 (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. 2 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 (c) (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 he 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: la) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? V b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock y outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the V site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ✓ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area/ 2. AGRICULTURE 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 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 V Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? h) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ✓ Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to V their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in 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 ✓ Quality Abatement Plan or Congestion Management Plan? b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to ✓ an existing or projected air quality violation? 3 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Loss Then No significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) 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)? dl Create or contribute to a non-stationary source "hot spot" (primarily carbon monoxide)? e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? V f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? V 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 V in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (Sections 17.11 or 17.121? b) 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, V policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Wildlife Service? 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 lincluding, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other V activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? el 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? g) 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? b) 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 V 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)? 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Lace Then No Significant Significant Impact Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? V d) 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: 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? V iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? V iv) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflows? V v) Landslides? vi) Flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or V dam? vii) Wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas and where residences are intermixed with V wildlands? b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of V topsoil? c) 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? el Is the project located on expansive soil creating substantial risks V to 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 V waste water disposal systems? 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 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 V hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code ✓ Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 5 • Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than NoSignificant Significant significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? fl For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the V project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted V 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? 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 (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing V 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? 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? el Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to V control? f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or V other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede y or redirect flood flows? 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: al Physically divide an established community? V bl 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 V zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? cl Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ✓ communities conservation plan? 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant significant Significant Impact Ivaue( Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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? bl 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? 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 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 ✓ 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 V project? 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1) 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: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly ✓ (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ✓ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the V 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 c) Schools? V di Parks? el Other public facilities? V ? • Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Lev Than NoSignificant Significant significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 14. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical V deterioration of 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)? ID) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management V agency for designated roads or highways? ci 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 (e. g. farm V equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? V f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? V g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation ✓ (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 16. 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? ci Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of V which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded V entitlements needed? e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the ✓ 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? B Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal V 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? bl Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the ✓ 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)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or V indirectly? 9 ZONA CBANGE APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT (1) CITY OF ROSEMEAD, PLMU4Th' DEPARTMENT 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ItOSEMEAD, CA 91770 (818) 288-6671 SITE ADDRESS: 2739 Pers c-r- DATE: 12_ I. 97 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST/PROJECT: ZONE 0-/6Q08 F20MA r 7C 2- 2 Existing Zoning: P Proposed Zoning: 2 - 2 Existing General Plan Designation: 2ESIPEIJT/QL 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. / 5EE tk Act--r 3- The proposed change of zone is necessary to provide for the general welfare and benefit of the public at large. C. 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. revvested. 5. 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. / ar SIGNATURE !n Wi t Ut= . DATE: 5: - /i2- / 9 E 51350 SL/Z0 EXHIBIT "F" GENERAL INFORMATION FORM (2) CITY OF ROSEMHAD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 (818) 288-6671 SITE ADDRESS: 2739 PT2OSp -CT 6VE DATE: IZ - I- 97 M u DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST/PROJECT: ZONE caIJ 1-JGE rIZOM P 7O 2_2 LOT SIZE: 7100 3F APN: ZONE: P GEN. PLAN: IZES10EIJTAL PROSECT/BUSINESS NAME: NIA BOURS OF OPERATION: NLA NO. OF EMPLOYEES: IJIQ PROJECT DETAILS: (type or print on separate sheet if more space ie needed) : Existing use: 5I1-1GLE FAMILY I100SE sf: 988 to be demolished: 9 86 sf to remain: 2500 NAW sf Proposed use: SIA/GLE FAMILY LIOUSF NEW. _ additional sf: total s.. 2x00 5r height: 2-6!. 104 Building sf broken down by intended use and number of structures or du: Parking calculation (show sf/parking ratio/number required & provided) : Lot coverage, floor area ratio, landscaped percentage: APPLICANT/SUBDIVIDER: OU/JG IJV&1G NGUYEM Abdress: I19ZOa GD n2JAJG 20W aIZcaD(A Phone: SID 359_ 3q` BUSINESS OWNER(S) : NA Address: ND Phone: NA PROPERTY OWNER: DUNG IJUIJG IJGUYEL,I Address: O920. GOLOCIAJG 20AD aracIALIAI, Phone: 518- 3.57- 3c55 REPRESENTATIVE (architect, engineer, ) : )Ol11J YdQICL 5 / Address: IIr1Z0a GQLO2/1J6 Q04D t1ZCAO/a Phone: 51S- 35rt- 'o95g 1 hereby certify that the above is correct the best of my knowledge. p // Applicant's signature: - 0/ Date: 1Z_ / _ c77 Alf 4 Print Name: OWJG /-JU[/G UYEtJ DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: DATE: . CASE(S) : NO(S) : FEE: FL/INFOSH ENVIINMOCNTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (3) CITY OF ROSEMEAD, PIAMMING DEPARTMENT 8838 VALLEY EXAM-AWARD ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 (818) 288-6671 SITE ADDRESS: 2739 Pi O5 cr oV,C DATE: 7 (2 - / - . DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST/PROSECT: ZCUE Cd-la'LIGE /� GE FeaVi ' r TO 2_2 I. Surrounding land uses of the site: north p IZ!LIIJG 4 COMMEIZ(CAL south 2a lDELITl6L east 2ESI17ELITI&L west 2. Could the request, if granted, have an effect on any of the items listed below? Answer yes or no in space provided. BC a. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas to public lands or roads. no b. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. c. Change in plant or animal life. fe d. Increase of solid waste or litter. JaG e. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 436 d. Increase of solid waste or litter. nq e. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. —P, j f. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. DO g. Change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. nr, h. Site on filled land or on slopes of 10% or more. Rn i . Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. he, j. Projected change in demand for City services, (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. ) . nO k. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. yes, please type or print explanation on a separate sheet. 3. Number of'trees on the site: No. of oak trees: Number of trees to be removed: pone Number of oak trees to be removed: none I_` oak trees are to be removed, please refer to RMC Sec. 9131 about permit procedures. 4. Are there any known cultural, historical, archeological or any other environmental aspects of the project site and surrounding area that the ?lanning Department should be aware of? MO If yes, please type or print explanation on a separate sheet. SIGNATURE:' k�77� fi� v /�� DATE: /Z_ I- 9? lllll����� ar FL/ENVIRON PROPERTY OWNERS LIST/RADIUS MAP INSTRUCTIONS (4) CITY OR ROSEMEAD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 (818) 288-6671 NOTE: The information furnished must be as it appears on the latest assessment roll of the Los Angeles County Assessor. An inaccurate or incomplete list may cause invalidation of your case. Attached is a list of providers of this service. A listing does not constitute a recommendation from the City. INSTRUCTIONS: Submit the following with application: one (1) map showing each parcel within, or partially within, a \,300-ffoot radius of the exterior boundaries of the property under consideration. Number each parcel within the 300-foot radius on the - maa (i.e. , 11, 12, #3. . . ) . b. one (1) list of assessor's parcel number, property owner's name, and property owner' s mailing address for each parcel numbered (i.e. , #1, • c. three (3) sets of gummed labels with the list copied onto them. d. one (1) copy of this form with the affidavit shown below signed and 'notarized by the preparer of the three items listed above. Site Address: 2739 PcO,j7CT aVE EosemeGo Date: IZ. I- 97 Description of Request/Project: ZONE C4-I6l.t6f= vP,7-0 e. 2 APEIDAVIT City of Rosemead ) County of Los Angeles ) State of California ) I, K DV FIG I4ULJG .LGCVEkJ , hereby certify that the names and addresses of all persons to whom all property is assessed as they anoear on the latest available assessment roll of the County of Los Angeles within the described and for a distance of three hundred (300) feet from the exterior boundaries of property described as: - Street Address(ee) : Assessor' s rcel No. (s) : (Signed,: X� 7.-1.--c—es'7.-1.--c—es' / �_ / .- Print Name(s) : C7/ � NG /J(/NG h/GUYaL/ Mailing Address: tic/20a .c-YO2th1G (ZOW Phone: 86 - 39i-3955 City/State/Zip: LIZCADE& C.6. 91c2126, Date: /' Subscribed and sworn to before me this )per-day of N C rr 1Wt1 , 191.7 .-11. THUONG NWIEN NOTARY PUBLIC �� :1a9--41; � COMM.A10co?] - , ,. -k, Nola.Public-Colitomio \ LOS ANGELES COUNlY \'°''Wy Comm.Expires JAN 6.1990 • J PL/RADIOS ;�i APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT (5) CITY OF ROSEMEAD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8838 VALLEY DOOI.EVARD 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 RISK. 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 Director of Planning • City of Rosemead _2739__P2CT REC7_. AVE. ..- - -- - . .nate:- (Z-10. 9J Site Address: Description of Request/Project: Z ONE C J /JGE AFFIDAVIT City of Rosemead County of Los Angeles) State of California ) I/We, hutJ6 /////ilCT-- /167 UVgA/ , hereby certify that I/we am/are the applicant(s) 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. C.-2 (Stoned -Uy/ Print Name(s) : DU/J i-(UNG NL/Vel./ q Mailing Address: //gZDa �Vrzlh/6 (I-O6J7 Phone: e/g 3S`f'3fZ t City/State/Zip: p2G&Or6 CQ q Date: CZ - (0 97 L,- � C Subscribed and sworn to before me this SOT day of _1' -<'A: riZa cl ) COO NOTARY PUBLIC NobcIFS-CC NeTYmio \ Ii? ry Comm.Erpiies JAN 6.1998 FL/AFFIDAVIT N . _ _ PROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT (6) CITY OF ROSEEEAD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 (818) 288-6671 SITF ADDRESS: 27 39 P/2OSPECT DATE: LZ_ I0 - 9.2 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST/PROJECT: ZONE cLJ6 AJ6P AFFIDAVIT City of Rosemead ) County of Los Angeles) State of California ) I/We, Du 1.1G CLUNG iJGO YE 6,./ . 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. J Signed: -----)2 / l'�+j- Print Name(s): WLl6 / ('L✓� Li c) Yr,J Mailing Address: LIgZOO L122LI1, LZOd/7 Phone: FJ[9_ 39 -3Q.�i'- City/State/Zip: C!Zc60/d CL q1 err7 Date: Lz/ Xq2 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1 {>T'.--/day of ,t' Ceh-ki'h7Gr l947 X �,��� / NOTARY PUBLIC iH'JONG NGUYEN z / COMM. ID13D99 -a'.!L a 'Z` Notary Pudic-Calilomia n \ � LOS ANGELES COUNT( My Comm.fwire6 JAN 6.1998 j - _� FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE Filed with Case No. : on the day of , 19 . FL/AFFIDAVIT RECORDING REQUESTED BY - ORDER APN • WHEN RECORDED MAILTO • N". DUNG HUNG NGUYEN m<,... 2739 Prospect Ave. nn Rosemead, CA 91770 L J SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDERS USE Power of Attorney - Special KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: that HUYEN THANH LE has made, constituted and appointed, and by these presents does hereby make, constitute and appoinl5 DUNG HUNG NGUYEN A true and !awful Attorney for Him and in His name place and stead to ask, demand, sue for, recover, collect and receive all such sums of money, debts, dues, accounts, legacies, bequests, interests, dividends, annuities, and demands whatsoever as are now or shall hereafter become due, owing, payable, or belonging to the undersigned; and have, use, and take all lawful ways and means in the name of the undersigned, or otherwise, for the recovery thereof, by legal process, and to compromise and agree for the same, and grant acquittances or other sufficient discharges fcr the same, for the undersigned, and in the name of the undersigned to make, seal, and deliver the same; to compromise any and all debts owing by the undersigned, and to convey, transfer, and/or assign any property of any kind or character belonging to the undersigned in satisfaction of any debt owing by us or either of us; and to bargain, contract, agree for, purchase, receive, and take lands, tenements, he;editamens, and accept the seizin and possession of all lands, and all deeds, and other assurances in the law therefor; and to lease, let, demise, bargain, sell, remise, release, convey, mortgage, convey in trust, and hvpothe^..te lands, tenements, and hereditaments, upon such terms and conditions, and under such covenants as said Attorney shall think fit; to exchange real or personal property for other real or personal property, and to execute and deliver the necessary instruments of transfer or conveyance to consummate such exchange: to execute and deliver subordination agreements subordinating any lien, encumbrance or other right in real or personal property to any other lien, encumbrance, or other right therein; also to bargain and agree for, buy,sell, mortgage, hypothecate, convey in trust or otherwise, and in any and every way and manner deal in and with goods, wares and merchandise, gooses in action, and other property in possession or in action, including authority to utilize my eligibility for VA Guaranty; also to transfer, assign, and deliver stock and the certificate or certificates evidencing the ownership of the same; and to make, do, and transact all and every kind of business of what nature and kind soever; and, also, for the undersigned and in the name and as the act and deed of the undersigned, to sign,seal, execute, deliver, and acknowledge such deeds, covenants, leases, indentures, agreements, mortgages, deeds of trust, hypo- i 1M-cations, assignments, bottomris, chatter parties, bills of lading, bills, bonds, notes, receipts, evidences of debts, releases, and satisfactions of mortgage,judgment and other debts, and such other instruments in writing, of whatever kind and nature, as may be reasonable, advisable, necessary, or proper in the premises. Each and all of the powers herein granted shall be exercised by said Attorney as to the following described property only: Lot 29, of Tract No. 5875, in the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per nap recorded in Book 63 Pape(s) 90 of Maps, in the office of. the County Recorder of said County . Cotrnonly known as : 2739 Prospect Ave. , Rosemead , CA 91770 . A.P.N. No : 5285-002-0: 1 ' Date Oct. 1 . 1997. Giving and granting unto said Attoniey full power and authority to do and perform all and every net and thing • STATE OF CALIFORNIA whatsoever requisite and necessary to be done in and Coun:y of Los Anael es } ss. about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as On Oct. 1, 1997 before the undersigned might or could do if personally present, the me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, undersigned hereby expressly ratifying and confirming an personally appeared HUYEN THANH IE that said Attorney shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of these presents. personallyactoknown to me (obe provede to mon the basis satisfactory evitlenw) to be the person(s) whose name(s) IIS/_✓, is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged In me that he%she/they excnued the snmc in his/her/their authorized capaclly(is), and that by HUYE THANH LE 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. WITNESS my hand and official seal. THUONG NGUYEN l No Public in and[Crsaid Couai COMM.et IOI3C93 ivy y and state z e z z • - Notary R6lic-Colilornio THUONG NGUYENLos ANGELESCOUNTY r �` - My Comm.Expires JAN 6.1996 t (Notary', come must be typed or legibly printed) - - [NOTARY STAMP OR SEAL] ORT 166 PC Minutes 06-01-98 Page 2 of 12 3. ADi\4iNISTRATION nF OATH The Commission Secretary administered the oath to members of the audience wishing to speak. 4. PEAT IC HF4RTNGS• A. ZONF CHANGE 98-705 - 2739 Prospect Avenue - A request by Dung Hung Nguyen to change the zoning designation of a single lot from P; Parking to R-2; Light Multiple Residential, located at 2739 Prospect Avenue. Mr. Johnson presented the Staff Report. This application is a request to amend the zoning map designation for 2739 Prospect Avenue. It proposes to change the zoning from the existing P; Parking zone to R-2; Light Multiple Residential. This change would allow development of a maximum one (1) single family residence. An initial study has been completed in accordance with state and local environmental regulations. This study found the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment, and staff recommended adopting a finding of Negative Declaration. Chapters 9185 and 9186 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets the procedures and requirements for zone changes and amendments. Zone changes are permitted whenever 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. Zone Change 98-205 has been proposed by the property owner to allow them to develop the site with a 2,495 sf, two- story single family residence with a three car garage. The site has historically been used for one single family home that was constructed in 1924. The original home was dilapidated and has recently been demolished by the property owner. This lot is part of Tract No. 5785 which subdivided the properties in this neighborhood into equally sized rectangular lots of 7,116 sf. The homes in this neighborhood block were constructed between 1921 and 1953, and are predominantly single family homes with 50% of the lots having two (2) homes on them. In 1985, the City Council adopted Ordinance 574 allowing any lawfully existing residential structure in the P zone to be added to or expanded to. "Phis request is to contract a new residence on a currently vacant lot requiring an amendment to the zoning map. The 988 sf house constructed in 1924 was recently demolished, and all that remains on the site is a concrete slab and some construction debris. The site is surrounded on both sides by single family homes that have been kept up over the years. Staff finds the site to be currently under utilized and this lot will not be converted to a parking lot use because the lot to the north abutting Garvey Avenue lots, has a home that has been recently refurbished. 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. The proposed home is larger than the existing homes on the area, however, the design meets all of the development standards for the R-2 zone. Staff does have a couple of design changes for the project relating to the overall size of the home. The architect for the project has been informed of this requested design revision, and he agrees to modify the plans. Staff therefore recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Zone Change 98-205; and recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 98-205, changing the zoning designation from P to R-2. It was ascertained that the applicant and his representative were in attendance for any concerns. Questions by the Commissioners to Staff: None. PC Minutes 06-01-98 Page 3 of 12 Chairman Ruiz opened the Public Hearing to those wishing to speak in favor of the project: John Yankosky, 11920 Suite A Gold Ring Road, Arcadia, stated that he was the applicant's agent and designer for the project. He stated that they were in agreement to all of the conditons of approval and that they agree with staffs request to reduce the size of the home to 2,500 sf conforming to the surrounding neighborhood. Public Hearing was opened to those wishing to speak in opposition of the project: None. There being no one wishing to address the Commission, Chairman Ruiz closed the Public Hearing. Discussion among the Commissioners: (MO) Motion by Commissioner Loi, seconded by Commissioner Breen to approve Zone Change 98-204. Vote resulted: YES: RUIZ, ORTIZ, LOI, BREEN NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: ALARCON Chairman Ruiz declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. ZONF CHANGE 9S-106 - 2736 Strathmore Avenue - A request by Kim Po Cheng to change the zoning designation of a single lot from P; Parking to R-2; Light Multiple Residential, located at 2739 Prospect Avenue. Mr. Lyons presented the Staff Report. This application is a request to amend the zoning map designation for 2736 Strathmore Avenue. It proposes to change the zoning from the existing P; Parking zone to R-2; Light Multiple Residential. This change would allow development of a maximum two (2) single family residences. An initial study has been completed in accordance with state and local environmental regulations. This study found the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment, and staff recommended adopting a finding of Negative Declaration. Chapters 9185 and 9186 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets the procedures and requirements for zone changes and amendments. Zone changes are permitted whenever 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. Zone Change 98-206 proposes to develop the subject site with two (2) single family homes. The front residence will be a 2,103 sf, two-story single family dwelling with a two car garage of 400 sf. The rear residence will be a 1,700 sf single family dwelling with a two car garage of 400 sf also. In 1985, the City Council adopted Ordinance 574 allowing any lawfully existing residential structure in the P zone to be added to or expanded to. This request is to construct a new residence on a currently vacant lot, and construction of a new home at this site requires an amendment to the zoning map. The site is surrounded on both sides by single family homes that have been kept up over the years. Staff finds the site to be currently under utilized and that this lot will not be converted to a parking lot use because the lot to the north abutting Garvey Avenue lots, has a residence. A zone change to the R-2 zone would encourage two (2) new single family homes within the City and would not have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. The property has been vacant and has been on the market for several years. This zone change will support the PC RESOLUTION 98-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 98-205, AMENDING ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM P;"PARKING" TO R-2; LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL" FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2739 PROSPECT AVENUE (APN: 5285-002-011). WHEREAS, Mr. Dung Hung Nguyen, representing Huyen T. Le, 11920 A Goldring Road, Arcadia, CA 91006, filed an application requesting a zone change from the P; "Parking" to R-2 "Light Multiple Residential" for property located at 2739 Prospect Avenue on December 10, 1997; 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 Medium Density Residential uses; and WHEREAS, Rosemead's official Zoning Map designates the site for P; "Parking" development which allows parking lots or the addition to existing residential uses. WHEREAS, Section 65860 of the California Government Code requires that zoning ordinances and zoning map be consistent with the adopted general plan; 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 April 30, 1998, 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 mitigated negative declaration was prepared; and WHEREAS, on May 4, 1998, notices were posted in 10 public locations and 41 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 June 1, 1998, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive testimony relative to Zone Change 98-205; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: Section 1. The Planning Commission HEREBY 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 hearing. This study found that the proposed project could not have a signigicant 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 R2 Zone will allow the property owner to construct a single family home on a currently vacant lot. Section 3. The Planning Commission FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES that Zone Change 98-205 is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan as follows: A. J and Use; The designation provided by Zone Change 98-205 allows 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 5 of the Land Use Element of the Rosemead General Plan and has been designated for medium residential uses. The area surrounding the site is general planned Commercial to the north and medium residential uses to the east, west and south. B. circulation; The site is located on Prospect Avenue. Prospect Avenue is classified as a local street in the General Plan. Adequate access is provided via Prospect Avenue. The existing circulation design would be maintained with no significant increase in traffic anticipated . C. Hottcina; 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 Manavement;. 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 Prospect Avenue. The proposed residence will not create any potential noise impacts. Section 4. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Zone Change 98-205, amending Rosemead Zoning map land use designation from P; "Parking" to R-2; "Light Multiple Residential" for property located at 2739 Prospect Avenue (APN: 5285-002-011) Section 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on June 1, 1998, by the following vote: YES: ORTIZ, BREEN, RUIZ, LOI NO: NONE ABSENT: ALARCON 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 15th day of June, 1998. Rud Ruiz, Chairman PC Resolution 98-20 Zone Change 98-205 Page 3 of 3 CERTIFICATION I, Jeffrey L. Stewart, Secretary of the Rosemead Planning Commission, 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 15th day of June, 1998, by the following vote: YES: ALARCON, ORTIZ, LOI, BREEN, RUIZ NO: NONE . ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ,/// d-fr y L. Stewart, Secretary i