CC - Item 2A - General Plan Amendment 97-01 and Zone Change 97-204 0400
° teport
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS OF
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
FROM: FRANK G. TRIPEPI , CITY MANAGER Z
DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 1997 ��YY
SUBJECT: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 97-01 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01
AND ZONE CHANGE 97-204)
A self-storage facility within the Southern California Edison
Right-of-Way at 8306 Garvey Avenue
INTRODUCTION
On August 26, 1997, the City Council held a public hearing relative to the subject item. After hearing/-
all
earing'all testimony, the City Council continued the item to the September 23 meeting to allow the applicant
time to address concerns brought up by Councilmembers and by nearby residents. A copy of the previous
staff report and the Planning Commission report, which provides a detailed analysis of the project are
attached for your review.
DISCUSSION
Since the public hearing, the applicant has met with several residents from the area. At that meeting he
discussed his proposed "buffer zone". The plans shown in Exhibit"B", and an attached letter, detail his
proposal. The new plan reduces the number of storage units by 70. The units nearest to the homes on
Charlotte, have been flipped, and cannot be accessed from the west side. This change allows for the
creation of an area that will be landscaped and not used by the public. Per Edison requirements a 16 foot
wide gravel access road will have to be maintained. This road will be used infrequently, and only by
Edison personnel and the on site manager.
At the request of Mayor Pro-Tem Bruesch, condition #12 has been added which requires a 8 ft. high
wrought iron fence along the south property line and a 8 ft. high gate at the south entrance. Conditions
#13 and #14 were added at the request of Councilmember Taylor. These two conditions declare that
storage containers at this site cannot be used by musical groups nor for the operation of a business, i.e. I
cabinet making, electrical repairs, etc.
-
COUNCIL AGENDA
SEP 231997
ITEM No. L- .ft.
As stated at the previous meeting, the applicant will be installing motion activated video cameras and
wall mounted light fixtures throughout the site. These light fixtures will be mounted with shields to
prevent glare from impacting the neighboring properties. To prevent glare onto homes, the applicant has
moved the lighting back, to an area 45 feet from the westerly property line and will direct the lighting
to the east, away from the homes. A lighting plan has already been submitted by the applicant. To
prevent excessive noise, staff has required that the storage container doors be installed with a rubber seal
to prevent metal to metal contact as the doors are shut.
Staff has attached numerous exhibits for your review and a letter from Southern California Edison,
expressing support for the project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1. ADOPT Resolution 97-38 APPROVING General Plan Amendment 97-01, AMENDING the
Rosemead General Plan designation from "Public Facilities" to"Commercial'; and
2. INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 780;
A. APPROVING Zone Change 97-204, amending the Rosemead Zoning designation from
C-3 and R-2 to PD Planned Development; and
B. APPROVING Planned Development 97-01, for a self-storage facility, subject to the
conditions listed in Exhibit "A".
3. Schedule Ordinance No. 780 for second reading at the next City Council meeting.
Attachments
SEP.L7. 1997 122PV EVEREST PROPERTIES PNO.292 P.2
EVEREST
199 S. Los ROELES AVENUE, SUITE 040• PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101
Tae (626) 585.5920 • FAx (626) 585.5929
September 17, 1997
Mr. Peter Lyons
Planning Director
City of Rosemead
8838 East Valley Blvd
Rosemead, CA 91770
Re: General Plan Amendment 97-01
Zone Change 97-294
Planned Development Review 97-11
8306 E. Garvey Avenue
Dear Mr. Lyons,
By now you have received the revised drawings from CCA Associates. As you know, we
revised the plan for our project at the behest of the City Council following our hearing on August
26,1997. At that time a few of the neighbors adjoining the project expressed some concerns on
various issues. The plan has been revised to address those concerns as best we can.
On September 8, 1997, I held a meeting at Zapopan Community Center. The purpose of
this meeting was to allow those in the neighborhood who has expressed concerns about the
original design to view the revised plans and offer their comments. Prior to the meeting 1 spoke
with Ms. Rosemary Gallagher, Mrs. DeLeon and Rachael DeLeon and personally asked them to
attend. I also asked them to invite any of the other neighbors who had an interest to attend with
them. Attending the meeting from the neighborhood were: Ms. Gallagher, Mrs. DeLeon and Ms.
DeLeon. Also attending the meeting were representatives from Edison.
The plan we have submitted to you reflects the following changes:
• The number of units has been reduced by 11% from 644 units to 574 units.
• The most westerly row of units have been reconfigured so that no doors face the
abutting homes to the west.
• An emergency access and landscape buffer along the western boundary replaces the
driveway which was in this area previously. This provides 25 feet of buffer in which
there is no building and in which there will be only minimal activity by Edison.
None of our tenants will have access to this area. The area will be blocked by four
emergency access gates. This 25 foot buffer zone combined with the 20 foot depth of
the storage units ensures that 45 feet will separate any storage activity on the interior
of the site from the westerly property line and adjoining uses.
SEP.17. 1997 1:22PM EVEREST PROPERTIES NO-392 P.3
• All drive access to the rear of the project will flow along the eastern boundary.
• Visibility to and from the interior of the project will be limited by both the design and
the landscaping.
• No lighting will be provided along the westerly 25 feet of the property. The closest
lighting will be 45 feet from the westerly property line and will shine to the east,
away from the homes.
These represent the critical changes to the site plan. We believe that these changes
should alleviate the concerns that the owners had expressed about the design of the facility. If
you or anyone else have any questions about any of these changes or any other aspect of the
design,please feel free to call me at any time.
Very ly yours,
Carl D. Beckmann
President
Everest Storage, LLC
RESOLUTION 97-38
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01, AMENDING THE
LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE
DESIGNATION FROM "PUBLIC FACILITIES" TO "COMMERCIAL", FOR
A 6.75 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 8306 GARVEY AVENUE, ROSEMEAD
(APNs: 5283-015-806, 5283-008-800, 801).
WHEREAS, Mr. Carl Beckmann, representing Everest Storage, 3280 E. Foothill Blvd.
#320, Pasadena, CA 91107, filed an application requesting an amendment to the general plan land
use designation for property located at 8306 Garvey Avenue.
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is part of a proposed Planned Development (PD
97-01) which has been designed to create a self storage facility with an office; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to promote commercial development; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment 97-01 would designate the subject property
"Commercial" allowing commercial types of uses; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 1997 an initial study for the proposed general plan amendment
was completed; and
WHEREAS, on June 12 and August 14, 1997, notices were posted in 10 public locations
and mailed 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 hearings pursuant to California
Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and
WHEREAS, on July 21, 1997, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive
testimony and voted to recommend City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No 97-01.;
and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 1997 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 97-44,
recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 97-01; and
WHEREAS, on August 26 and September 23, 1997, the City Council held a public
hearing to receive testimony relative to General Plan Amendment 97-01; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to make
the following determination.
Resolution No. 97-38
Planned Development 97-01 (ZC 97-204)
Page 2 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Rosemead
as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council HEREBY DLI ERMINES that a Mitigated Negative Declaration
shall be adopted. An initial study was completed to analyze potential environmental impacts
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and guidelines for implementation
of CEQA (Rosemead Resolution 75-28). This study found that there would be potential
environmental impacts that could be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The initial study and
associated mitigation measures for Planned Development 97-01 are attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 7. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that changing the
property's General Plan designation to "Commercial" (General Plan Amendment 97-01) is in the
interest of the public necessity and general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and
supports the proposed General Plan Amendment. The change to the "Commercial" designation
will provide a superior level of planning and protection to the quality and character of the area
where the development is proposed.
SECTION 3. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES General Plan Amendment No. 97-01,
amending the land use map of the general plan to change the designation from "Public Facilities"
to "Commercial" for property located at 8306 Garvey Avenue
(APN's: 5283-015-806, 5283-008-800, 801).
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1997.
JAY IMPERIAL, Mayor
ATTEST:
NANCY VALDERRAMA, City Clerk
Resolution No. 97-38
Planned Development 97-01 (ZC 97-204)
Page 3 of 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
I, Nancy Valderrama, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No.97-38 being:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01, AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP
OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM "PUBLIC
FACILITIES" TO "COMMERCIAL", FOR A 6.75 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT
8306 GARVEY AVENUE, ROSEMEAD (APNs: 5283-015-806, 5283-008-800,
801).
was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of
1997, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NANCY VALDERRAMA, City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 780
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 97-204, AMENDING
ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM "C-3;
MEDIUM COMMERCIAL" AND R-2; "LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL"
TO PD; "PLANNED DEVELOPMENT" AND APPROVING PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-01, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SELF
STORAGE FACILITY FOR A 6.75 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 8306
GARVEY AVENUE (APNs: 5283-015-806, 5283-008-800, 801).
WHRRFAS, Mr. Carl Beckmann, representing Everest Storage, 3280 E. Foothill Blvd.
#320, Pasadena, CA 91107, filed an application requesting a zone change from the C-3; "Medium
Commercial" and R-2 "Light Multiple Residential" to the PD; "Planned Development' zone for
property located at 8306 Garvey Avenue on February 6, 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, the Genera] Plan Amendment 97-01 would designate the subject property
"Commercial" allowing commercial types of development such as self storage facilities; and
WHEREAS,State Planning and Zoning Law, Title 7, Chapter 3, Article 8, plus Chapter
9120 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, authorize, and set standards for, the preparation of
specific plans (planned developments) governing the development of private property; and
WHEREAS, Sections 9185 and 9186 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the
Planning Commission to consider and recommend proposed planned developments and zone
changes to the City Council; and -
WHEREAS, Section 65454 of the California Government Code requires that specific plans
(planned developments) be consistent with the adopted general plan; and
WHEREAS, City Council policy encourages the preparation of these planned
developments because of the superior level of planning and protection they offer to the quality and
character of area where they are located; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 1997, an initial study for the draft ordinance was completed
finding that all potential environmental impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance; and
WHEREAS, on June 12 and August 14, 1997, notices were posted in 10 public locations
and mailed 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 hearings pursuant to California
Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and
Ordinance No. 780
Zone Change 97-204
Page 2 of 5
'WHEREAS, on July 21, 1997, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive
testimony and voted to recommend City Council approval of General Plan 97-01, Zone Change
97-204 and Planned Development 97-01; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 1997 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 97-44,
recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 97-01; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 1997 and September 23, 1997, the City Council held a
hearing to receive public testimony relative to General Plan 97-01, Zone Change 97-204 and
Planned Development 97-01; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to make
the following determination.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Rosemead
as follows:
Section I. Pursuant to the City of Rosemead's CEQA Procedures and State CEQA
Guidelines, it has been determined that the adoption of this ordinance will have potential
environmental impacts during the construction phase that can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. This conclusion is based upon the record, initial study and comments received
during the public review period. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared
according to CEQA. The City Council, having final approval authority over this project, has
reviewed and considered any comments received during the public review prior to the approval
of this project. Furthermore, the City Council has exercised its own independent judgement in
reaching the above conclusion. The City Council, therefore, approves the Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulation, Section 753.5(v)(1), the City Council has
determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed
project will have the potential for adverse effect on the wildlife resources or the habitat upon
which the wildlife depends. Furthermore, on the basis of substantial evidence, the City Council
hereby finds any presumption of adverse impact has been adequately rebutted. Therefore pursuant
to Fish and game Code Section 711.2 and Title XIV, California Code of Regulations, Section
735.5(a)(3), the City Council finds that the project has a de minimis impact and therefore the
payment of Fish and Game Department filing fees is not required in conjunction with this project.
Section 2. The City Council HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINFS AND DECLARFS that
placing the property in the Planned Development zone (Zone Change 97-204) is in the interest of
the public necessity and genera] welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the
Ordinance No. 780
Zone Change 97-204
Page 3 of 5
proposed zone change, in that the change to the Planned Development Zone will provide a
superior level of planning and protection to the quality and character of the area where the
development is proposed.
Section 3. The City Council FURTHER FINDS that Planned Development 97-01 meets
the City's goals and objectives as follows:
A. J.and Use; The designation provided by Zone Change 97-204 (Planned Development)
allows the same electrical utility lines that are existing to continue, plus allows for a mix
of land uses, including commercial uses. The site is located in Planning Area 6 of the
Land Use Element of the Rosemead General Plan and has been designated for Public
Facilities uses. This designation was created due to the existing Southern California
Edison Right of Way which contains overhead electrical transmission lines. The area
surrounding the site is general planned Commercial and Mixed Use;
Residential/Commercial to the west, Mixed Use; Industrial/Commercial and Medium
Density Residential to the east. The proposed use will be set back from the neighboring
homes a minimum of 25 feet and provide other means of buffering.
B. firenlation; The site is located on Garvey Avenue. Garvey Avenue is classified as a
major arterial in the General Plan. Adequate access is provided on Garvey Avenue. The
existing circulation design would be maintained with no significant increase in traffic
anticipated .
C. Housing; Although a portion of this site is currently zoned R-2; Light Multiple Residential,
the proposed use of this property as a self storage facility will not deplete available land
for housing. Because of the overhead electrical transmission lines throughout the right of
way, Southern Calif. Edison will not allow habitable structures to be constructed
underneath them.
D. Resource M naoement; The Edison right of way that traverses the entire length of the City
from north to south is one of the few open space areas with the City borders. However,
this site as well as most of the other Edison right of way sites throughout the City are
normally not made accessible to families for recreational uses. It is generally a private
business that locates beneath the power lines. In many cases this tenant is a wholesale
nursery. The applicant has provided extensive 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 office building fronts on Garvey Avenue. There is a parking area
in the front that is surrounded with landscaping. The proposed self storage facility has
been designed to contain the noise related uses within the property in order to reduce any
Ordinance No. 780
Zone Change 97-204
Page 4 of 5
potential noise impacts.
F. Public Safety; The Fire and Sheriff Departments have reviewed the proposed plans. The
driveway shall serve as a fire lane. The site has been designed to discourage crime and
loitering problems in the area through the use of fencing, walls, cameras, etc. The site is
not located in any special study zones. The entire City of Rosemead is free from any flood
hazard designations.
G. CEQA; The City staff has prepared an initial study pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This study has determined that the proposed zoning
amendments could have adverse impacts on certain aspects of the environment. However,
these impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Therefore, staff has prepared
and recommends adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Section 4. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES Zone Change 97-204, amending
Rosemead Zoning map land use designation from "C-3; Medium Commercial" and R-2; "Light
Multiple Residential" to PD; "Planned Development" AND APPROVING Planned Development 97-
01, for the development of a self storage facility located at 8306 Garvey Avenue (apns: 5283-015-
806, 5283-008-800, 801).
Section 5. If any section, subcertion, sentence, clause or word of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rosemead
HEREBY DECLARES that it would have passed and adopted this Ordinance, and each and all
provisions thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provisions may be declared
to be invalid.
Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1997.
JAY IMPERIAL, Mayor
ATTEST:
NANCY VALDERRAMA, City Clerk
Ordinance No. 780
Zone Change 97-204
Page 5 of 5
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. 780 being:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 97-204. AMENDING
ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM "C-3;
MEDIUM COMMERCIAL" AND R-2; "LIGHT MULTIPLE
RESIDENTIAL" TO PD; "PLANNED DEVELOPMENT" AND
APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-01, FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A SELF STORAGE FACILITY FOR A 6.75 ACRE
SITE LOCATED AT 8306 GARVEY AVENUE (APNs: 5283-015-806,
5283-008-800, 801).
was duly introduced and placed upon first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the
23rd day of September, 1997, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed
at a regular meeting of the City Council on the _ day of , 1997, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NANCY VALDERRAMA, City Clerk
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR •
AND MEMBERS OF
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
FROM: FRANK G. TRIPEPI , CITY MANAGER
DATE: AUGUST 26, 1997
SUBJECT: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 97-01 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01
AND ZONE CHANGE 97-204)
A self-storage facility within the Southern California Edison
Right-of-Way at 8306 Garvey Avenue
LNTRODUCTION
On July 21, 1997, the Planning Commission held a public hearing relative to the subject item. A copy
of the Plannine Commission report, which provides a detailed analysis of the project is attached for your
review. After hearing all testimony, the Commission voted 5-0 to recommend City Council approval of
the proposed planned development. There are 47 conditions, generally concerning maintenance, attached
to the self storage facility.
DISCUSSION
The proposal includes a General Plan Amendment from Public Facilities to Commercial and a Zone
Change from C-3; medium commercial and R-2; light multiple residential to PD; Planned Development.
The site is located on the south side of Garvey Avenue across from Zapopan Park and is currently vacant
aside from the power lines and towers.
A 742 square foot office building will be located at the front of the site, along with customer parking and
a large landscaped yard area. Staff finds that this will create a pleasant looking entrance to the
development and will blend nicely with existing commercial buildings along Garvey Avenue. Because the
west side of the project will be adjacent to a residential area, the architect has designed the facility to have
a 25-foot setback from this property line. The plan also calls for a new eight-foot high chain link fence
covered with redwood slats; along the project side of the fence trees will be planted every 30 feet.
•
COUNCIL AGENDA
AUG 261997
ITEM No. Z. A.
Regarding security, the applicant will be installing motion activated video cameras throughout the site
along with wall mounted light fixtures. These light fixtures will be mounted with shields to prevent glare
from impacting the neighboring properties. A lighting plan has already been submitted by the applicant.
To prevent excessive noise, staff has required that the storage container doors be installed with a rubber
seal to prevent metal to metal contact as the doors are shut.
In addition to the testimony presented by the applicants, one nearby resident did speak. Ms. De Leon at
2620 Charlotte, expressed concerns about the hours of operation, security, and the proposed landscaping.
The Planning Commission responded to those concerns by removing the proposed vines for the fence
along the west property line, and by postponing the hours of operations on weekends from 7:00am to
9:OOam. Also, the access to the site from Angelus Avenue will be secured with an 8 foot wrought iron
fence and gate with motion activated lights.
Staff has attached numerous exhibits for your review and a letter from Southern California Edison,
expressing support for the project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1. ADOPT Resolution 97-38 APPROVING General Plan Amendment 97-01, AMENDING the
Rosemead General Plan designation from "Public Facilities" to"Commercial"; and
2. INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 780;
A. APPROVING Zone Change 97-204, amending the Rosemead Zoning designation from
C-3 and R-2 to PD Planned Development; and
B. APPROVING Planned Development 97-01, for a self-storage facility, subject to the
conditions listed in Exhibit "A"_
3. Schedule Ordinate No. 780 for second reading at the next City Council meeting_
Attachments
STAFF REPORT -
Planning Commission
July 21, 1997
CASE NOS: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 97-01
- General Plan Amendment 97-01
- Zone Change 97-204
APPLICANT REQUEST: I) Change the General Plan designation from
Public Facilities to Commercial
2) Change the zoning designation from C3 and R2 to PD
3) Approve a Planned Development for a self-storage
facility.
LOCATION: 8306 E. Garvey Avenue-Southern Calif. Edison right of way
(APNs: 5283-015-806, 5283-008-800, 801)
APPLICANT: Carl Beckmann, Everest Storage
3280 E. Foothill Blvd. #320
Pasadena. CA 91107
OWNER: Southern California Edison
100 N. Long Beach BIvd.X1004
Long Beach, CA 90802
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE: 109 Notices were mailed to property owners within
300 feet of the subject property on 6-12-97.
EXHIBITS: A. Conditions of Approval F. Aerial Map
B. Site/Floor Plans G. Zoning Map
C. Simulated View H. General Plan Map
D. Container Detail I. Mitigated Negative Declaration (6-9-97)
E. Assessor's Map J. Applications, dated 2-6-97
J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Planned Development 97-01 would provide for the development of a self-storage facility located on
a 6.75 acre site owned by, Southern California Edison and used as a utility right of way. The site
has been designated for public facilities in the general plan which allows for the current use which
is overhead electrical lines supported by steel towers.
An initial study has been completed in accordance with state and local environmental regulations.
This study analyzed 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 hearing.
This study found that temporary impacts will occur during construction, and some minor impacts
could occur from the proposed use. There is a potential for this project to have an impact on the
neighboring residential neighborhood, however, by incorporating mitigation measures to address the
issues, there will not be a negative effect on the neighboring properties. All potential environmental
impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance, therefore a mitigated negative declaration has
been prepared.
ROSFMFAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PD 97-01/GPA 97-0I/ZC 97-204
Planning Commission 7/21/97
Page 2 of 4
II. CODE REOUIREMENT.S
A. General Plan; Section 65300 a seg of the California Government Code sets standards for each
city to prepare, adopt and amend a comprehensive general plan. The general plan sets long term
development goals and objectives. There are seven mandatory elements plus other elements are
allowed to address specific needs of the city.
Government Code Sections 65860, 66473.5 and 656474 require that the day-to-day development
decisions such as zoning, subdivision and building should be consistent with the general plan. A
general plan may be amended a maximum of four (4) times per year (Section 65358(b)).
B. Zone Change; 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.
C. Planned Development; Regulations for planned developments are contained in Sections 65450
er seq of the Government Code and Chapter 9120 of the Rosemead Municipal Code. A planned
development can be an effective tool for implementing the general plan policies and objectives.
Therefore, a planned development procedure is similar to that for the general plan except that it may
be revised as often as necessary.
Planned Development zones may be established to provide diversification in the location of structures
and other land uses while insuring compliance with the general plan and compatibility with existing
and future developments in surrounding areas. The plan is required to include text and diagram(s)
specifying, in detail, the proposed development.
One required finding is for the project to be consistent with the applicable general plan, zoning map
and any specific plan. Staff finds that this finding cannot be made until the City Council takes action
on the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change portions of this project.
III. PROPERTY HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION
A. BackJound; This site consists of four (4) parcels totaling 293,813 square feet (approximately
6.75 acres). There are no structures on the site other than the existing towers that support the
overhead cable lines. The site has historically been leased by tenants that operate wholesale nursery
businesses.
All of the subject parcels are owned by Southern California Edison (Edison) and the applicant has
secured a long term lease (35 years), with Edison. This proposal is unique from other self storage
facilities because the applicant is proposing to use individual steel containers, placed side by side,
rather than constructing framed structures. These containers are similar to shipping containers that
are loaded onto trucks for mobility.
The proposal is to develop the site with 105,000 square feet of self storage containers and a 742
square foot office building. The project would be phased in two periods:
Phase I - This would include the construction of the office structure, a parking lat
and the placement of 293 storage containers (41,400 sq. ft.).
Phase 2 - Placement of the remaining 351 containers (approximately 63,840 sq. ft.).
Edison prefers that no permanent structures be placed on their right of way. However, building
codes require that the storage containers be bolted to a permanent foundation for stability in the case
of seismic activity. By placing these containers side by side and bolting them to a foundation they
will visually create eight long steel structures.
B. I and Use; The site is designated in the general plan for Public Facilities, and on the zoning map
PD 97-01/GPA 97-01/ZC 97-204
Planning Commission 7/21/97
Page 3 of 4
it is split between two different zoning designations. The front portion is designated for C-3;
Medium Commercial development (along Garvey) and the rear portion for R-2; Light Multiple
Residential development. The site is surrounded by the following land uses:
North: (across Garvey Ave)
General Plan: Public Facilities
Zoning: C-3; Medium Commercial
Land Use: City Park; Edison Right of Way
South:
General Plan: Public Facilities
Zoning: R-2; Light Multiple-Family Residential
Land Use: Wholesale Nursery, Edison overhead power lines
East:
General Plan: Mixed Use; Industrial/Commercial & Medium Density Residential
Zoning: M-1; Light Manufacturing & Industrial & R-2; Light Multiple
Residential
Land Use: 98 cent store, Chief Auto Parts, and City of Monterey Park Water
Pumping Station
West:
General Plan: Commercial
Zoning: R-2; Light Multiple Residential
Land Use: Single Family Residential
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS
A. Cirru]ation Parking The main entrance onto the site is located at the front of the lot on Garvey
Avenue. The proposed drive approach is 28 feet wide which is adequate for two way traffic. The
driveway will give access to the office parking lot area which provides 11 parking stalls. There is
a second access point to the site off of Angeles Avenue that will have an eight foot high security
gate. However, this opening will be locked at all times and will only serve as a service entrance for
Edison to access their equipment.
Between the customer parking lot and the storage units will also be an eight foot high sliding security
gate which will be operated by a numeric pad activation system. All drive aisles between the units
will be a minimum of 25 feet which is sufficient for circulation and parking. Parking within the
project is provided within the aisle ways in front of the individual units. This is the typical scenario
for this type of business because vehicles will pull up to the door of the units to unload the items to
be stored.
B. J-and 1 se; The existing general plan designation for this site is "Public Facilities". Rosemead's
zoning map designates the site as split between commercial and medium density residential use.
Therefore, the general plan land use designation for this site is inconsistent with the zoning map.
State law requires the zoning map to be consistent with the general plan map. The general plan map
provides the prevailing land use designation in the case of a conflict.
Lots located along Garvey Avenue to the west of this site are zoned C-3 and are used as commercial
businesses along Garvey. The west side of the site is also adjacent to an existing residential
neighborhood (along Charlotte Ave.) that is zoned R-2; Light Multiple Residential and has a general
plan designation of commercial and mixed use: residential/commercial.
The properties to the east are zoned M-1; Light manufacturing and Industrial and are a mix of
commercial and industrial uses. A water pumping station owned by the City of Monterey Park is
PD 97-01/GPA 97-0I/ZC 97-204
Planning Commission 7/21/97
Page 4 of 4
situated adjacent to the property behind businesses located on Garvey.
C. Aesthetics; There is a 742 square foot office building proposed to be located at the front of the
site for business operations. The office will be a permanent structure with beige stuccoed walls and
a blue metal roof. The office will also have a glass storefront system in the front that wraps around
both sides. Staff finds that this will create a pleasant entrance to the development and will blend
nicely with existing commercial buildings along Garvey Avenue. The architect has also placed eight
foot high decorative block walls as well as extensive landscaping to block the view of the containers
from Garvey Avenue.
Because the west side of the project will be adjacent to single family homes, the architect has
designed the facility to have a 25 foot setback from this property line. In addition, the plan provides
a new eight foot high chain link fence covered with slats of wood or plastic and vines to drape down
along this fence line with trees spaced every 30 feet. Staff finds that these mitigation measures will
reduce the potential for graffiti and lessen any potential negative impacts to the adjacent
neighborhood.
D. Safety; Wall mounted light fixtures will be secured to the exterior of the storage units. These
fixtures will be equipped with shields to prevent glare from the lights onto neighboring properties.
The applicant will be installing motion activated video cameras throughout the site to record any
suspicious activities that may occur. A condition has been added that the tapes from these cameras
will be kept for a minimum of thirty (30) days.
V. FINDINGS
A. fienetal Plan; By changing the General Plan designation of this site from "Public Facilities" to
"Commercial" the site will have a similar designation as the rest of the properties that line Garvey
Avenue. The areas adjacent to Garvey Avenue throughout the City are used as commercial as well
as industrial businesses. These areas are intended for more intense traffic and serve a subregional
market.
B. lone Change; Staff feels that this project meets the findings of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices. A self storage facility within the City would provide
residents and neighboring communities with a safe, affordable location to store belongings that
exceed the capacity of their properties. This location is located adjacent to a commercially zoned
section of town and is already partially zoned for commercial development.
C. Planned DeyelopmenG The PD zone will be consistent with the new general plan designation of
"commercial", if the City Council approves such changes and amendments to the general plan and
zoning map -
VI. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
I) Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planned Development 97-01, including
Case Nos: GPA 97-01 and ZC 97-204; and
2) Recommend City Council approval of f;rneral Plan Amendment (GPA) 97-01,
changing the land use designation from Public Facilities to Commercial; and
3) Make the findings required under Section 9185 of the Rosemead Municipal Code in
order to recommend City Council approval of lone. Change (70 97-204, changing
the zoning designation from C-3 and R-2 to PD; and
4) Make the findings required under Section 9120.4 of the Rosemead Municipal Code
in order to recommend City Council approval of Planned Development (PD)97-01,
for a self storage development.
Draft Conditions of Approval are attached for the Commission's review.
EXHIBIT "A"
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 97-01
8306 E. Garvey Avenue
(Everest Self-Storage)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
September 23. 1997
1. Prior to issuance of building permits, any revisions to the approved plans must be
resubmitted for review and approval by the Planning Department.
2. Approval shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant has filed with the City of
Rosemead an affidavit stating that he/she is aware of and accepts all of the conditions set
forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions.
3. The applicant shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws relative to the approved
use including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff and Health
Departments.
4. The property shall be developed in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit "B" except
where otherwise noted. Any modification shall require Planning Department approval
5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, all fees payable under State Law shall be paid.
6. Vehicles to be stored in designated areas only. Such vehicles may not be located in the
required off-street parking or landscape areas nor on any sidewalk, parkway, street or
alley.
7. All storage containers shall be painted a uniform, neutral color and shall be re-painted as
needed.
8. Containers shall be used for storage of non-living items only and no portion of the site
shall used as habitable living space.
9. A 8 foot chain link fence, covered with redwood slats (as approved by the Director of
Planning) shall be installed on the westerly property line. A small leaf plant, acceptable
to the neighbors shall be planted at the base of the chain link fence.
10. The storage containers shall be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the west property
line.
11. The container doors shall have installed a rubber seal to prevent the metal to metal
contact of the doors as they are shut.
12. A 8'- high wrought iron fence and gate shall be installed along the south property line and
the south service entrance.
13. At no time shall anyone or group be allowed to play a musical instrument within the
property or within a storage container.
14. Containers shall not be used for any type of business operations whatsoever.
15. The service entrance off of Angelus Avenue shall remain locked at all times and shall be
used as a service entrance only for Southern California Edison employees.
16. The applicant shall install light fixtures with shields and bulbs that do not allow light to
flow onto neighboring properties.
17. Motion activated video cameras shall be installed throughout the site and all tapes from
said cameras shall be kept for a minimum of thirty (30) days.
18. The Facility shall be screened by view of public right of ways with appropriate
landscaping elements and concrete block walls, subject to the approval of the Planning
Director.
19. All waste materials shall be handled and disposed of in accordance with local, state, and
federal laws and policies. No waste material shall be washed or poured into any public
alley, street, storm drain, or sewer at any time.
20. The applicant shall prepare and maintain a Water Quality Management Plan in
accordance with Chapter 7, Article 5 (Sanitation & Health Code, RMC) pursuant to the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program, subject to
the review of the City Building Official.
18. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday - Saturday. No
construction shall take place on Sundays or on any legal holidays without prior approval
by the City. Pursuant to Section 4310 m of the Rosemead Municipal Code.
19. Planning staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to
monitor progress.
20. The hours of operation shall be posted in the front window or door. Hours of operation
shall be limited to the hours of: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday.
21. All trash, rubbish and garbage receptacles shall be regularly cleaned, and inspected and
maintained in a clean, safe and sanitary condition.
22. No portion of any required front and/or side yards shall be used for storage of any type.
23. The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed and litter free state in accordance with
Section 5401-5405 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, which pertains to the storage,
accumulation, collection, and disposal of garbage, rubbish, trash, and debris. All trash
containers shall be stored in the appropriate trash enclosure at all times. Any new litter
and graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours.
24. All roof top appurtenances and equipment shall adequately be screened from view to the
satisfaction of the Planning Department.
25. Driveways and parking areas shall be surfaced and improved with Portland concrete
cement or asphaltic concrete, and thereafter maintained in good serviceable condition.
26. The property shall be graded to drain to the street, but in no case shall such drainage be
allowed to sheet flow across public sidewalk. A grading and/or drainage plan shall be
prepared, submitted to and approved by the Building Official, and such grading and
drainage shall take place in accordance with such approved plan.
27. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least 6" tall with a minimum character width
of 1/4", contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street. The
location, color and size of such sign shall be subject to the approval of the Planning
Director.
28. Applicant shall obtain a public works permit for all work in or adjacent to the public
right-of-way.
29. Applicant shall install and complete all necessary public improvements, including but not
limited to street, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, handicap ramps, and storm drains, along the
entire street frontage of the development site as required by the Director of Planning.
30. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Planning Department shall review and approve
all electric underground utility transformer locations for compatibility with the site
design. All portions of the transformers that are above ground shall be adequately
screened with landscaping and/or screen walls. Landscaping shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department.
31. All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, backflow preservation
devices, fire valves and other equipment) shall be screened by screening walls and/or
landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Department.
32. All new utilities shall be placed underground inrhtding facilities and wires for the supply
and distribution of electrical energy, telephone, cable television etc. The underground
conversion of these utilities shall consider all future connections to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning.
33. Prior to issuance of Building permits, a landscaping plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for review. It shall include an irrigation plan with automatic timers
and moisture sensors. Fifteen (15) percent of the landscape area shall be planted with
15-gallon trees.
34. A permanent maintenance program of all landscaping shall be provided insuring regular
irrigation, fertilization and weed abatement.
35. The applicant shall install approved street trees in a location chosen by and to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Department.
36. No trees shall be removed other than those shown on the approved plans.
37. Landscape materials and irrigation systems are to be inspected by a City representative
prior to final release of utilities.
38. NO OCCUPANCY will be granted until ALL IMPROVEMENTS required by this
approval have been completed, inspected, and approved by the appropriate department(s).
39. No finals will be given until all as-built site improvement plans have been submitted to
the Building Department.
40. All requirements of the Building and Safety Department and Planning Department shall
be complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction.
41. The project shall comply with the conditions set forth in the City Engineer's Report dated
July 7. 1997 , and the Fire Department's recommendation dated June 18 1997. These
conditions shall be completed to the City Engineer's satisfaction prior to occupancy.
42. All conditions of Case No(s): PD 97-01 GPA 97-01 and 7C' 97-204 must be complied
with to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, prior to final approval of associated
maps, building permits, occupancy permits, or any other appropriate request.
43. The conditions listed on this Exhibit shall be copied directly onto development plans
submitted to the Planning and Building Departments for review.
44. The property shall be kept cleared of weeds, debris and abandoned vehicles, and
maintained pursuant to the County Fire and Health codes until it is developed. All trash
shall be contained in dumpsters and removed on an as-needed basis. No trash shall be
visible from outside the dumpster. Surplus construction materials shall be stored so as to
be screened from public view when not actually in use.
45. A 6'-high fence, composed of chain link or other approved material, shall totally enclose
the perimeter of the property when vacant, under construction, or under demolition, and
said fence shall remain until Occupancy is granted.
46. All environmental mitigation measures adopted in connection with the following
applications shall be incorporated.
47. Violation of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of
revocation proceedings.
�I �5 0��. Y 1 9l i. ,ry
c , r J JJ,v .. e1 I ®bo :r.i...: a se ''..'.'-1.,_N 1
J - I 'I J .^I .I I.' � > .I rn.l rs _ .r iii < .n.. E \ -
5^-Ets
< -4t `liZ. ,JvO t 32 It e2 J fT $$ e]`-LE m ` ,.r
04 Z
;CFRVEY r AVE. E_ cc 4 1 E GARVEY e
Ttlr
Ilt
u SITE � yn1;N E O Q . c
,I r y :If 4 —W
I: A,
U vll : Jt a n
--
w .I i IF y
n Vc' s ; , � 9c N
L
F Y
nJ
.. v V s. : o I �P jLJT
it
Ka
{o
w
am -IC-171:7
'� , !\
c
E
v
o _ r 1
\
,5 c1
r b
L-;`;'-‘--r- _ , 7,----r- - E FERN AVE.Q I-
E \\
- ,r
�\ k \
o
r, ---.0l `Gb GZ XQ 1 ,
E ' � rIstira
>
‘E."<, V" ' �, - Nim T
el
'
`9 pp
b
i ,1 2 Cc S -I -_rotic 0 :111 �I 1. l Ii
<
iSRd
-uvurvrm I1r, Ir
`C. �' e i �fi •-sem3#.Y>F,t_. `sn•. •. .vyaM+r- i1/4 . Tses . 3�'. d f_n-.v 1. t
; --.=_ G\r.\ r �� t tr n <
.r x �.....-w -
' s n
g(aX -.0I *
•
tkC
qW t �` iy $13"- teT - 'L �` trov.:, *jk
•
/c t C a f : Ni .i. L ga
oak
?req' ' _ i.s •, tk
.?a r t o t }7 i1SC•(_ =' � t
i ' 1 , 3t max. _
414
t '"T
jib
3 1` moi' �� ti4.nt}s *--- trt _-t} tea` J
it du .-1-a.-0.5� T - 0t
Y yY- a. `i Far `' :h {-r \'-'-:-}
-} Ss >4tc. 44-
f� Y YrrF T / .
!+f F , T _ r`
t-= t -k:.+++F._: $2 i L 3' t RLE a � i i'-
• ' q�'- - g�r iY -i- t - K r i. '.ons
a t t.-.--;,.....sc.., 5 t .."X :
..,........,q-...4,3,:s 1,.,„ - -.._ :;, §, i . e- `ra y -a.-Z-1.,„ >;
his _. .,...,„... --:__-.„_-.±-
_;.y -wi ,;z r.. a•,._ � � s..ar. -.h„.,.me g _+c`..
1,---- ..v,-,..,.......;-----.-- - arc '-cam- ° - '2 i. •m �
41041,1411 '
'].`_.- 2` y,F1 3 � s. . $ `c.i t � b s�
i
1_ 31. Tit
sa a kdt'=may.. t t . .y”
>
..a-• ' s'
f > : � ` 1 ti
atmos 4 .. FF�a- -;4 .r P F i rr
a ,s
Y i
•P_ {c kmsi a .
-
•
-
� '. T
:1 Y Yg'- .5 • S 4:7 �r ,' . }• -'6V +yam
j 3 'fes _
t:fr
�ge� �."x ?$ R y, .sC't,. aaJ Ek i f : w
•' `fir • :-5421 it lb: ;:-$:€-,:;,-. 1-1,9-:-74:.2:-;; - .7
:-$: ��" - .5 . -•:L'
� . f- a -t-..•.. .. .
�M • • P; ':'1/4'.44.9-,:t. .rte L : TTyy.. a--w 4,;t-:.t.,-..-"44;7=i:
��$ x�
_ %...,...:,...- .,c s..,. I^I-.r -l; I 3 i I'.:". l I .�. _— j i l 1
i I -I , - 1 �l ✓ �j O R31
em I
1 PL 3210 i f o ; / ,"L
Q Q wN TrAOR
r •10 t n
�s k J1 E -r)• I LI Ir`Twr \ TAri1. x �xr oirtors l� w�
..• ^^x ✓ O � .
Ltar
x:74, � '� f� , Z ¢ _V[ l
rf 17 3rn0 ✓,- t�� C� �', � tr � 3000, 1 _
f I .0 ,,,I,,,.„ w._ W �. „ywx. n
-tl �rii r - 1lL
1
C3 P' 1 — P Ylf1 a >
++ _ �'�2 IIS i 1 H - 1
1. _,_J J n '•�'
; .,� �_ - �_�3 �.•A •, L.I [ r._im iii ioiftAi Gnuli;xNJ lnq lxfyl
C3
�—� ! t 3 .'� �U;1I , ' I i �I
16b0 / RN 2600, R2 L
G ' AJ g� 7 �� -� � .
��� � \-2 R . R2
? I Et `Ck3 i� A A\ < 1 __zk
Lt, C3 re'-..! 1 J, 1 1
T�-,[ I
� / L. i. _jiKL{ 3ERMAi1 . ,51.. 2 Q . � �rr
.o b '� r CO�`..iTAh",kskri n C, io t\\ I, KLItqC3ERflA
�---tr �� zip 7 1,Tj °I,w ' >\
4.
/ 1 _Y�ti ` =J rc} •, ! ^kpry C \\w^im(¢ul ur-.lxml m� n+uu.ln ieuw»innuuwrnmlvn mv:
V
V < I C3
t IIRi J ;%� �
a
b �� FI El ry E uc \ %m o
SOT• I C3� R3
PS P<DE `,� . g,,,� J�FiLL� � �S : \\,, -,iOD; ,a
__I_4_4,
_ � w
QOM %� R3 �z �I A
0` t I iA® R 1
��<<
dial HJ€ In', ROsr� -�!_ -.--: -•
1 >
EXHIBIT ItGII
Low Densly R.LLJ.ntlal
4444,
L.4-ib,'n DanaitY Rasldamlel
rH0M1 Dwly Rsa Wantlel
i
4UsaC Uw: Rsa Wai:41/Go^rnarclal
II III I DricsiLigt Inaut nal --- &.
{.
C4- p
I\1t� Mixed Use_ LIp" In^ue tr lelJCommerclel
• Crxisrvr_laI 4�r
Y'vblio Fa ollL4e �
r.
✓,. -
-RM. rM
l --` \
_ yel
,L _rte rrL_ - �� /lr
[1 A.
4
�y �rl
> � Iz1
/ l
_/ - /t �capr�
ti
� ' 1' ' I
4 I t� /Y
> > 1
_f =E Cr
FIGURE LU-6
Land Use Policy
Planning Area 6
City of Rosemead
General Plan
Vic? SFL s� Sso012„ 7 S
EXHIBIT "H"
Planning Area 6: Land Use Policy
Low densioy residential uses occupy the ralDriry o: Jan: in this
oJanni area residential
is :orated south o: one Sart 3ernard!no Freeway
.-reewap
n- il o; Garvey Avenue and east o'- Sari Gabriel Bo_levard.
Toe Land � ._Tent doliCies designatelow density
residential
__ velo? en: for the = _a south of one [reg .o
'ay Hellman and 3rton
-vemnues and :,._n south 0 re rornme_rl`, .
=_nd rn:x -_ overlay
:oClin‘fry _yen - o nign density housing
ftS _ L2,e:lztan to Ga Avenues to g IF _ Grove CINJOeS the :.,aan:: Thet.Uth '
dens.`. _a_. N -um - - r - -
_1 Ga hes
n
-var _d .= n' by Ed so Rig^e- ti'
ay Tne
Jo DrtrtiOta - - c designatedD SGL".al
reratit Ir G25 _Jnn ..
J. _. edo- _ ng
C - c . pi:
trifling
J nrrnc
�. :-le:r iro aC' .vy .D 2 ann. R
area's bo San G-Jr 30" .a and ..a y_ ' AvenLe.
d rn:a: uses ate Ln- tee= to one area SJ170J2.2.7irs. the Sall
cuaJ C 1 s .ion. I t .ndustrialmixed
. E Cextends e - use/
-oh-ll ay to the
t.. . boJ a =n n c... -_ .. __o.. __ indos r :ciC
% o merrla.'.
:Jr ... on SanGadrissi r ou between deLrnan. Avenue
Street.
- / -. 22155
•
ENVIRO7v WNTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Rosemead
1. Project Title: Planned Development 97-11
General Plan Amendment 97-Di
Zone Change 97-204
•
I. PdtO7FCTt'\'FnunaaTIQN
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rosemead Planning
Department
8838 E. Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, California 91770
_. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brad Johnson, Associate Planner
(818) 288-6671
4. Project Location: 8305 Ganey Avenue
County of Los Angeles, State of California
Assessor Parcel Number(s): ;^ae_n^p_RDf ant pnc gnri
S. Applicant's Name and Address: Car] Beckman / Everest Storage
3:80 E. Foothill 3ivd. 5'20
Pasadena, CA 91107
General Plan Designation: Penlir >_,n'li,;=s 7 Zoning Designation t'-, P-3
Description of Project: See Arriatomani.4(I)for more do:ciL.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Garvey Avenue is a major a lend] street. Properties located to the
west of the She are zoned C-3 along Garvey (used for commercial businesses) and R-2 behind Garvey Avenue (used
as single family homes). All of the sites to the east are zoned M-1 along Ga.-vev (used as commercial and light
indusia businesses) and R-2 behind Garvey (used as a water-Dumping station. owned by the City of Monterey
Park).
10. Other Public Agencies whose approval is required: N/A
II. E TRONAl-P TAT_F4('TORS PfITFNTT4TI F 4FFFCTF10
The environmental factors checked below would be poteniaily affected by the Droiect, invoh'ine at]'rst one impact
Mai is a 'Potentially Significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following Pages:
rt_ Land Use/Planta a _ Transportation./Circulation
Public Seri cgs
Population and Housing Biological Resources
Systems - Utilities and Service
- Geologic Problems - Enerso- and Mineral Resources k
Aesthetics
- Water - Hazards
Cultural Resources
- Air Quality - Noise
Recreation
- Mandatory Findings of Significance
]nitixl�n'�i.oz,aai Snot r xrrrrr`rm (rum
•
•
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless lass Than
S_cnificant Mitigation Significant
impact Incorporated Impact L-r
LII. DPTFRMIN ATIQN
(To be completed by the I fid Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation (check statement that best applies):
I rind that the proposes 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 sioniricant effect on the environment,
there will not be 2 significant effect in this case because the MITIGATION MEASURES described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I ;_r that the proposed project MAY have a significant effector, the environment, and an
-
NVIRON EAL IMPACT REPORT is recuired.
NT
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one effect; I) has been adequately anaivzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards. and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier aralvsis zs described
. on attached sheath, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or 'potentially significant unless
mid_ated". AN ENVIRONMENTALL IMPACT
effects that reCT REPORT is but must analyze only the
m uric to be addressed.
I find fflat although the proposed Project COULD have 2 sigrifcant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a signi,ic fit effect in this case because ail potentially significant effects;
I.) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ElR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EPR, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the project.
SigT'IYre t
Dai
Bran Tnhrmn
Cae,d
Printed Name
For
•
•
Pomni ally
Significant
Poicntislly Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant Nc
Impact inco.pasted impact ]mo
IV. ISSTFS (ANT) SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOTiRf FC).
A. LAND USE A^D PLANND G. Would the proposal:
2) Conflict with general plan designation
or zoning? - - -- --3
b) Conflict with applicable environmental
plans or policies adopted by agencies
with ju.—sdiction over the project?
cl Be incompatible with existing land use
in the vicinity?
X
d) Affect agnitultural resources Or operations
(sr e. i
mzas to soils or farmlands, or
impacts ::LOM incompatible lard uses)?
(i) Disi upt or divide the physical ass andement
of an established community (including a -- — - X
low-income or minority community)?
B. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a)
Cumulatively exceed official regional
or local population projections?
c) Induce substantial growth in an area _
either directly or indirectly (e.g. through
projects in an undeveloped area or extension
of major infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing? — —X_
C. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. Would the propos
result In, or expose people_ to potential
impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
— X
b) Seismic ground shaidng?
— — X
c) Seismic mound failure including liquefaction?
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic h-z-d?
— — X
e) i andslides or mudfows?
) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable
soil condi:ions from excavation, grading,
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unloss Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant Nc
Innact lnec;a rated jmpeq lino
or fell?
g) Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils?
I) Unique geologic or physical features?
D. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage
parte,-res, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff?
h) Exposure of people or property to wales
related ha arils such as flooding? — --�
c) Discharge into surface waters or other _
aluera_ior of surface water quality —
(e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
tnrbicir-)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water _
in any water body? X
e) Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements? k
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through d=irect additions or withdrawals.
or through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations or through substantial loss
of groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater
h) Impacts to groundwa quality?
I) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for — X
public water supplies? (source r(s)
E. Am QUALM'. Would the proposal:
a) Violate ane air quality standard or conribute
— — X
to an e sting or projected air quality
violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
e) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
initial nei.,a,•ai a.a.. _
Potentially
Significant
Pmeniially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Sicnifrant
Impact Im
p - incorporated Impact Im;
or cause any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors? .
F. IiAANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or taffic congestion?
h) Ha>ards to safety from design features
(e.a. sharp curves or dangerous intersections,
DT incompatible uses like `arm equipment?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? --
Insufficient paii.:ing capacity on-site o
X
off-site?
Herds or barriers for pedestrians Or
bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
X
alter.alive transpomation (erg_ bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
a) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
G. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered threatened or rare species or
their habits (including but not limited to
plana, fish, insects, animals, and birds?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
irees)? X
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e.E. gal: forest, coastal habitat, BIC.) —
c) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? — — X
e) Wildlife. dispersal o. migration corridors?
H. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
ul Conflict with adopted energy consenation
plane? X
h) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful
and insufficient manner? X
!nidal
Environmental Srur.•
Pot chi is I lc
Sicnifcanl
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Sicnif cant N,
Immo incorporated Impact 7mt
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
•
mineral resource that would be of future
value to the region and the residents of
the State?
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of —
harardous substances (including, but not
limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency _X_
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The crea[ion of any Health hazard or potential
he,lth ie-,d? -- X
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of X
potential health h-zr-d?
Increased re hazard in areas with flammable
brush, mass, or trees? -- — — X
J. NOISE. Wound the proposal-resultin:
a)
increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
K. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
Limed government services in any of the
following areas?
a) Fire Prote.c:ion?
X_ _
5) Police Protection?
— X
c) Schools?
X
dl Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? _ -- --
e) Other governmental services?
— — X
L. IIllLIII S AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to the following
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communication Svstems7
]nidal En iro:unen'a! Sturiv
Potcn:iallr
Significant
Poicnlially Unless Less Then
Significant Mitication Sicnifcant No
Impact inco:pomlcd jmpacl Imnac'
c) Local or regional water treatment or X
distribution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
•
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid Waste disposal?
— X
�) Local or redonal water supplies? _ X
M. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect 2 scenic visa or scenic hi enwzy?
Have a demonstrable ne_atve aesthetic
effect?
ci Create Tient or glare? _ y-
N. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)
Disturb paleontological resources?
) Disturb archaeoloeicai resources? X
c) Affect historical resources?
— — X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical
change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values?
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses _
within the potential impact area? k
0. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a
Increase the demand for neighborhood
`egional parks or other recreational facilities?
c) Affect existing recreational opponuni:ies? X
initizl=mirntmcnal Slush,
•
•
V. INT&ND&TO •y FTNT1IIvGS OF ST(:NiFi(`gNIT
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potentia] to
achieve sho;-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are
.ndieidua]]y limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the increment] effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, 2nd
the effects of probable future projects)
d) Does the project have environmental effects -- _
which will cause substantia/ adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Liitial cntvon�=nle1 Stud)'
PI. • • I'•
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or mon
effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration, Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this
case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identity earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
5) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with ?Mitigation
Incof grated", describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
'artier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Lnit 1En\10rannr Sal+, _
ATTACHMENT A
Environmental Evaluation
CreaehaLElaa_Amendinents2=ca
Zone Change 97-204
I INTRODUCTION
•
.A. SCOPE AND L\TENT: An application has been submitted requesting to change the general plan and zon.
designation of 8306 E. Garvey Avenue. The purpose of this change is to allow for the development of a self
storage facility with an office building.
B. SITE DESCRIPTION: Rosemead is an urban suburb located in the San Gabriel Valley, 10 miles east of ti
City of Los Angeles. It is bounded on the no.h by the cities of Temple City and San Gabriel, on the west by Sou
San Gabriel .on the south by Montebello, plus by El Monte and South El Monte on the east. The City is 5.5 squat
miles or 2.34 acres in size. Rosemead is home to a resident population of approximately 55,00 people.
Two major freeways provide east/west circulation to and from the City. Route 60 is located at the southern border
and Interstate 1D bisects the City.
The predominant land use is residential. Commercial and industrial land uses line major streets with most lot depth
of less than 2010 wit Residential uses are located immediately adjacent to the commercial and industrial uses. The
proposed site is a targe, inegular shaped lot (6.75 acres) that is owned by Southern California Fnison and is used a:
a P.ght of way for ties cal transmission towers and lines.
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to develop a self storage facility on a vacant Souther-
California Edison right of way. The facility would provide customers with storage spaces of vart•ing size for
personal belongings, with a small pe-centage of storage aeaiable for recreational vehicles. The proposal is to use
large metal containers -placed side by side. The applicant securing a long term lease with Edison for
approximately 35 v'xs.
To accommodate such a tae lity the general plan and the zoning designation of the site would need to be changed.
Current, the site is split between two zoning designations, C3; Medium Commercial and R2; Light Multiple
Residential. These zoning designations do not allow for the type of development that is proposed. The general
plan designation would need to be changed from Public Facilities to Commercial. The zoning designation would be
changed from C-3 (,'Tont portion) and R2 (rear porion) to Planned Development (PD). The PD zoning designation
would allow development of a variety of different uses, including a self storage facility.
The proposed project would develop the site with 105,0)3 square feet of self storage containers and a 742 square
foot office building. The project would be phased in two periods. Phase one would include the construction of the
office slams^^ire, a parting lot and the placement of 293 storage containers (41,4)0 square feet of storage area).
Phase Two would include the placement of the remaining 351 containers (approximately 63,840 square feet).
II. Enalia -mFNT4T PvliP4CT5
A. Land Use and Planning. The she at 6306 Garvey Avenue is located in Planning Area 7 of the land Use
?Olin' of the Rosemead General Plan. This area has been designated for Public Facilities land use. This
designation was created as a Lope that allows public facilities such as power lines, mmnsformers, etc. to exist. The
plan notes the importance of Garvey Avenue as a major commercial corridor.
The subject site is split between two different zoning designations. The front portion fronting on Garvey Avenue is
zoned C-3; Medium Commercial and the rear ponion of the site fails under the R-2; Light Multiple Residential
zoning designation. Lots located along Garvey Avenue to the west of this she are also zoned C-3 and are used as
commercial businesses. However, the lots to the east are zoned M-1; Light Manufacturing and Industrial and are
used as a mix of commercial and industrial uses. Behind the properties to the west on Garvey there are residential
lou that are zoned R-2; Light Multiple Residenjal (1 unit/4,5)) so. feet) and contain single family homes. This
area is classified in the general plan as Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial.
lviiial Ernironmatal Sway
Cost No. PD$7-7 P 7.0 e; one: one 07 g _ agP tn,.nv
B. Population and Housing. This site has been used in the past as a wholesale nursery, however, it is current]
vacant land. The proposal will not affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing.
C. Geological Problems. There are no }mown geologic hazards in this area. The site is not located in any spec
study zone.
D. Water. The development proposal will not impact water resources. There are no bodies of water or waterw;
in the City.
E. Air Quality. New' traffic will be generated as a result of development of the site that could have an impact o;
air quality. The impact however, is not likely to be significant.
F. Transportation/Circulation. This site is located on the south side of Garvey Avenue between Charlotte and
Delta Avenues. The entrance onto the site is located at the front of the lot on Garvey Avenue. The drive aisle is
28-feet wide which is adequate for 2-way traffic.
An office use is required to provide parting at a ratio of one space for each 250 square feet of floor area. The
building would be 742 square feet which would require 3 parking spaces. The pian includes 11 spaces to meet this
need, including two handicapped spaces. Most customers that will visit this site will not require parking near the
office, they will simply use a gate card to enter the premises and park their vehicles in front of their individual
storage containers. Dave aisle widths throughout the sire are a minimum of 25 feet wide which are adequate for tw
wap tank. No significant impact would result from this design. Traffic circulation patterns in the area are not
likely to be impacted by :he proposed project.
G. Biological Resources. This is an existing, lot in the center of an urban community. There are no plant or
an:mz species that would be impacted by the project.
H. Energy and Mineral Resources. The resources are available for an office building and storage containers.
I. Hazards. No ;. does materials are included as part of the proposed project.
3. Noise. Residential properties are located adjacent to this site to the west. There will be some initial noise
generated during the construction of this proiect but City codes limit the hours and days of construction activity.
The proposal of a self storage facility usin_ steel containers will increase the noise levels of the existing vacant lot. The
applicant has proposed to install an 8 foot chain link fence with creeping vines to absorb some of the noise created. The
containers will also be set back from the side property line 25 feet. in addition the applicant proposes to use double
doors on the containers that measure 4 feet by 8 feet with rubber seals that reduce the sounds created by the metal
doors closing against metal door stops. _The hours of operation of the proposed storage facility will be limited from to
7:00 am to Z00 pm Monday through Sunday
MITIGATION MEASURES
Nl. A 8 foot chain link fence, covered with a creeping vine (as approved by the Director of Planning) shall
be ixistalled on the westerly property line.
N2. The storage containers shall be set back a minimum of 23 feet from the west property line.
N3. The container doors shall have installed a rubber seal as to prevent the metal to metal contact of the
doors as they are shut.
N4. Hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 am to 7:00 pm Monday through Sunday.
K. Public Services. There will be no increase in the need for public services.
L. Utilities and Service Systems. The site has adequate uilities and services for the proposed use.
M. Aesthetics. This PD zone change will provide the City with an opportunity to review the design plans for the
project and subsequent changes to development of this site. The PD zone will allow greater aesthetic mitigation
than the current C-3 and R-2 zones which have no design review.
Containers -Developing this site as a storage facility using metal containers could have a negative aesthetic impact on
the surrounding area. Typically self storage facilities are constructed out of wood or metal framed buildings with the
exteriors finished with materials such as stucco or wood. This proposal is different because the tenant will be leasing a
piece of property from a utility company that prefers not to have permanent structures placed on their property. To
ensure that the containers do not become unsightly the applicant proposes that they will be painted a neutral, uniform
color and the containers will be repainted when necessan
t.
initiaiEmvoa:a,al Study
Pae. 11 of 72
Case No. PD 97-)1;ZC 97-20;'.GPA 97-01
Landscaping- In addition to the color of the containers, the site has been designed with sufficient landscaping to so
the effects of the development. A combination of turf, shrubs, and trees surround all of the areas that would be visit
to neighboring properties. A significant amount of the landscaping will cover the area immediately adjacent to Gan,
Avenue, including 8 foot high concrete block walls to screen the facility from the public right of way. The landscape
plan also calls for a 6-8 foot high chain link fence to be covered with a creeping vine, along the western property line
adjacent to the residential area.
Office Building- The one permanent structure on the site will be a 742 square foot office building. The architect has
designed an attractive stuccoed building with a glass storefront that will front on Garvey Avenue. The structure will
consist mainly of a customer service area with some retail sales of items related to storage.
Licht &: Glare-Because the facility will have exterior lighting to deter crime, the lights could affect the residential
homes to the west of the site. The architect has provided the City with a lighting plan that shows how far the light wi
travel. By providing wall pack light fixtures with deflecting shields on top, the light will not spill onto neighboring
properties causing a nuisance to these properties. By incorporating the shields and a lower wattage bulb this negative
condition will be mitigated. The proposed landscaping on the west side will also minimize the issue of light and glare.
MITIGATION MFASURES.
Al. The applicant shall paint all containers a neutral, uniform color and repaint when necessary.
92. The applicant shall install light fixtures with shields and bulbs that do not allow light to flow onto
neighboring properties.
A3. Facility shall be screened by view of public right of ways with appropriate landscaping elements and
concrete block walls.
N. Cultural Resources. These are no known cultural resources located in the area where the subject site is
located.
O. Recreation. No impacts to recreation needs are anticipated. Any new development will he required to pay
development fees under the Quimby Act.
Ili rnNrI S'STON
Planned Development 97-11 (including General Plan Amendment 97-01 & Zone Change 97-204) would allow the
- development of a self storage facility with 105,000 square beet of no72ge area Temporary impacts will occur
during construction, and some minor impacts could occur from the proposed use. There is a potential for this
project to have an impact on the neighboring residential neighborhood, however by incorporating mitigation
measures to address the issues of noise, aesthetics, light and glare, etc. there will not be a negative effect on the
neighboring properties.
All other environmental issues have or will be fully addressed through design and conditions of approval. All
potential environmental impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance, therefore, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration will be prepared
IV. COTTRCF TIC
1. Rostats2Thmui.d-;:g-L._.,(jinnEd Adopted 2959,9, zs amended.
2. Rns^mart G=njnl °lan. Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc., 1987.
3. Rns-mead (3ea=o1 n1an- Finat Fnv rnnro^-tial imnaet Rennn. Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc., 1987.
�- Cali*nrnia �nvirnnm-nral inanity Art- Stamt- and Gnirlalines. Governor's Office of Planning and
Research, 1992 (with amendments through July, 1994).
5. Population Research Unit. California. Department of Finance, January, 1997.
Initial Emvomnental Study
Case No. PD 97-11;ZC 97-20k CPA 97-01 Fags 12 of 12
ZONE CHANGE
APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT (1)
CITI OF RO.SEMEAD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD
ROSEMEAD, CA 91770
(818) 288-6671
SITE ADDRESS: g3676 .c 444-1t.VAf D C,4 DATE:
GPA Ik/
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST/PROJECT: 2-51--J-E1
V)m4 ST 1.,a-5= F-A L) — I /S7Bo5-F
Existing Zoning: G"3 2 Proposed Zoning: 2D
Existing General Plan Designation:
Address the following statements on a separate sheet.
I. 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 generalwa-if
and benefit of the public a t bli l are
arae.
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.
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.
6. The uses /permitted by proposed designation are not detrimental
surrouncin 9 pr pert' -s.
to
SIGRATDRE, Ay / _ 22" /127- -7 DATE: //a7
FEE $1350
L''T_TTD TT GG T15
GENERAL INFORMATION FORM (2)
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
8838 VALLEY BODLEVARD
ROSEMBAD, CA 91770
(818) 2EB-5671
SITE ADDRESS: 8306 6ARA<E8 Av I-C,SEP1C'N7 LA DATE: 2-b- 17
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST/PROJECT: Cup /ZN= C-44.21,(--1G€ =n= !-;SW
IIN1 SEI-F- STM'A. _ HS:7605.F.
LOT SIZE: 29.'3.013 gyp _�-i N-2.
/ A PN: SZY33-1 -B'2"-YD: i 4'7�
• ZON£: C-j GEN. PLAN:
PROJECT/BUSINESS NAME: CV-c<-cT 5TDP-416=
(iDU S OF OPERATION: 7 D.' - 7:JD
NO. OF EMPLOYEES: 2-
PROJECT
PROJECT DETAILS: (type or print on separate sheet if more spare is needed) :
Existing use: rD}-JEF-- Ln-;_ R_1&:_)-T G7- 1._!Ay
6t: V•SGF.H1
to be demolished: N/A sf to remain: N/-q
sf
Proposed use: S=.2.1-= STD'-46=
additional sf: total sf: II S,7'>J height: 2Jt I i.
Building sf broken down by intended use and number
0=--L= - I (5.,;J:-. (....r.
of structures Jr du:
5::=_._-.-E - 6S
Parking calculation (show sf/parting r- is%number required & provided) :
5-JD 5.f. F---(=--,..=_ = I Sf4 P=r.- 7....57^. s.r - 2-5r2.2.rc
S-,-;_r. s.=. s-,-,7-(�__ _ i �1z.:...✓./p;-rx.>.nara
I i
i s(K.E �y IOeJ S.£ _ , I SP4x ^���r.-oo >':-o✓,OAD
Yr'F-2.1=1vb is F VI : ' ..C.34.41.7-;-.7- -.J uJ>:✓, _.F.._ >..iF> -
Lot coverage, floor area ratio, landscaped percentage:
S== (6-7-773---2,-yr-__A7 (2L. 5
APPLICANT/SUBDIVIDER: -c-' '..c=7 c-' SET- 6=
Address: 5250 r-oir, N)u- oLJD
Phone: gIg -j S>.�720
BUSINESS OWNER(S) : SA�i•-
Address:
Phone:
PROPERTY OWNER: vIS'my
Address: 100 N. L-2ya g--4 G9 `31-VD. ID. 4
gyp& A 0so.2Phone: Bio-4ql z8s
PWPRESENTATIVE 411220 engineer.
: L°y 15504(2-,i<5
Address: 1535- 1401JP-O✓.' AMI„; lE.w
17I'-i//85.-/..id.LA Phone: J.1 4.4,4;s7--rv' 040-._"
_ �/ FZc6y
I hereby certify that the abs a a� �o the best of my
044 ge.
/exAppl_cant' s s_onature: /./,i/ /"✓.ei/'/� /
Date:
Print Name: CAE'--L S c)c.* ,'-.(-.)1.-3
DO NOT WRITE B%LLOW THIS LIRE
APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: DATE:
CASE(S) : ND(S) .
PEE:
FL/INFOS??
ErivIPOmCKRixL ASStssEEPT FORK (3)
CITY DF RASE:MEAD, MARRING DEPART/CRNT
8838 VALLE' BOULEVARD
RDSERSAD, CA 91770 •
(818) 288-6671
SITE ADDRESS: 83D6 6AR-V5 Ff3/47 �a5=,•y ,p [,4)
DATE: - 2
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST/PROJECT: L (J P/ cl-iAil_LS�' 1011_ j-J E1J
N lu) Sin-R6�= 1�i r; — If5 -y o 5_F.
1. Surrounding land uses of the site: north GicCA `
south jaeSI/J=�T7 c,L-
east
west
2. Could the request, __ granted, have an effect on any of the items listed
below? Answer yes or no in space provided.
• a. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas
public lands or roads. to
• b. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
c. Chance in plant or animal life.
d. Increase of solid waste or litter.
e. Chanoe in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
d. Increase of solid waste or litter.
• e. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
f. Change in ground water of ality or cuantity, or alteration of existing
drainage patterns.
g. Change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity.
V h. Site on filled land or on slopes of 20% or more.
Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic
substances, flammables or explosives.
tJ j. Projected change in demand for Cityservices,, (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc. ) .
N k. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
If yes, please t}ne or print explanation on a separate sheet.
3. Number of trees on the site: O No. of oak trees: D
Number of trees to be removed: D
Number of oak trees to be removed: 0
If oak trees are to be removed, please refer to AEC 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
Planning Department should be aware of? NC
If yes, please .ype o; print explanation on a separate sheet.
/
s:ONA^_RRE: %.7 /111- dr!--19.-5:7//9DATE: 44/
FL/ENVIRDN
•
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST/RADIOS MAP INSTRUCTIONS (4)
CITY OF ROSffi4ZAD, PLANNING DBPARiM.\T
8838 VALLEY BOUTSVARD
ROSEMEAD, CA 91770
(818) 298-6671
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:
a. one (1) map showing each parcel within, or partially within, a
300-foot radius of the exterior boundaries of the property- under
consideration. Number each parcel within the 300-foot radius on the .
map (i.e. , {1, t2, #3. . . ) . '
b- one (1) list of assessor's parcel number, property owner's name,
1d
ProPerty owner's mailing address for each parcel numbered (i.e. , / ,
c- three (3) sets of oummed labels with the list copied onto them.
c. one (i ) copy cf this form with the affidavit shown below signed and
notarized by the preparer of the three items listed
above.
Site Address: &3z7-L &fN.y A✓ -
. '" Gf Date:
Description of Reyvest/Prcjest: CQf° Zay_ G-?/61 lib,)1
�-Trf—I —1I3-, 7Fp >.=.
AFFIDAVIT
City of Rosemead
County of Los Angeles )
State of California
I,
names and addresses of all persons to whom all property, hereby certify that the
assessed
appear on the latest is s oft Los as they
available assessment roll of the County of Los Angeles
within the described and for a distance of three hundred (3DD) feet from the
exterior boundaries of property described as:
Street Address (es) :
Assessor's Parcel No. (s):
Sioned:
Print Name(s) :
':ailing Address:
Phone:
City/State/Zip:
Date:
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
, 19_.
NOTARY PUBLIC
YL/RADIUS
•
APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT (5)
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, PLANNING DEPART/CRT
8838 VALLET 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 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 P_SOLUTION 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 ce' `o-th herein before the final approval takes effect.
Sincerely,
PETER LYONS
.,_rector of Planning
City of Rosemead
Site Address: 33Oh Fi^U,--,,T /+,vE l ✓5T-7-1 , 44 Date:
Description of Request/Project: GU P /2„ox_:6
- G=d.-i:-if= Or— Ncw
—IIC7
AFFIDAVIT
City of Rosemead
County of Los Angeles)
State of California )
I/Fe, .-(�vG�Jr ✓'tre!✓�
are
certify that Ijwe am , hereby
/ the app_i_cant(s) involved in this request, and that
the foregoing et ements an answers herein contained, and the information
herewith subr./_tted are in'a respects true and rrect to the best of my/our
knowledge and
/bel'e_...Z ,
Signed: / �J ; / /4/7/�/�%%// 41/WI,
_r_6_ Name(s) : '% ; -12aJp��.i✓..:..w� .
Mailing Address:r�5."1-20 c. ftZT Ia, /I S l rid. Phone: _
City/State/zip: Ye �,Jy,.q (' {�. C'1 I O R (444y/C.-.-624
7 Date: I `Dig 1
Subscribed and sworn to before me this �_ day of Jplei/p ,
�' - , 1942
��.lJ /l'i✓, i I//f. -( // .i\� S1;PHF.NI KAi;JAN:S h
v COMM.#90437/
NOTARY PUBLIC ' g =t '7 Nota0'Pubiic- Cvmorniu
ORANGE COCNtY y
My Comm.Expires MAY 12.1 aa]
FI./AFFIDAVIT
•
Site ApCCegf:
Sesfript
--.. of Reroes_i'Oje CL:
a vnlDhVIT
-_ Xekr.W-yin YDRA_NGE
-_at_ of _a___o_::a i
SUS.AjN W_ GaSE, INC_
arpzar on
-e latest • _ e_- =-D he-:oy ur EEt 6o.'. an a they
_ _ _ a_._�.ee asses e-„e— roll _
-____n --e dest_GSef _ o_ the __ _ _
es
e6 of ➢ , _ _:bed of
.._.._=c_ 3BC) ro= _
fs
'AVAILABLE TE-ROUGH N-ETROSCAN A DATA SOURCE�=INFORMATION IS�DE-NED
r'LIABLE BUT NOA_03n?znTE94
s
_ 1 :� rs � : -fib. 00_______ ° 1 6D
20
-.r--,e r•. SUSAN:INCASE, INC.
"' _ - 19 ' GC 6TH
L . GUNA BEACH; GA 92651`
.,Sone: 714 494 6105
:Loy/State/fir: /7 �---
2orzoriEef aryl z:.,oro to
e ne _ace ! S :e of /,..ate: _�J
k
/may
- ,; =_s `-' y Dian= =.c-a
ilk y a.„yc_>. _oa
•
FEE-05-97 Thu 12:41 PIt r'':9 FAX N0. 114 548 01fi� P.02/02
PADPYGSI LA'S Art1DNPT (6)
dT CT A]9HRlLr PLETI IC w1FSIrBI
8838 PALLET BleXVdlm
70:031921.13, m 9177D
(818) 268-6671
• -D 52?, .ODS,bro)�Irf'c7
ASSCSS S .rice\ 1 e DATEI 2/10/97
Cris Y'p655Sr
DssvlrxDx Or BCjDBS+/n6a>as, Zone Change, CL_, General Plan Amendment
and t^.=:\:_Torment al iTnoart Le'eocTTen-
prrmLor
City of Cr..Teed )
OTanry of
Mgelee)
Stacy of CaliforniaCa'_ ) •
-.:/Vie, S-Y, - _ . . - , hereby
▪ —LY that x/_e aro/are cn. e.mc(n) a IGD proper[, wlwd in -emrer,
nod _ho regoaq rtateTe:t and here_ ort _had, and Lre
'-._ - c - h a tied are s. all reepeoe true nod [Dice• .o ti. 1. 13-
at
., roknRAoe99 and:Zxief.
:avid A=rnes
?fli(.- Mame(.):
T,IW4
Nayin9 u2reaa:
10'0 North Long Beach Blvd. 2,1,,,,e( �2-L9i-tt7D
Long Beach, CA. 90602 - -
City/Scat./Lip; nate: _',fin/C7
subeorfbod and nor, to Deme no We •
day of 19 ,
ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
NO 909
W
/ Sate of I : .,f i,iii� - CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER J
County of �- _1� _is ...�'T D INDIVIDUAL(S)
�ORPORATE (I1 e v,= G E G
A On �/. //
/f 7 before me (P/lA / < - l
,
/ SATE
: F,t� T �
, D �e ,S /
Nmir Tarr 0 0 E.e _..DONOTARY:PUBLIC .rte ISI /
personally appeared__ILO. /j4 F//m/ / /.-. s S
NAue;S D=sIGSER51 0 ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
i Lffpersonalb' known to me- 0:7 p,3-,e� iu ir1_ u11 n It tias3 Di sdtls',my „U.lu, ir.f0 TRUSTEE(S)(S)
SCRIBING WITNESS
to ba the persons) whose names) is/area,._
SUB� UB
- subscribed 10 the within instrument and ac- GUAROIAwconSeRvnroR
knowledoed to me that he/she/they executed 0 OTHER:
1 the same in his/her/their rtheir authorizedher/ hI
MI2NA pnuuOs Z caoacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
cokes.. ,mias6 n
L\L_-.-:v) Noon' Push: _ CoI IDtie v sionature(s) on the instrument the person(s),
< \5.,./ resr3 fOuNT9 - or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
INT Commotion teo'.i.t_'.eb. , t, loos f acted, executed the instrument "^,^`-o=P=_Rsorv(s)w en'imnESl
Witness my hand and official seal_ CD� CGAr/F D?/)/F
5 /SON
ijI )911/..>>:i_o �.�CG✓✓-_l�
I
11 SIGNATURE OP NOTARY
ATDrN ION NOTARY:Atneuen fie Inlreal on reouesled belo. is OPTIONAL.B Pie
prevent fraudulent anaorment of Ina certificate ID unaulhOnZed Oozument.
THIS CERTIFICATE Title or Type of Document Pie0 Pr2T Y 0Lc;ej/e S App IBA if /(0-
(JUST BE ATTACHED
TO THE DOCUMENT Number of Paces / Dale of Document 3//O /97
., DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: Sioner(s) Other Than Named Above `—'i./_�-C_
w
t 1931 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION•@34 riemmtl Ave.-P.0 Ear 718a-'Tampa Pant.a.91304 7164
•
PC Minutes 07-21-97
Page 4 of 14
There being no one else wishing to address the Commission either in favor or in opposition of the
project, the Public Hearing was closed.
Discussion among the Commissioners:
(MO) Motion by Vice-Chairman Ruiz that both Conditional Use Permit 97-722 and Conditional
Use Permit 97-724 be approved for a period of one (1) year, subject to the conditions
listed in Exhibit ".A". Seconded by Commissioner Ortiz.
Vote resulted:
YES: ALARCON, ORTIZ, LOI, BREEN, RUIZ
NO: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
D. PT AWfl) DF\FJ.OPMFNT RFVIFW97-nt/ ('FNFRA1 Pi AN N(F7sTr,{Fi rr9Z
Ill iZONT CHANGE 97 '04 - 8306 E. GarveyA Avenue - request by Mr. Carl
I Beckmann, dba Everest Storage, to develop a self storage facility in the M-i; Light
Manufacturing & Industrial Zone.
Mr. Lyoas presented the Staff Report. The request involves the change of the general plan
designation from public facilities to commercial and a change of zone from C-3 and R-2
to Planned Development and also approval of planned development site plan. This site
consists of four (4) parcels totalling 293,813 s£ (approximately 6.75 acres). There are no
sturctures on the site other than the existing towers that support the overhead cable lines.
The site had been leased by tenants that operate wholesale nursery businesses. All of the
subject parcels are owned by So. California Edison and the applicant has secured a long
term lane of 35 years. This proposal is unique from other self storage facilities because
the applicant is proposing to use individual steel containers, placed side by side, rather
than constructing framed structures. An initial study has been completed in accordance
with state and local environmental .regulations. Tnis study found that temporary impacts
will occur during construction and some minor impacts could occur from the proposed use.
There is a potential impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood, however, by
incorporating mitigation measures addressing the issues, there will be no negative effect
on the neighboring properties. All potential environments] impacts can be mitigated to a
level of insignificance, therefore, a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. This
proposal is to develop the site with 105.003 sf of self storage containers and a 742 sf office
building. Mr. Lyons through the help of the site plans, showed what the containers would
look like. Edison prefers that no permanent structures be placed on their right of way.
However, building codes require that the storage containers be bolted to a permanent
foundation for stability in case of seismic activin. By placing these containers side by.
:side
and bolting them to a foundation, they will visually create eight long steel structures.
Trsough the use of the map, Mr. Lyons showed the ezisnng site, and its simulation of what
the site would look from Garvey if approved subject to conditions. It was requested from
the applicant to install an 8 ft high split faced block wall as well as extensive landscaping
to block the view of the containers from Garvey. Because the site is adjacent to single
family homes, the architect has designed the facility to have a 25 ft setback from this
property line. In addition, the plan will provide a new eight (8) ft. high chain link fence
covered with slats of wood and vines to drape down along this fence line with trees spaced
every 30 ft. These midgation measures will reduce the potential for graffiti and lessen any
potential negative impacts to the adjacent neighborhood. Regarding light and glare, a
lighting plan had been provided. Wall mounted fixtures will be secured to the exterior of
the storage units. These fixtures will be equipped with shields to prevent glare from the
PC Minutes 07-21-97
Page 5 of 14
lights onto neighboring properties. Motion activated video cameras will be installed
throughout the site to record any suspicious activities that may occur. A condition has
been added that the tapes from these cameras will be kept for a minimum of thirty (30)
days. Regarding noise, condition /al l addresses this issue. The container doors shall be
installed with a rubber seal to prevent the metal to metal contact of the doors as they are
shut. By changing the General Plan designation of this site from "Public Facilities" to
"Commercial", the site will have a similar designation as the rest of the properties that line
Garvey Avenue. This project meets the findings of public necessity, convenience, general
welfare and good zoning practices. A self storage facility within the City would provide
residents and neighboring communities with a safe, affordable location to store belongings
that exceed the capacity of their properties. The PD zone will be consistent with the new
general plan designation of Commercial. Staff therefore recommended that the Planning
Commission (1) Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planned Development 97-01,
including case numbers GPA 97-01 and ZC 97-204. (2) Recommend City Council
approval of GPA 97-01, changing the land use designation from Public Facilities to
Commercial; (3) Make the findings required under Section 9185 of the Rosemead
Municipal Code in order to recommend City Council approval of ZC 97-204, changing
the zoning designation from C-3 and R-2 to PD; and (4) Make the findings required under
Section 9120.4 of the Rosemead Municipal Code in order to recommend City Council
approval of PD 97-01 for a self storage development; subject to the draft conditions of
approval listed in Exhibit "A".
Questions from the Commissioners to Staff:
Commissioner Alarcon inquired from Mr. Lyons if there were any city requirements
limiting the type of materials that can be stored like hazardous materials..
Mr. Lyons replied that there are some building codes that the appti-ant needs to adhere to.
The applicant may be able to answer this question more extensively.
Chairman Loi wanted to latow if one container divided by a metal partition would be used
by two (2) tenants.
The applicant replied that yes, it would be used by two (2) tenants.
Commissioner Loi continued if there are about 644 containers, then there will be more or
less about 1.200 tenants altogether. Also, this kind of business allows gangs to conceal
illegal materials such as firearms. Does the city have any regulation addressing this type
of issue?
Mr. Lyons replied that staff will monitor and inspect the storage containers but not every
single one. The applicant may be able to address this concern when public hearing is
opened.
Chairman Loi opened the Public Hearing to those wishing to speak in favor of the project:
Carl Bec}arann, with Everest Storage and the applicant of the project, stated that regarding
the number of units, this property will have rental spaces available for 644 individual
tenants. It is a single story project that is not commonly developed in So. California
because of land cost. The containers have an overall height limit of 8 'A feet as opposed
to a single story mini-storage building which could be 11 to 12 feet. Regarding the impact
of traffic usage, weekends may -e...nrale mmewhere around 70-30 trips once it's fillt.
People generally store their merchandise in anti leave. they do not come on a dairy basis
unless it is a contractor or commercial user who would be storingexcessinventory. There
PC Minutes 07-21-97
Page 6 of 14
will be one (1) restroom provided for tenants and office staff. There will be heavy
landscaping on the front pan of the property so that it blends in with the streetscape on
Garvey Avenue. He continued to discuss the concerns of the homeowners. An 8 ft chain
link fence covered with slats and creeping vine shall be installed along this fence line with
trees spaced every 30 ft. Regarding power lines, some adjustments had been made from
the original site plans and Elision had accepted these site plans. Conditions of approval
had been reviewed and are acceptable which are already incorporated in the design.
Concerning hazardous waste, there are a number of ways to address this issue. (1) The
leave specifically prohibits storage of any type of hazardous waste and flammable materials
or other illegal products. (2) Concerning the storage of illegal items like firearms, when
a tenant comes in, signs his lease, he's photographed and the business has his photo ID.
There will also be a video camera monitoring the entire site. The managers are trained
that when a new tenant comes in, they tend to go and clean up the area and as the tenant
loads and unloads, the managers will try to monitor what he's loading or unloading. The
site is monitored on a daily basis. The managers of the facility will periodically drive the
entire site during the day for any leaks, any strange smells, or any noticeable problems.
There's also provisions in the tenant's lease that the managers can get immediate access
if there's any question. He stated that they want this facility to run as cleanly and lacking
of danger. Just as the motto of the seal of the city says, "Civic Pride' he said that they
operate this facility with a great deal of pride with the way they're designed, managed and
follow the city requirements. They're looking forward to many years of service in the
city. He was in attendance to answer any questions from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Alarcon wanted to know how old the company is.
Mr. Beckmann replied that the company is about a year old. However, he has been
involved in self storage industries since 1979 spending 13 years with the largest developer
in the country. His partner in this business, Bob Cohurst spent 6 years with the same
developer. His position at this company was a site acquisition manager, responsible for
acquiring about 1,000 sites all over the country. They got into this business about a year
ago, the parent company Everest Properties, is a full service real estate investment
company with about 16 employees and about 90 million in assets.
Commissioner Alarcon wanted to know if this company is currently operating other
facilities in San Gabriel Valley?
Mr. Bmkmann replied that they don't. They have several others that they are processing
now on other Edison sites, as well as, some other non Edison sites.
Commissioner Alarcon wanted to know how the marketing plan is broken down to
business and individual tenants and what would be the hours of operation?
Mr. Beclsnann replied that in this location the breakdown would probably be somewhere
between 40% to 50% commercial and the rest residential. The hours of operation would
be from 7 am to 7 pm daily. There is a 24-hour video monitoring and if necessary, a patrol
can be placed if it warrants.
Commissioner Ortiz wanted to know if there were any home owner's studies?
Mr. Beckmann replied that there was no study made. What was done was toaddress the
concern for the homes along the west property line as far as giving the buffer with the
screen, the trees and the plants.
•
PC Minutes 07-21-97
Page 7 of 14
Commissioner Ortiz felt that the slats are not sufficient enough to shield the residents.
Mr Beckmann stated that this could be addressed in two (2) ways: (1) In addition to the
slats, a creeping ivy would be planted to cover the entire fence. (2) The lighting itself will
be screened so that any glare or light projected would fall entirely within the bounds of the
site and would not affect the neighbors' yards.
Commissioner Ortiz commented that planting of ivy brings about rodents and requires the
homeowners to maintain this landscape.
Mr. Beckmann replied that ivy could not be maintained at the neighbor's yard. But it will
be maintained on their side.
Commissioner Ortiz had some concern with regards to the gravity of electricity going on
at this area especially with metal, how safe are these lines? What are the restrictions on
the distance and parameters on these towers? He directed this question to the Edison
representative.
Dana Bullock, representing Edison. Every one of these towers have restrictions, both are
operating on a 66 to 220 transmission voltage lines. The reason they prefer the portable
facility on this particular right of way was because of the fact that they want to stay within
ten (10) feet outside of the------ lines. The units will encroach somewhat under the lines
but will stay out of them as far as the distance or radius from the towers. Those radius
have at least a minimum of 50 ft. She further stated that this was a compatible use with
the operating lines. Edison had limited concern with this project as they were addressed
on a long term ground lease. She felt that this project would be beneficial to the public.
Commissioner Ortiz wanted to know other facilities that use metal structures such as this.
Ms. Bullock stated that there are numerous locations in their right of ways where metal
structures exist.
Continued discussions with Commissioner Ortiz and Ms. Bullock regarding to how much
chemicals the tenants may store in these facilities. Ms. Bullock stated that there will
absolutely no chemicals permitted because of the agreement between the storage company
and Edison, there's actually severe limitations in storing hazardous or flammable materials.
The primary use will be for generation of electricity and to maintain their right to have
access 24 hours a day 7 days a week and that they will have control over the property.
The secondary use will be as a self storage facility.
Commissioner Ortiz had another concern regarding storing of the hazardous materials and
the proposed fencing.
Mr. pr-lanann replied that storing of hazardous materials is also their main concern, not
only because of fire and life safety issues, but in terms liability issues both current and
long term liability which they would like to avoid at all costs. He stated that the site will
be monitored very heavily both with the individual visual contacts with the managers as
well as the video camera monitoring which will be reviewed daily and will be saved for
30 days. With this type of surveillance, it will be very difficult for anyone to keep any
quantity of any hazardous materials. Hazardous materials are a fact of life now these days
and we have to be aware of them. And in their business specially the whole industry is
very attuned with this issue. With regards to fencing, they have discussed this with the
planning staff extensively and all things had been considered. By using the fence discussed
earlier, he believes that this addresses the concern of the neighbors.
PC Minutes 07-21-97
Page 8 of 14
Chairman Loi opened the Public Hearing to those wishing to speak in opposition of the project:
Rachel De Leon, 2620 Charlotte, Rosemead, stated that she is opposed to a lot of things
(1) Chain link fence - she can't visualize a chain link fence dividing the property.
(2) Storage facility with metal with hanging wires over it, who will be liable if something
happens? She mentioned that there was a power surge not too long ago and the technicians
had to go to the field at the back to work on the wires. She was wondering where the
access to the property would be, would it be close to the neighbors that reside there on
Charolotte Street?
(3) She was also concerned with the ivy, security, lighting, hours of operation how late
will you be open, 7 to 7 everyday? She stated that residents would like to sleep in on
weekends and would not care to hear the traffic going in and out and even late night time.
She mentioned that she has two (2) watch dogs. When they hear something at the
backyard, they let her}mow of what's going on. So if people go into the storage facility,
the dogs will be barking and affecting the neighbors that live around the area. She also
mentioned her problems with ivy. Ivys bring rodents. The lighting, will it be reflecting
the metal storage units, and hit their property, will the ivy protect them and how far is it
going to be and how close will the storage be to the neighbor's property. Access, there
are going to be two (2) access points? One for the public only on Garvey and who will
use the other access and how late will this access be used? Property value - there will be
a change in zoning. What happens to the value of their property. What risks - toxic waste
with people bringing in containers. Who will be liable when there's an earthquake and the
wires fall down, will it be city's responsibility.
Deputy Price replied that the City will not be liable. It is Edison who will be responsible.
The applicant was given the opportunity to rebutt:
Mr. Beckmann stated that Ms. De Leon has important points but the project as it is
designed addresses many of the concerns. Chain link fence - there is a chain link fence
right now that has been there for many years separating the two (2) properties. With
regards to the containers, one of the conditions Edison has with them was that each
container need to be individually grounded and Edison has to approve the method of
grounding, making sure that they are fully grounded. Security issue- upon site inspection,
he found one (1) transient living on the site with evidence that several other people living
on the site. He's hoping that this would be addressed with the proper use of the site.
Traffic - the 30 cars per day is what the industry had experienced with this type of
business. Lighting- on the western property line, the closest building to it would be 25ft
away. The lights will be shining down and shielded with metal shields to keep all of the
lights on the property. Mr. Beckmann stated that they will work with the neighbors to
ensure that the lights are non intrusive. Access - the other access will be for emergency
access to be used by the Fire Dept. and Edison in the normal course of their business and
in emergencies. It will not be an access to the site at anytime by any of the tenants.
Edison may come through once every quarter to wash the insulators.
There being no one else wishing to address the Commission, the Public hearing was closed.
Discussion among the Commissioners:
(MO) Motion by Commissioner Breen to approve Planned Development Review 97-01/General
Plan Amendment 97-01 and Zone Change 97-204, subject to the conditions of approval
listed in Exhibit "A". Vice-Chairman Ruiz seconded the motion.
PC Minutes 07-21-97
Page 9 of 14
Before vote was taken, Commissioner Ortiz reiterated his concern regarding the hours and
chain link fence should be addressed for the good of the neighbors. He was hesitating to
vote on this item because of the block wall that encourages more graffiti problem. He
would like some changes made to condition #9 regarding the block- call to state 6 ft high
block-wall on the west side only. He was also concerned about the lighting encroaching
on the privacy of the residents. He would like to modify the condition of approval, or poll
the Commission regarding these issues.
Vice-Chairman Ruiz with regards to the 6 ft block wall will this appease the residents since
there is already an existing chain link fence?
Commissioner Alarcon stated that he agrees with Ms. De Leon's concern about the chain
link fence with creeping ivy. He felt that having this ivy and requiring the neighbors to
him their side is not a good idea. The intent was good for privacy, having ivy, but since
there would be landscaping using bushes of some sort that will be just as private as an ivy
without the extra work for the neighbors to be maintaining it on their side.
Deputy Price suggested that the Chairman poll the Commission on three items:
Requirement of: (1) Height of 6 ft block-wall
(2) Ivy - planted on fence
(3) Type of fencing and materials
Requirement of 6 ft block-wall - one vote. Commissioner Breen stated that he has a chain
link fence with redwood slats going to it and it does look beautiful but he will not oppose
the block wall. So block-wall fails. Mr. Lyons continued that this will be an 8 ft chain
link fence with slats professionally constructed with no ivy only landscaping on the
developer's side. Condition #9 will be modified.
Ivy - will be deleted from the conditions of approval.
Commissioner Ortiz had another concern regarding the hours of operation encroaching on
the privacy of the neighbors on weekends. He recommended that on weekends, on
Saturday from 9 am to 7 pm so people are able to sleep in and to be closed on Sundays.
This refers to condition #20.
Vice-Chairman Ruiz stated that people move their merchandise on Saturdays and Sundays.
Therefore if Sunday is eliminated, that the facility would be closed on Sundays. He agrees
with the condition #20 in the original conditions of approval and to make changes at this
point, he felt that staff did a very good job in studying the project. He felt that the project
does meet all the city requirements and findings, therefore, the Commission should
approve the original conditions of approval.
Commissioner Ortiz replied that some people do work on Saturdays, some on Sundays.
And a percentage rest on Saturdays or Sundays. The neighbors live adjacent to this
property and they should be respected when they feel like sleeping in by not waling up by
the slamming doors or people howling or yelling getting items from the storage bins.
There will be more consideration to the surrounding neighborhood.
Chairman Loi inquired if this item would be approved for one (I) year. And if it is, he
suggested to the Commissioners to give it a try for one (1) year and see how it goes.
Vice-Chairman Ruiz agrees with Commissioner Ortiz' suggestion for the hours of
operation from 7 am to 7 pm, Monday through Friday, and 9 am to 7 pm Saturday and
PC Minutes 07-21-97
Page 10 of 14
Sunday. The maker of the motion agrees to this amendment.
Vote resulted:
YES: ALARCON, ORTIZ, LOI, BREEN RUIZ
NO: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
.�� ABSENT: NONE
5. OTHFR MISTINESS:
A. (Y1NDTTIO a6.i4_ EXTFsMD - 3107 Gladys Avenue- May
Tze Mei Leung, dba Sunshine Preschool, requests to continue a permit to operate a
preschool.
Mr. Johnson presented the Staff Report. This conditional use permit was initially approved
on February 18, 1986 to operate a preschool at 3107 Gladys Avenue. This permit has
been extended several times over the past eleven years. The last extension was for a
period of three (3) years. This time has expired and the CUP is due for another extension.
Based on the applicant's compliance with the original conditions of approval, Staff
recommended that the Planning Commission approve the extension of Conditional Use
Permit 86-344 for a period of five (5) years, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit A .
Questions from the Commission to the applicant:
It was ascertained that the applicant's representative was in the audience.
(MO) Motion by Commissioner Alarcon, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to approve the
extension of Conditional Use Permit 86-344 for a period of five (5) years, subject to the
conditions listed in Exhibit "A"
Vote resulted:
YES: ALARCON, ORTIZ, LOI, BREEN, RUIZ
NO: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
B. COM)i • " T 1 C-0-77 (F.XTFNSTON) - 8960 Valley Boulevard - Mr.
Sung Mo Ha requests to continue a permit to operate a gasoline service station in
conjunction with a food mart, dba Mobil Gas Station.
Mr. Johnson presented the Staff Report. The Planning Commission granted approval of
Conditional Use Permit 95-657 on January 15, 1996. This approval granted a permit for
the operation of a "Mobil" gas station and food mart. The one (1) year period has expired
and is now due for another extension request. Staff found the business to be in compliance
with the conditions of approval. Staff therefore recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the extension of Conditional Use Permit 95-657 for a period of three
(3) years, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit A .
It was ascertained that the applicant was in the audience.
Discussion among the Commissioners:
. f\'� SOL'I H(RN(nnIOB%I4
EDISON
Ar /DAK)n 11TI:In-I1 ItA C.w,...n.
August 19, 1997
Mr. Peter Lyons
Director of Planning
8838 E. Valley Blvd.
P.O. Box 397
Rosemead, CA 91770
Re: Everest Storage, LLC
Proposed Self Storage Facility on Garvey Avenue
Dear Peter:
Southern California Edison's Power Grid Business Unit (PGBU) has reviewed the self
storage facility proposed by Everest Storage, LLC on a portion of its operating property
located on Garvey Avenue in the City of Rosemead.
Power Grid has determined that the nature of this proposed project is permissible and will
not adversely affect the operational integrity of its existing facilities installed on the
subject property. Consequently, PGBU has provided conceptual approval based on the
implementation of certain site-specific restrictions in the design of the project, allowing
adequate access to Edison's operating facilities at all times.
Sincerely,
ana Bullock, CCIM
Manager, Special Projects
I'. i Box 4!O
IOC Lone Beach Bivd.
Long Bcach, CA 90801